Why do people care so much?

Dood, just as eating pigs was not a particularly good idea in Israel circa 3000 bc (disease was kinda high, pigs plus hot climate plus disease plus poor sanitation equals high chance of death), thus it was absorbed into religion. Screwing the siblings is generally not a good idea as there is a chance of genetic mutilation, do it again in the next generation and the chances are higher. Look at our fucking Royal Family for christs sake, mad as badgers (not sure what Bush's excuse is.... probably the same thing now I come to think about it)

By the way. Read the bible, incest is rife in genesis.

One last thing, I do agree that if you throw religion out of the window you lose universal morality. Fucking wonderfull because you know whats left... personal morality.
 
Last edited:
I could care less if a farmer married his pig.
It would be gross if he had sex with said pig...but I don't find it gross due to religious morality...I think it's gross because pigs are incestuous filth eating vermins themselves...
And no...this doesn't mean that I think having sex with a cat is okay just because they're clean animals...

If you want to go even further in depth with religious immoralities...let's talk about circumsisions...Anyone here agree that it's a good idea to have your wang mutliated when you're an infant because your parents follow a religion that states "uncircumsized penises are more likely to cause vaginal infections"...?

I don't have anything against circumsized weewees/people with circumsized weewees, I could care less...but...I think that circumsizing your babies pineenie is a little unorthadox....

Just like Grimoire said...someone said that pigs were unhealthy and they created a rule against eating pigs...
Odd ideas if you ask me...
 
btw, here in west virginia, we actually have a law that prohibits family members from getting married. that to me is funny. who the heck would do that anyway.
Click to expand...

poor wording my friends, i meant that why would anyone even consider marrying one of their family members? i am aware of the adverse genetic mutations that occur. oh well, doesn't make sense to me. it is sad that there are people that do that and that there even needs to be a law. anyway.

as far as why people care. well, i think every society needs to have a moral fabric within that society in order to be healthy. Growth for a society is good, and one of the best ways to do this is by having a father and a mother together raising their kids to be respectful and considerate to others. i know that doesn't always happen but i know that there is no growth with a gay couple, and even if they adopt, the kid usually turns out with mental issues (not every case, obviously). same with divorse, the kid doesn't get the attention he/she needs and usually grows up to be like their parents (selfish).

it really comes down to this, i am not going to convince anybody and nobody is going to convince me. but it is fun debating. right? :)

about pigs and wee wees....no comment.
 
The problem with marrying an animal or having sex with that animal is that it is against that animals will, which makes it cruel. I've never heard about an animal consenting to have sex with a person or any other animal outside of their species.
 
It's fun to debate, but...some of the things people come up with are ridiculous...such as damning another person for not having the same beliefs...

Now...I could care less if someone approached me and said "go to hell"...I might think the person was being a little cinical, but...whatever, it's their right to say so...

Now if someone approaches me and says "you're going to hell"...I'd be a little curious as to how the person knew what was going to happen in my future...

Said prophets of the future are always "self proclaimed" profits...meaning...that if someone is standing in front of me declaring to know where I'll be after I bite the dirt...said person must be from the future...said person must have witnessed my very death...and said person must have been the one to condem me because how else would they know such a thing?? :O



Rydia, as gross as it is...my brother in law is a kinky phsyco, and I have seen his oddball pornos involving a dog on top of a girl....I guess animals have kinky fettishes too. :sick:
 
Adamant said:
That's why people care. If you didn't want an answer, you shouldn't have asked!
Click to expand...

Well one could always discuss these issues in the threads that are for it, I mean if someone makes a thread asking what people thinks about homosexual marriage then people are gonna reply and say what they think about it, and sadly enought no all of us share the same opinion
 
i have heard of a man trying to do a horse up in oregan state, and the media spun it and said that the horse actually enjoyed it. (maybe, who knows) i think the man ended up dying, can't remember. why would you do that? i am sure he could have found some girl. he couldn't have been that bad.
 
To tell the truth, I care about my religion, but not pressuring people to conform to my beliefs.

