Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[user1991]

So are sperm. Is it a sin to have a wet dream?

 

 

 

Sperm = Human life? Oh, do tell. I have to hear this.

 

 

 

Don't give me that crap that we were once "inhuman". Putting the words "human" and "life" together doesn't change the meaning.

 

 

 

Yes, it does. Otherwise people, such as yourself, will try to equate things such as sperm or plants or chickens to a fetus.

 

 

 

Every time you stop a rape from happening you kill a potential child.

[Sly_Wizard]

You know very well that the Christians/Church of that time were for those laws.

 

 

 

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here.

 

 

 

You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry."

 

 

 

Sounds like a religious reason to me.

 

 

 

I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant.

 

 

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Once again, pick up a history book and read back to the 17th century. Anti-miscegenation laws had nothing to do with Christianity, nor any religion for that fact. What about the non-religious who supported them?

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-misce ... lonial_Era

 

 

 

"In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the story of Phinehas and the "Curse of Ham"[10]. In 1776, seven out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their independence enforced laws against interracial marriage. Although slavery was gradually abolished in the North after independence, this at first had little impact on the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws. An exception was Pennsylvania, which repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780, together with some of the other restrictions placed on free blacks, when it enacted a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery in the state. Later, in 1843, Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law after abolitionists protested against it. However, as the US expanded, all the new slave states as well as many new free states such such as Illinois[11] and California[12] enacted such laws."

 

 

 

I'm going to bold the two most pertinent parts of my last post, which you conveniently ignored.

 

 

 

So what do I win?

 

 

 

Edit: The underlined about was missing originally.

[Zierro]

Yes, it does. Otherwise people, such as yourself, will try to equate things such as sperm or plants or chickens to a fetus.

 

 

 

Keyword: human!

 

 

 

 

I'm going to bold the two most pertinent parts of my last post, which you conveniently ignored.

 

 

 

Sly, you conveniently ignore every single question I ask you.

[user1991]

You know very well that the Christians/Church of that time were for those laws.

 

 

 

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here.

 

 

 

You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry."

 

 

 

Sounds like a religious reason to me.

 

 

 

I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant.

 

 

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Once again, pick up a history book and read back to the 17th century. Anti-miscegenation laws had nothing to do with Christianity, nor any religion for that fact. What the non-religious who supported them?

 

 

 

No, you're wrong. It IS causation, therefore it isn't post hoc ergo propter hoc.. If you're going to imply that what I'm saying is fallacious at least check up on what you're saying beforehand.

 

 

 

Christianity played a big part in anti-miscegenation, simply due to the fact that MOST Christians were for them at the time. Why were they for them? Religious reasons! The people who weren't Christians (like 1%? I don't know. Probably an extremely low percentage) were probably just racists. The Bible was used as justification however by the RELIGIOUS MASSES - therefore Christianity played a part.

[J a m e s]

Pray to your God and tell him to save the souls of all the babies that he willingly allows to be spontaneously aborted as well as the souls of the abortions performed by humans for the next body.

[J a m e s]

You know very well that the Christians/Church of that time were for those laws.

 

 

 

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here.

 

 

 

You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry."

 

 

 

Sounds like a religious reason to me.

 

 

 

I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant.

 

 

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Once again, pick up a history book and read back to the 17th century. Anti-miscegenation laws had nothing to do with Christianity, nor any religion for that fact. What about the non-religious who supported them?

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-misce ... lonial_Era

 

 

 

"In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the story of Phinehas and the "Curse of Ham"[10]. In 1776, seven out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their independence enforced laws against interracial marriage. Although slavery was gradually abolished in the North after independence, this at first had little impact on the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws. An exception was Pennsylvania, which repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780, together with some of the other restrictions placed on free blacks, when it enacted a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery in the state. Later, in 1843, Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law after abolitionists protested against it. However, as the US expanded, all the new slave states as well as many new free states such such as Illinois[11] and California[12] enacted such laws."

 

 

 

I'm going to bold the two most pertinent parts of my last post, which you conveniently ignored.

 

 

 

So what do I win?

 

 

 

Edit: The underlined about was missing originally.

