Wait...wait wait....no offense, but this is a very ignorant, judgemental statement to make.
However, when people engage in it outside of the commitment of marriage, all that results is pain and hardships.
What do you have to back up this claim? Wouldn't that be a complete act of a person who had no "control" of their sexual desires...if they couldn't have a healthy sex life without marriage and have it result in pain and hardships? Furthermore, don't most marriages end in divorce? Seems marriages hold a bit more "pain and hardship" then casual sex. People create pain and hardships (often because of their own insecurities) no matter what...whether you are married or not. Sex is about communication and understanding...it has NOTHING to do with your status of being single or married. That is religious brainwashing.
I think the problem with sex is that people are not educated about it and often enter sexual encounters without real knowledge or maturity to handle some of the responsibilities that must come along with having sex. (i.e. dealing with ignorant social sterotypes of sex, understanding how one will emotionally react, risk of impregnation, risk of disease) and those people will POSSIBLY have hardships. But this idea that sex is something that needs to be controlled is narcissistic...why should anyone adhere to one person's idea of what sex is SUPPOSSED to be? Of course there are certain exceptions to this (child molestation, rape, etc.) But if sex is consentual and safe...what is the problem? It doesn't bother me in anyway that someone wants to watch someone else have sex, or wrap themselves in leather, or be whipped, or rub feces all over themselves or engage in pre-marital sex. It really doesn't effect me. If one doesn't like a certain fetish...They won't participate in it. They will look for someone who shares a common sexual preference as they do.
Ok, I see what you are saying...but I still feel like the determination of what is "degrading" to women is a function of determining equal rights. For example, A woman, who does the same work as a man and yet does not share in equal pay...isn't that degrading to women? Though, I can see the fine line that can be crossed in which you point out.
Obviously, I know that...I thought the feminist ideas on pornography would be a more interesting topic because there are 2 schools of thought on pornography in the feminist community. One being that it degrades women, the other that it empowers women.
Question: Would you say the same thing about an African American deciding when using the "N" word is degrading?
I mean...isn't that the whole point of being a feminist in the first place? To make a social commentary on what is degrading or unfair for women living in a patriarchal society. Just like civil rights activists will monitor what may be degrading toward minorities.
This is a tricky subject, to me, I feel that pornography is a healthy fetish (watching others) in which all parties are consenting. Furthermore, it is closely regulated (to prevent the spread of disease) which would be another issue. To me, it is just sex, in an unconvential manner. It is difficult for me to see any problems with it...however...I am also a male. There are arguments out there (aside from religious) that pornography is degrading to women and the industry is as patriarchal in intent as anything else in the world. At the same time, there is an argument (by some feminists)that pornography actually empowers women.
Lemme start by saying, I think i would be more concerned with feminist ideas on pornography than religious. The religious debate is constantly fought on this site and often end in the same results. For someone to say that god says "pornography is an aborration" is meaningless to me and many others because we don't believe in a god. However, I have found there tends to be a two sided debate for feminists on this topic...Some being for and others being against...this is what I would like to be the focus of this debate.
As a woman, I hope that I never get a job because I am filling some quota for a company, I want the job because I am qualified!
Is that an argument against Affirmative Actions? Sadly, I would have to disagree with you then because until discrimination is close to non-existant, it is a neccessary program in our society in order to weave in minorities and women into our higher levels of workforce.
However, If you were referring to jobs that are based on a democratic voting nature...than I think you make a fantastic point about being voted in because of qualification and not looked at because you are a woman, black, OR even a mormon.
I am curious about this statement:
...communism is an organized anarchism...
You are gonna have to clarify that, because aside from being an oxymoron, I don't see how communism is anything near anarchy. Quite the opposite actually. Furthermore, don't confuse Leninism (the roots of most of the communist nations today) and Communism that Karl Marx wrote about. We have never seen true communism on a large country-wide scale. China, Cuba, and North Korea (as well as the past forms of Stalin-Russia and onward until Russia restructured it government) are not communist nations, but is more Totalitarianist regimes. And you certainly couldn't compare Communism with Facism....now Totalitarianism vs Facism...better.
