Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Gay Marriage and the Church
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Gay Marriage and the Church Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Feb 23rd, 2004 04:32 PM
kellychaos Actually, as Kant was highly religious, I agree that he would probably be opposed to homosexual marriage ... only his arguments would be much more coherent, concise and elegant than the fat boy's.
Feb 17th, 2004 10:50 PM
punkgrrrlie10 I'm sure Kant would question your use of him as well.
Feb 17th, 2004 06:52 PM
theapportioner
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
It is only contradictory because of language abuse. There are bisexuals.

But why are we even talking about this anymore. I. DON'T. SUPPORT. KANT.
I don't really care. I was questioning whether Kant himself would use the Categorical Imperative in the way that you described.
Feb 17th, 2004 06:44 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
But why are we even talking about this anymore. I. DON'T. SUPPORT. KANT.
I know I don't speak for myself when I say that a lot of times I can't tell whether you're presenting an idea to play devil's advocate or because you actually believe in it.
Feb 17th, 2004 04:21 PM
The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Good. But even if we assume that everyone participates in homosexual acts, this does not preclude people having heterosexual acts - it is obvious that it is not a logical contradiction to have both.
It is only contradictory because of language abuse. There are bisexuals.

But why are we even talking about this anymore. I. DON'T. SUPPORT. KANT.
Feb 17th, 2004 02:55 PM
El Blanco We're sorry, but your mom put it up and we just can't help ourselves.
Feb 16th, 2004 09:54 PM
Emu I don't see what's so funny about that picture that every single person on the intarweb has to use it.
Feb 16th, 2004 09:53 PM
theapportioner
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
I believe that Kant's moral principle only applies to acts- and homosexual acts can be changed, even if homosexuality cannot.
Good. But even if we assume that everyone participates in homosexual acts, this does not preclude people having heterosexual acts - it is obvious that it is not a logical contradiction to have both.

It's been a while since I've read Kant, so I don't know if the categorical imperative insists on an exclusive universality. My guess is no, but I'm not 100% sure.
Feb 16th, 2004 07:54 PM
Pee Wee Herman Go to hell, monkey boy.
Feb 16th, 2004 07:52 PM
AChimp Yes, and I bet he is a doo-doo head that eats his boogers, too. You ruined my joke, asshole.
Feb 16th, 2004 07:44 PM
Pee Wee Herman What a big fat fuck. OAO is so fat that he needs an extra large keyboard because his fingers are too fat for a regular keyboard.
Feb 16th, 2004 07:39 PM
AChimp

Obese Adolescent Orator's Thoughts
  • "I analyzed the nutritional content of the candy bars I ate for lunch. They only put me ninety points over. I can make up for it by just having three slices of cake after supper."
  • "While I was pooping, I decided that since I can't see the calories, they must not exist."
  • "I realized that if my parents didn't have to pay taxes, they could use the extra money to build a chocolate factory in the backyard."
  • "My mom said the only absolute truth that matters is that I'm her special boy."
Feb 16th, 2004 07:17 PM
The One and Only... I've thought for myself many times.

And you don't deserve Lokar for an avatar.
Feb 16th, 2004 06:42 PM
Emu So, have you lost the ability to think for yourself or did you ever have it?
Feb 16th, 2004 04:19 PM
The One and Only... I believe that Kant's moral principle only applies to acts- and homosexual acts can be changed, even if homosexuality cannot.

But I'm no Kantian, and I support gay rights. I was just pointing something out.
Feb 16th, 2004 11:54 AM
Anonymous
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
I know your not that intelligent,
As days go by, I've seen my taste in humor change. However, I don't think I'll ever be tired of the ironic "your stupid" line and all its analogues.
Feb 16th, 2004 08:57 AM
pjalne Hahaha, Sspad doesn't know what food Vince eats
Feb 16th, 2004 08:52 AM
VinceZeb
Quote:
Originally Posted by dim bulb
It's the gallons of Haagen-Daas you shovel down that's doing that.
Sorry. Never had Haagen-Daas in my life. You need to come up with some better insults. I know your not that intelligent, so don't try to swing to the fences when you can't even hit a grounder. Start with twinkies, pizza, and McDonald's first. Then move up to the higher-level insults.
Feb 16th, 2004 01:17 AM
sspadowsky
Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus
There are plenty of non-religious arguments against homosexuality. Example:

Homosexuality is wrong because of Kant's Formula of Universal Law.

