Gay footballers - Now is the time

comment by rosso - it’s not good enough to be right... (U17054)
posted 8 minutes a
------------------------------------
Homosexuality, cannibalism and paedophilia (for want of a better term) do all occur in nature.

Humans commonly prohibit behaviours related to the latter two in society because (inarguably in the case of the last one) they do material harm to the rights and freedoms of non-consenting individuals and wider society.

Again, we are comparing apples and oranges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wasn't really comparing. More a who decides

Humans aren't necessarily the best at deciding what's right and wrong hence we have such differences over time and location. So for example consent can go from 14 to 18 and change as and when.

On one hand you have authority in terms government etc who can dictate what's right and in another you have a creator as authority who decides

comment by rosso - it’s not good enough to be right; you have to be effective (U17054)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by rosso - it’s not good enough to be right... (U17054)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by A14... ( ليدز_يونايتد )You gotta love it!! (U2805)
posted 26 seconds ago
Garry,

Not a question for me but the religions.... lot of people pointing to the bible, but Muslim and Jews have sinister stance. Many Jews oppose homosexuality on the grounds that:

it is considered by many to be unnatural
it results in childless couples, and so does not fulfil God's request to be fruitful and multiply
male homosexuality is forbidden by the teachings in Leviticus
homosexuality usually results in sxxx outside of marriage


Gays and religions have their own rights and freedoms. Problem is when a member of a certain religious group wants to be both and they don’t reconcile..... what’s the solution there??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that opposing homosexuality makes as much sense as opposing rocks, sunrises or the nitrogen cycle: it makes no sense to do so, because it exists in nature. And nature is unable to give a fack whether humans oppose it or otherwise.

The question then is given its (natural) existence, do you elect to attempt to curb people’s behaviour and suppress their desires. If you’re going to argue that, then you need to be able to demonstrate that the associated behaviours are damaging to the individuals themselves, the people around them or society at large.

Back to your question and people are (or surely should be) free to change their religious beliefs. Because they are just that: beliefs. They aren’t able to change their desires.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

But who draws the line and where?

Nature has all sorts of things going on. Someone mentioned animals being homosexual. Firstly it's more nuances than that and researchers don't like to call it homosexuality in animals for a variety of reasons. Secondly animals also display cannibalism and pedophilia etc

In terms of damaging there is insight into that also. So for example one of the arguments for age of consent is psychological and physical damage. Similarly there are patterns in lgbtq communities. It's even argued that certain patterns of sexual behaviour increase disease etc and I don't mean HIV. The source of digestive disorders and such have been linked to how we have s ex.

Even the WHO have changed certain stances over the years. From seeing homosexuality as a mental disorder to saying there is no evidence it is but there are some disorders linked to homosexual orientation

A study in New York found the disease element to be true over a 5 year study. Specific to homosexual men.


It's a fascinating discussion to be had but this isn't the place to have it probably
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality, cannibalism and paedophilia (for want of a better term) do all occur in nature.

Humans commonly prohibit behaviours related to the latter two in society because (inarguably in the case of the last one) they do material harm to the rights and freedoms of non-consenting individuals and wider society.

Again, we are comparing apples and oranges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And plums

comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by rosso - it’s not good enough to be right... (U17054)
posted 8 minutes a
------------------------------------
Homosexuality, cannibalism and paedophilia (for want of a better term) do all occur in nature.

Humans commonly prohibit behaviours related to the latter two in society because (inarguably in the case of the last one) they do material harm to the rights and freedoms of non-consenting individuals and wider society.

Again, we are comparing apples and oranges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wasn't really comparing. More a who decides

Humans aren't necessarily the best at deciding what's right and wrong hence we have such differences over time and location. So for example consent can go from 14 to 18 and change as and when.

On one hand you have authority in terms government etc who can dictate what's right and in another you have a creator as authority who decides
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have an individual or a select few individuals’ (often highly contestable) *interpretations* of words written by men purportedly expressing the often internally contradictory, anachronistic and tangential ideas of many different creators.

The words written in books which if read literally contain countless demonstrable inaccuracies and fabrications, and if read allegorically, are, well, allegorical in their ambiguity and openness to interpretation.

There’s no definitive interpretation of any of the texts of the (mutually contradictory) major religions, and no religious leader anywhere in the world rules in a country the religious laws of which are accepted as the wishes of any given creator by all of the followers of that religion. Which is part of the reason why Christians and Muslims, for example, as well as murdering the other have often decided to set about butchering their own as well.

Personally, I’d rather not have any individual or small groups of individuals telling me how I should or shouldn’t be living my life when the discussion boils down to behaviour that *in no way* impacts adversely on the health, wellbeing or rights of others. That’s what’s called authoritarianism, and plainly speaking, it sucks.

And from what I’ve read, I don’t believe that either Jesus or Muhammad would want that for themselves or for the likes of me or you, either.

Further to the above, to be perfectly clear, I have no problems with people arguing that religious texts should be read as allegorical, and considered in historical and cultural context.

(I think it’s pure madness to argue otherwise, actually, or there’d be people wandering around arguing that we should be setting fire to those caught eating prawn crackers and poking eyes out, left, right and centre.)

But if you’re accepting of that approach, then you also have to accept that nobody is living under a set of absolute and incontestable laws of any given creator.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

what a vile ignorant bunch of bigoted w4nkers

Comment Deleted by Article Creator

it's time to stop now, morons

One of JA's most politically (in)correct articles to ever be written.

admin, remove this bile now