 

 

 

You win nothing, they were almost entirely religiously motivated laws.

 

 

 

EDIT: Well, they didn't start out that way when slavery was legal.

[Sly_Wizard]

Keyword: human!

 

 

 

I know, which is what I told you the first time.

 

 

 

Sly, you conveniently ignore every single question I ask you.

 

 

 

Except I don't. But whatever makes you sleep at night (:

[user1991]

 

 

 

Sly, you conveniently ignore every single question I ask you.

 

 

 

Except I don't. But whatever makes you sleep at night (:

 

 

 

I'd say the same, but then I remember that you're anti-equality so yeh.. no thanks.

[Zierro]

I know, which is what I told you the first time.

 

 

 

So then what specie of the animal kingdom are our sperm then, Sly? :D

 

 

 

Except I don't. But whatever makes you sleep at night (:

 

 

 

+1 for your credibility. :roll: I asked if wet dreams are sins. You didn't answer. That means you do. Reading skills ftl.

[jackattack]

 

 

 

Sly, you conveniently ignore every single question I ask you.

 

 

 

Except I don't. But whatever makes you sleep at night (:

 

 

 

I'd say the same, but then I remember that you're anti-equality so yeh.. no thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

No one is anti equality. Are women anti equality because I get slapped for going in the womens bathroom?

[Sly_Wizard]

No, you're wrong. It IS causation, therefore it isn't post hoc ergo propter hoc.. If you're going to imply that what I'm saying is fallacious at least check up on what you're saying beforehand.

 

 

 

Christianity played a big part in anti-miscegenation, simply due to the fact that MOST Christians were for them at the time. Why were they for them? Religious reasons! The people who weren't Christians (like 1%? I don't know. Probably an extremely low percentage) were probably just racists. The Bible was used as justification however by the RELIGIOUS MASSES - therefore Christianity played a part.

 

 

 

I'm going to help you out here, because you're a bit confused on a couple of things.

 

 

 

1.) Because a group is something, doesn't mean they engage in actions because they are that something. Let me demonstrate this otherwise faulty reasoning with the following statement: "Being white was the cause of the African slave trade, as most slave traders were white." Does that make any sense to you? It shouldn't. Henceforth the reason why your above statement is equally as idiotic. It's predicated upon a false assumption.

 

 

 

2.) Learn what post hoc ergo propter hoc is. We generally call it a faulty cause-and-effect assumption.

 

 

 

Anyway, let me give you a short history lesson. Anti-miscegenation laws started off as a way to keep indentured servants from marrying out of indentured servitude (The way indentured servitude was set up, it was impossible for someone to ever become un-indentured has the more they worked, the more debts they racked up towards the person of whom they were indentured, leading them to have to work more to get out of debt). As indentured servitude gave way to slavery, anti-miscegenation laws become a way to ensure slaves remained slaves. And, almost all slaves were black, they were most often the focus of anti-miscegenation laws. As slavery gave way, the feelings of racism towards blacks stayed.

 

 

 

Rather simple, really.

[Sly_Wizard]

So then what specie of the animal kingdom are our sperm then, Sly? :D

 

 

 

None.

 

 

 

You do realize you're not going to win this argument, right?

 

 

 

+1 for your credibility. :roll: I asked if wet dreams are sins. You didn't answer. That means you do. Reading skills ftl.

 

 

 

You asked if wet dreams were a sin as an addendum to the whole "Sperm are humans lives", of which I answered your question with a "Sperms are humans lives", which would make the answer to your question "No" (:

[J a m e s]

So then what specie of the animal kingdom are our sperm then, Sly? :D

 

 

 

None.

 

 

 

You do realize you're not going to win this argument, right?

 

 

 

Where's the damn /facepalm smilie??? This will have to suffice: :wall:

[J a m e s]

 

 

 

Sly, you conveniently ignore every single question I ask you.

 

 

 

Except I don't. But whatever makes you sleep at night (:

 

 

 

I'd say the same, but then I remember that you're anti-equality so yeh.. no thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

No one is anti equality. Are women anti equality because I get slapped for going in the womens bathroom?

 

 

 

Yes, they shouldn't be allowed to slap people for small mistakes.