However, I greatly protest ideas like the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses, removal of Christian icons/references from the public (after all, the founders of America were Christians). I don't tell someone to close their Mosque because I don't believe in Islam, stop wearing Bhudda shirts, etc. I let other people have freedom of religion, so I feel I should have mine.
 
Lupine, I do agree with you that christian morals are good to follow...and anyone who follows those rules will probably lead a more beneficiary and helpful life...

I'm just urked about people who delve too deep...such as I'm doing right now. =x

I've started rambling...^___^
 
Rhea said:
Lupine, I do agree with you that christian morals are good to follow...and anyone who follows those rules will probably lead a more beneficiary and helpful life...

I'm just urked about people who delve too deep...such as I'm doing right now. =x

I've started rambling...^___^
Click to expand...
No worries, Rhea. I understand.

It's annoying to everyone (myself included) when people go over the edge and feeling they are doing the world a favor to start brow-beating people about supposed sins, forgetting that they should really be sinless themselves (which is impossible unless you yourself are God or Jesus), thus doing more harm to the reputation of their religion than help.
 
Rhea said:
It's fun to debate, but...some of the things people come up with are ridiculous...such as damning another person for not having the same beliefs...

Now...I could care less if someone approached me and said "go to hell"...I might think the person was being a little cinical, but...whatever, it's their right to say so...

Now if someone approaches me and says "you're going to hell"...I'd be a little curious as to how the person knew what was going to happen in my future...
Click to expand...

Indeed. The Bible is clearly against humans judging/condemning other humans. But as always, many people focus on the parts of the Bible which benefit their lifestyle the most.

Some passages related to this topic:
Luke 6:42
"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Matthew 7:2
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Luke 6:37
"Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven."

James 4:11
"Don’t speak evil against each other, dear brothers and sisters. If you criticize and judge each other, then you are criticizing and judging God’s law. But your job is to obey the law, not to judge whether it applies to you. "
 
Nice posts FireZ and Lupine!

And I agree with you Rhea. And don't worry, it's good to vent about this stuff sometimes.

Yes it's the fanatics in our religion that makes us all look like morons. People like Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell do us no favors and are pretty much an embarassment.
 
Ahh, good topic and good thoughts. Here's my take:

Let's say that you believed that if someone doesn't believe in a certain god or religion then that person is going to be forever banished to a place of eternal pain and suffering, wouldn't you want to help them to not have that damnation??? :) And if you do believe in a certain religion, then almost undoubtably there is some sort of rule or suggestion saying to go help people join that same religion. Mormons are required to go through a period of door to door evangelism. Christians are to 'make disciples of all nations.'

So, I think it's fine if people want me to join their religion. If they really think that by converting me they're saving my life, then I think that's a pretty nice gesture. :P

My big problem is how most people try to convert other people, and it's pretty much for all of the steps you listed. Knocking on people's doors condemning them to hell is totally wrong and not biblical at all. There are appropriate ways to discuss religion and beliefs with someone without offending them. I could go on for a while, but that pretty much sums it up.

Homosexual marriage.. it's not the government's place to say who can and cannot get married. As long as two people are mature enough to understand the consequences of marriage, then how is it at all the place of the government to dictate who can and cannot get married? If a church doesn't want to marry two homosexuals because it is against their beliefs, then that's great, more power to you.

And if I remember correctly, when we were studying homosexuality in my pysch class, I think they said that homosexuality is about 50% environmental factors and 50% genetic.

PS - if it's of any consequence, I'm a Christian. I'm not very big into evangelism myself simply because I'm not very outgoing and I haven't found a good way for talking to people
Click to expand...
This was a great post! I agree with everything you say here with the exception of the last two paragraphs. The last one simply because I am not exactly a Christian... another post altogether to explain that... buy more importantly here is the second to last one. Allow me to elaborate.