It would be bad if everyone were gay.

Therefore, it is immoral to be gay.

Each individual should be moral and follow those rules, so banning homosexuality is moral.
OAO, that's incredibly stupid, even for you, and even as a hypothetical. It's wrong to be gay because Kant said so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dim bulb
And calling me fat doesnt make me gain 200lbs everytime I sit at this keyboard.
You're absolutely right. It's the gallons of Haagen-Daas you shovel down that's doing that.
Feb 15th, 2004 09:37 PM
ziggytrix Using that same logic:

It would be bad if everyone was male.

Therefore it is immoral to be male.



I don't buy it.
Feb 15th, 2004 07:42 PM
The One and Only... There are plenty of non-religious arguments against homosexuality. Example:

Homosexuality is wrong because of Kant's Formula of Universal Law.

It would be bad if everyone were gay.

Therefore, it is immoral to be gay.

Each individual should be moral and follow those rules, so banning homosexuality is moral.
Feb 14th, 2004 04:30 PM
kellychaos A legal union of same sex persons really has nothing to do with the church. The "laws" created by the government define what is legal and the church does not. It's really that simple. The only reason for the "stink" is that the church and the combined force of all it's congregations represent a strong lobby. This lobby equates "legal unions" with marriage when, actually, they are not the same. Again, the various churches act as if they invented marriage and; therefore, they have the right to define what "marriage" IS for everyone else. Again, they did not. I'm sure that the idea of lifelong mates began long before the marriage label was slapped onto it.
Feb 14th, 2004 07:56 AM
Dole Yeah Sspad! Why pick on that facet when you could have called him bigoted, prejudiced, ignorant, misanthropic, unpleasant, hateful, petty, cowardly, racist....

why there is a whole cornucopia of unpleasant character traits to pick a delightful nosegay from.
Feb 14th, 2004 07:29 AM
VinceZeb sspadowsky, you sure are pretty humble. With your track record for humbleness, you should become a monk. And calling me fat doesnt make me gain 200lbs everytime I sit at this keyboard. I wish you would at least try to insult me with the facts you have about me.
Feb 14th, 2004 04:45 AM
sspadowsky OK, I feel compelled, in the sense of fairness, to explain my stance.

If I come across as arrogant, I sincerely apologize. Many people on this board have met me in person, and I feel confident that they would vouch for the fact that this is not my aim. I'm just trying to establish a little perspective here.

One of my biggest beefs with "traditional values" is that a lot of people believe what they believe without question. They don't truly examine WHY they believe what they believe. Having said that, I know that many people on this board DO examine why they hold their beliefs. But not all, and those people who do not shall remain nameless, even if their initials start with VinceZeb.

So, if a church, let's say the Catholic Church, just for an example, tells you that homosexuality is wrong, well, WHY? It's not like they just came out with homosexuality fifty years ago. And it's not like there hasn't been any homosexual behavior within the confines of the Catholic Church, as we all know. It's been around as long as history has been recorded by humans. In many cultures, homsexuality has been acknowledged, and even tolerated. It's not as though people just denied its existence. Indeed, fifty years ago, I think many people knew of it, and they just regarded it as, "It's their thing, and it's none of my business."

And here's the central issue: No one in this thread, or any other relating to this topic, has ever said, "OK, here's the reason(s) gays SHOULDN'T be able to marry. No one has come up with that one. That's why I make vitriolic references to the Bible being a work of fiction. In fact, deep-seeded religious beliefs are often the CAUSE of such conflicts.

"Homosexuality is WRONG!"

Why?

"Because the BIBLE say so!"

Well, the Bible was written by men. And it has been interpreted, and re-interpreted by many people and groups, primarily based on their beliefs. Read a "modernized" version of the Bible, and I guarantee you'll see that it's far different from the King James version, which I was raised to read.

The inherent flaw in the argument against gay marriage always, ALWAYS, goes back to deeply-held religious beliefs. Because God said so. Well, that's not good enough for me. I believe in the Constitution. And the Constitution, even though it can be amended, was created in the interest of upholding equal rights for everyone, in spite of the fact that those who wrote it were White, land-holding, slave-owning males. That's why the Constitution is referred to as a "living document." Not because it can be changed to hold to the beliefs of the crackers in power, but because its purpose is to serve the People. It is designed to protect everyone.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:35 AM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.