[user1991]

No, you're wrong. It IS causation, therefore it isn't post hoc ergo propter hoc.. If you're going to imply that what I'm saying is fallacious at least check up on what you're saying beforehand.

 

 

 

Christianity played a big part in anti-miscegenation, simply due to the fact that MOST Christians were for them at the time. Why were they for them? Religious reasons! The people who weren't Christians (like 1%? I don't know. Probably an extremely low percentage) were probably just racists. The Bible was used as justification however by the RELIGIOUS MASSES - therefore Christianity played a part.

 

 

 

I'm going to help you out here, because you're a bit confused on a couple of things.

 

 

 

1.) Because a group is something, doesn't mean they engage in actions because they are that something. Let me demonstrate this otherwise faulty reasoning with the following statement: "Being white was the cause of the African slave trade, as most slave traders were white." Does that make any sense to you? It shouldn't. Henceforth the reason why your above statement is equally as idiotic. It's predicated upon a false assumption.

 

 

 

 

WHAT THE [bleep]?!?!

 

 

 

You're usually a pompous d-bag, but never this much.

 

 

 

"Being white was the cause of the African slave trade, as most slave traders were white."

 

 

 

"Religious ideology was used to justify slavery + anti-miscegenation."

 

 

 

ARE NOT THE SAME TYPE OF ARGUMENT.

 

 

 

The majority of the Christians at the time were FOR these things BECAUSE of the Bible. Claiming therefore that these laws were entirely/almost entirely steeped in religious values is NOT implying false cause and effect.

 

 

 

"Being white" and "being Christian" are totally different because "being Christian" (in those times anyway) meant that you would accept certain ideologies. "Being Christian" (in those times) almost always meant "Being FOR slavery/anti-miscegenation BECAUSE of the fact that they were Christian and accepted certain ideas". This is totally different to the "Being white" argument because included in "Christian" IS certain ideology.

 

 

 

What I'm saying basically equates to "Being racist was one of the causes of slavery" - which is a completely valid statement.

 

 

 

Admit you're wrong this time don't just disappear.

[Zierro]

None.

 

 

 

You do realize you're not going to win this argument, right?

 

 

 

I've been a human my whole life - if I wasn't then what was I? A dolphin? You seem to think that adding two words gives them a completely different meaning.

 

 

 

You asked if wet dreams were a sin as an addendum to the whole "Sperm are humans lives", of which I answered your question with a "Sperms are humans lives", which would make the answer to your question "No" (:

 

 

 

Isn't it a sin to masturbate (based on the Bible)?

 

 

 

Admit you're wrong this time don't just disappear.

 

 

 

Sly? Do that? You've got to be crazy. :lol:

[Sly_Wizard]

WHAT THE [bleep]?!?!

 

 

 

You're usually a pompous d-bag, but never this much.

 

 

 

"Being white was the cause of the African slave trade, as most slave traders were white."

 

 

 

"Religious ideology was used to justify slavery + anti-miscegenation."

 

 

 

...Congratulations for not catching the point.

 

 

 

ARE NOT THE SAME TYPE OF ARGUMENT.

 

 

 

Justification =/= Cause

 

 

 

And you specifically said cause earlier.

 

 

 

The majority of the Christians at the time were FOR these things BECAUSE of the Bible. Claiming therefore that these laws were entirely/almost entirely steeped in religious values is NOT implying false cause and effect.

 

 

 

"Being white" and "being Christian" are totally different because "being Christian" (in those times anyway) meant that you would accept certain ideologies. "Being Christian" (in those times) almost always meant "Being FOR slavery/anti-miscegenation". This is totally different to the "Being white" argument because included in "Christian" IS certain ideology.

 

 

 

I lol'ed when I read this. Either you just admitted to being a hypocrite or you don't understand what was written out. I like how you reject the rationalization for the argument which you use. The justification you (Try) to use to distinguish the two is immaterial (More along the lines of irrelevant). The point, which you missed, was to illustrate the faulty reasoning behind your argument. Therefore, let's try this again.