Psychology, or any other class, that tries to teach you the reasoning behind homosexuality and then states that their reasoning is fact is a sham. There is absolutely no proof as to the exact reasoning behind it. It is speculated, and widely believed however, that the majority of our personality is formed from some 50/50 mix of nature/nurture. But to take one specific trait and to call it's cause the exact same ratio with no scientific facts to back it up is absurd! The 50/50 mix that we presumably are composed of is often 90% nature for any given trait, and 90% nurture for the others, and when you factor in the amount that are nature v. nurture, weigh out the probability of error and what not, and we are left to assume that a 50/50 mix would be a fair generalization.

But, could we claim that a violent person, for example, was violent not 90% because they were abused violently, and persistently, as children and even perhaps as adolescents, but instead as 50% nature because the gene pool they were born into happened to have a DNA string that increased a chemical that essentially helped give you a "short fuse" and then 50% because there parents beat that string into an even less dormant form? Would it be fair to minimize the beatings and environmental causes just because perhaps one or both parents happened to pass on a violent tendencied genome?

The same goes for homosexuality. I'm sure that you have heard the claims that a child that is raised with homosexual parents is approximately 50-60% more likely to themselves be homosexual. I'm not sure who exactly managed to come up with this study, but I'd say from what I know of psychology (and that's pretty extensive) and what I know of biology (and that pretty minimal, but enough to keep this topic going without sounding like an idiot) I can say that these results are to be expected. Why? Because, from a nurture standpoint, homosexuality is obviously going to be a more accepted idea and therefore will be less of a mental roadblock for that particular issue for the child at hand. And from a nature standpoint, well... this is another topic.

With the recent minimal acceptance of the homosexual community rising into a place where homosexuals can be open and yet not beaten and harassed (en majority), we know that up until this generation, people who were homosexual often denied it, and were even known to marry women and have children with them. These marriages often met with divorce, and with the next gen openness that is now out there, these homosexuals are getting together and, in some (if not most) cases exposing there children from the previous marriage to homosexuality.

Because of this we can now say that one parent had passed on the homosexual genome (if there indeed is one) or tendency toward homosexuality and then that same parent later exposed this same child to an environment where homosexuality is considered acceptable, and perhaps even better than heterosexuality. A 50/50 mix say you?

Well, in this case, I would agree. But this is not the case in MOST homosexuals, in most cases a homosexual person had heterosexual tendencied parents and at most, a gay uncle, or hot same-sex friend (HA! I mocked my own post :P) This leaves the homosexual genome as the low factor, and the hot friend, or gay uncle, as the dominant factor. Perhaps it was a VERY hot same sex friend? (HA! A second mock at my own post).

Neither one, however, is proven and therefore I stand on neither side, but I just wanted to point out that there is no proven reason on either the nature, or nurture, or even the 50/50 argument that could allow us to believe that one is, indeed, fact.

I'm sorry that that went on for so long, and is a sidetrack from the argument at hand, but the person who made the post I quoted basically said what I had to say about it, and I felt this subject needed it's own discussion. Perhaps a new thread? Or is there already one...? If there is, most of this should probably be deleted and moved there.


___________________________________________________________

This is a second, and completely different, post that was automatically merged with the first one. I don't know how to change that so I just stuck these big bold words in between them.



I have a few issues with what was said here. So, I'll pick them apart one by one.

Insight Part 1:
Every...I repeat...every human being on the face of the earth is primarily developed with two X chromosomes. Thus answering the question why males have nipples...the reason is in fact because for brief moment of your existance, you were actually a female.
Click to expand...
Well, no real problems here. This is, in fact, true. At least we can assume that it is true. We cannot, however, say that we have checked every baby ever conceived in the history of all mankind to prove that no one baby has ever been singled out of this specific way of nature.

Insight Part 2:
Your gender is determined via the slight chance that one of your X chromosomes is broken...leaving you with a Y chromosome instead...In the event that you spend more time developing as a female, and one of your X chromosomes unexpectedly splits into a Y much later than intended...you'll begin developing as a male after already having developed certain female qualities.
It is impossible...I repeat...impossible for a female to have male qualities. It is scientifically impossible, and there's no way of proving said fact otherwise.
Click to expand...
The chance that your X chromosome gets "broken" as you put it, isn't so slight. As a matter of fact, approximately 40% of people on Earth have had this happen to them, myself included.