 

 

 

In life there's cause-and-effect (Good) and effect-then-cause (Bad). You're employing the latter. Anti-miscegenation laws were not the product of Christianity. In fact, they existed prior to any religious reasoning being given to them (Point #1 of which you failed to understand). Conversely, supporting anti-miscegenation laws did not make you a Christian (Point #2 of which you failed). To assert either of these as true would be to engage in a post hoc ergo propter hoc. That is, "Because people argued on the basis of the Bible for anti-miscegenation laws, anti-miscegenation laws were caused because of religion" which we know to be wrong, as evidenced by the fact that the first anti-miscegenation laws were passed BEFORE any religious justification for them. I liked how you got defensive when I use the exact same reasoning you used above ("After this, therefore because of this") to link white people to slavery, yet you employ the exact same argument. Both arguments are fallacious yet, for some odd reason, you only seem to be able to tell why one is wrong and not the other.

 

 

 

*Shrugs*

 

 

 

What I'm saying basically equates to "Being racist was one of the causes of slavery" - which is a completely valid statement.

 

 

 

Which you tried to pass off as "Anti-miscegenation laws were created because of Christians" which, as has been demonstrated but will probably be ignored, fallacious.

 

 

 

Admit you're wrong this time don't just disappear.

 

 

 

Except I'm not wrong. And you don't really understand what you're writing out (Or what you're reading. Either or).

[Sly_Wizard]

Where's the damn /facepalm smilie??? This will have to suffice: :wall:

 

 

 

Oh, do explain.

 

 

 

*shoves his marine biology degree under the table*

[Zierro]

Where's the damn /facepalm smilie??? This will have to suffice: :wall:

 

 

 

Oh, do explain.

 

 

 

*shoves his marine biology degree under the table*

 

 

 

Important question. Are you supporting ridiculous arguments because you're practicing to become a lawyer or something? Seriously, there has to be some sort of explanation for this thickheaded-ness.

 

 

 

That being said, pages and pages and pages into the thread and not once have you given any support as to why homosexuality is wrong. Instead you just attack the opposing side with technicalities and precedents instead of giving an argument of your own.

[user1991]

Except Christianity (which at the time accepted the ideology used as justification for slavery etc) WAS used as justification.

 

 

 

Christianity "caused" slavery in the same way that "racism" caused slavery. They were both important in the reasoning for the justification. You're arguing definitions of words here, and you're not tackling what I'm actually saying. You see my argument and you see a couple words with ambiguous definitions and then declare post hoc ergo propter hoc when you're completely aware that I'm not employing said fallacy.

 

 

 

Quit trying to blind people with semantics, and look at what I'm saying, in fact, I'll clarify so you can't misconstrue.

 

 

 

"Christianity played a part in slavery (not what I initially mentioned but I'm including it anyway because it did) and therefore anti-miscegenation laws." (And don't say that it didn't, because even if it wasn't officially "on the books" you're aware that religious reasoning was one of the main reasons why people were for those laws.)

 

 

 

People being "Christian" supporting certain things does not necessarily mean that "Christianity" is the cause (which is what you're trying to imply that I'm saying) BUT IT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT when included in that label "Christianity" is certain consensus ideology or in this case, CLEARLY passages of the Bible that were used as justification.

[Sly_Wizard]

I've been a human my whole life - if I wasn't then what was I? A dolphin?

 

 

 

"You" weren't anything. Not until the joining of two haploid cells, at least. And, hell, I'll even be generous. Not until about three days after the joining of two haploid cells (As that's when the embryonic stem cells differentiate. Or is it become differentiated? Meh, I'm too lazy to remember atm. But you still get the point).

 

 

 

You seem to think that adding two words gives them a completely different meaning.

 

 

 

Didn't we go after this already? The word "human" is added to prevent people, such as yourself, from engaging in ridiculous non-sequiturs.

 

 

 

Isn't it a sin to masturbate (based on the Bible)?

 

 

 

I seriously hope you're not trying to equate a wet dream to masturbation.

 

 

 

(And there's no point in answering that question, since you already know the answer).

[J a m e s]

Where's the damn /facepalm smilie??? This will have to suffice: :wall:

 

 

 

Oh, do explain.

 

 

 

*shoves his marine biology degree under the table*

 

 

 

Sperm cells are alive; human sperm is mammalian...