When your X chromosome changes over to a Y (if in fact, it ever does) makes absolutely no foreseeable difference in what kind of characteristics you take on other than some minor physical ones (ie - enlarged, possibly functional, nipples). The major reason for this is that other than physical characteristics, males and females have no scientifically proven differences. The main reason I bring this up is because you use it as part of your argument as to why men are possibly homosexual. What you essentially are saying is that men who stay in the female stage longer than normal are implanted with women's seemingly natural sexual preference for men. This could possibly be the case, provided that women are actually born with a sexual preference for men, and haven't simply learned the behavior.

We cannot rightfully say that it impossible, as you put it, for a woman to develop male characteristics. While I cannot prove that any human child ever conceived has ever had an XY chromosome arrangement change back into an XX arrangement, and do not think that this is a likely situation, we still cannot say that it is a physical impossibility, especially if you believe in evolution of any sort.

Insight Part 3:
Since it is impossible for a female to develop as a male at any rate in the womb, it can be said that all bisexual or homosexual females are in fact...following in a very sexy social trend.
Click to expand...
I already mentioned the flaws in part 2, so referencing part 2 must also make part 3 contain the same issues as part 2, logically.

I do, however, agree 100% that the seemingly social trend of female bisexual/homosexuality is a very sexy one!



I would also like to note that by stating widely accepted scientific speculation, (even if it is backed up with research, and is regarded by the scientific community as being true, even if it's so much so that we base many new theories and "facts" on that original "fact") as clean cut, hard facts is more of a nuisance than anything. It makes it very hard for a person to debate the issue at hand if, according to you, you are just stating facts that can be found in any medical hand book passed out to first year medical students.
I'm not saying that some of what you said isn't indeed cold, hard, clean cut, facts. I am saying, however, that if it is, no one has proven it to be an absolute truth.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but... You were wrong about the X and Y chromosomes... when you are born you get one X chromosome from your mother no matter what. But then, your father can give you either an X or a Y... the rest is right. There is no splitting of chromosomes. Sorry but I felt the need to tell you.
 
There are actually a lot of wierd things that can happen in development though. There are some people who have a pair of X chromosomes that still end up looking like guys because of the influence of androgens and some other hormones in the developing fetus' system. Conversely, there are guys that look like girls when they grow up, but after puberty, they look normal.
 
Sorry but... You were wrong about the X and Y chromosomes... when you are born you get one X chromosome from your mother no matter what. But then, your father can give you either an X or a Y... the rest is right. There is no splitting of chromosomes. Sorry but I felt the need to tell you.
Click to expand...
Dark Tidus,

Please support any and all arguments with reliable resources, lest ye words be thrown asunder and their pieces ignored.

Basically what I'm getting at is, while you are technically correct, it would save us all a lot of time and trouble if you instead worded it something like this:


"Your statement about the XX pair of chromosomes breaking, thus causing an XY pair of chromosomes to emerge is misguided. According to http://www.intersexualite.org/More_than_XX_XY.html along with many other scientists and biologists, after the first 6 to 7 weeks after conception gender is undefined and the fetus is given no direction as to whether it be will be male or female. During this time, only the mother's DNA is instructing the fetus on how to mature (which is where the theory of why males have nipples despite their being seemingly useless comes from). After this time is when the fathers donated DNA begins to have effect on the 23rd (or sex determining) chromosome. If the father donated a X chromosome the baby will become a female, and if the father donated a Y chromosome, a male."



We all appreciate your input, but it is a lot easier for us to believe you if you state your facts with full, well thought out, sentences; siting references so those still non-believers can see from themselves.

Not only does it make it easier for the rest of us, it also makes you look smarter and for some reason when an argument looks and sounds as though it came from someone who holds an intellectual ground above and beyond the normal human being, we tend to believe it more readily. Read the forums guides and rules for a more thorough explanation of this phenomenas and how to become part of it yourself. And most of all, try to make sure that your correction is just that, and not an insult as well. When your argument sounds like an insult, once again you seem less reliable a source than even the person who uses letters in place of words.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top