 

 

 

Oh, and FYI, there isn't a single man in this world that can go without ejaculating for longer than a few weeks. It is extremely unhealthy to go long without it. Just a neat little fact. So "spilling your seed" being a sin is complete bollocks. Anyone who claims they don't masturbate and doesn't have sex regularly is a liar.

[Zierro]

I seriously hope you're not trying to equate a wet dream to masturbation.

 

 

 

(And there's no point in answering that question, since you already know the answer).

 

 

 

You really like saying things aren't equatable for the sake of an argument, don't you? Nice tactic. Unless we just use hardcore synonyms, you can't lose because everything has their differences.

[Sly_Wizard]

Except Christianity (which at the time accepted the ideology used as justification for slavery etc) WAS used as justification.

 

 

 

Christianity "caused" slavery in the same way that "racism" caused slavery. They were both important in the reasoning for the justification. You're arguing definitions of words here, and you're not tackling what I'm actually saying. You see my argument and you see a couple words with ambiguous definitions and then declare post hoc ergo propter hoc when you're completely aware that I'm not employing said fallacy.

 

 

 

Quit trying to blind people with semantics, and look at what I'm saying, in fact, I'll clarify so you can't misconstrue.

 

 

 

"Christianity played a part in slavery (not what I initially mentioned but I'm including it anyway because it did) and anti-miscegenation laws."

 

 

 

People being "Christian" supporting certain things does not necessarily mean that "Christianity" is the cause (which is what you're trying to imply that I'm saying) BUT IT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT when included in that label "Christianity" is certain consensus ideology or in this case, CLEARLY passages of the Bible that were used as justification.

 

 

 

...Except for when you said Christianity was the cause. Or do I need to copy and paste for you? Oh, but no. You'll just say that's not what you really meant, instead meaning to say "justification", right? It's funny how you mention semantics, when you try to change the meaning of your words after the fact.

[user1991]

Except Christianity (which at the time accepted the ideology used as justification for slavery etc) WAS used as justification.

 

 

 

Christianity "caused" slavery in the same way that "racism" caused slavery. They were both important in the reasoning for the justification. You're arguing definitions of words here, and you're not tackling what I'm actually saying. You see my argument and you see a couple words with ambiguous definitions and then declare post hoc ergo propter hoc when you're completely aware that I'm not employing said fallacy.

 

 

 

Quit trying to blind people with semantics, and look at what I'm saying, in fact, I'll clarify so you can't misconstrue.

 

 

 

"Christianity played a part in slavery (not what I initially mentioned but I'm including it anyway because it did) and anti-miscegenation laws."

 

 

 

People being "Christian" supporting certain things does not necessarily mean that "Christianity" is the cause (which is what you're trying to imply that I'm saying) BUT IT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT when included in that label "Christianity" is certain consensus ideology or in this case, CLEARLY passages of the Bible that were used as justification.

 

 

 

...Except for when you said Christianity was the cause. Or do I need to copy and paste for you? Oh, but no. You'll just say that's not what you really meant, instead meaning to say "justification", right? It's funny how you mention semantics, when you try to change the meaning of your words after the fact.

 

 

 

Christianity was ONE of the causes. All you do is pick apart certain phrases/words that people use when you know that it isn't the argument they're actually using.

 

 

 

You claimed post hoc ergo propter hoc because you were saying that I said that "Being Christian" was the cause of anti-miscegenation laws. This isn't what I said. I actually said that most of the Christians at this time were for those laws BECAUSE of their Christianity and used the Bible as justification (and the Bible also "caused" them to believe such things). It isn't post hoc ergo propter hoc if IT IS THE GODDAMN REASON THEY BELIEVE IT.

 

 

 

And if you want to talk fallacies, how about we go back a page and see where you tried to get me with guilt by association? What's actually funny about this is that it turns out that I wasn't even talking about Zeitgeist the conspiracy movie but the German word "zeitgeist", that you fail to know the meaning of.

 

 

 

And this thread is on homosexuality.

 

 

 

Here is a question for you, to get back on topic (and no I'm not changing the subject we can continue this if you like).

 

 

 

What is the difference between not letting black people marry and not letting gay people marry?