(sorry, not meant to sound hostile)
Fear of buying a house because of our dwindling economy will only continue to add to our dwindling economy. If you find a house that you can AFFORD and you like it, don't worry about whether or not it will drop more in price (unless you only wanna live there briefly of course), because in the end, real estate with almost always pay off. Just be wary about what you can afford.
great point riotus!
Buying local is a huge help to the enviornment and a great way to support small business (something this country forgot about when Reagan de-regulated capitalism.) Of course some things just aren't grown local, (bananas, sugar, coffee, etc.) but when you can...buy local!
I think so. Though it is more important ot read the ingredients and do a bit more research. Sometimes you are paying for "false advertising". Better to stay away from high fructose corn syrup and other genetically modified foods (that only this country allows...you believe that! Only this country! Not China, Not Afghanistan, Not Russia, only here!!!). Also, if you are a meat eater, it is good to avoid any factory farming products...not just because of the treatment of those animals...but because of all the shit they pump in them to make them fatter. And lets not forget the antibiotics (which you need to fight disease) they fill them with that renders you immune to anitbiotics.
So...if you think organic is a waste of money...keep eating at McDonalds. Good luck!
hard to pick one...in fact impossible. (I love all these people putting Jesus Christ...who most likely didnt even exist...though, I guess you can argue he is still respected by many)
Here are a couple of good recent ones (proven existing people):
Martin Luther King
Ghandhi
Dahlai Lama
anyone that promotes peace!
The question of whether or not the world would be better off without religion is an interesting one though. I am still unsure about where I stand on this but for the sake of this debate I will learn toward the "Yes" side though I will offer both stances.
All Religions (while I believe it to fall under the category of mythos) have offered hope to millions of people. Answering questions like "What happens when I die?" can provide a sense of security that is no doubt meaningful. Many people have a need to have a reason for living, and accepting a life without a greater meaning is deemed "depressing", "unecessary", "worthless". Why do anything, if in the long run it is all meaningless...especially if you are born into poverty, slavery, or any other incredibly difficult situation. Religion can offer security, that someone is there watching over us. Is this bad? Maybe...its the chicken or the egg question...Did religion bring about the need for a greater meaning about life OR did people create religion because of a its need. Nonetheless, religion can effect people in a positive way making it difficult to denouce that aspect of it.
Secondly, the concept of an afterlife is absolutely impossible to prove on either side. So, this brings an important addition to the argument of whether of not the world would be better place without religion. And that is the stifling the creative thought process of human beings. An even more than that creating a forum for free thought. When talking about unexplainable issues, one should be free to theorize any idea until it is proven otherwise. It would be a sad world to think that any one unexplained issue had only one theory. It would say very little about us as a species. Our diversity in thinking is how we survived this long AND the need to allow this free thinking could not be more imperative for forward progress. To assume that any Neo-Darwinist/Atheist would believe that all people were not equally important would be counter to forward progressive movement for the species as ignoring the weak would
As far as the point that religious groups offer much in the form of charities, I find this an unacceptable reason to believe that religion is good for the world. Why? Because of 2 reasons (bear in mind I am not downing any church for its chariable intentions...merely pointing out that it is not a good enough reason to justify its existence):
1) How else are they to justify the millions of dollars that is donated to them by their constituents and church goers? Furthermore, are these donations made by people (unconsciously of course) because of guilt that the religion imposes on them, or the fear that without donations ones place in heaven may not be secured? If so, this is certainly something that can be simulated in a non-religious society...easily.
2) Even the worst dictators and emperors in the past have shown instances of charity in order to gain the people's favor. In other words, do good to right wrong. How else is any church to remain in power and continue to hold its following if it doesn't give anything to its followers (and potential followers)?
All in all, I have no problem with people believing in God or being spiritual. It is a completely understandable stance. But there is a realistic downside. This belief is much more complex than just a personal belief. It is a commentary on moral values not just for an individual, but for a society. And when you are dealing with a diverse society, it (religion) lends itself to horrible consequences.
1) the use of god's name to reliquinish responsibility for actions that lead to unjusticness to others. People(or countries) doing things in the name of god. This goes way back and this is a clear use of religion for power and control. This includes misintepretations of ones religion (sometimes purposefully) to gain power in some form (land, money, people, followers, etc.). This is probably the main argument you get from the non-religious standpoint.
2) Another consequence is the internal conflicts and mental damages that having this sort of "moral" value can inflict on those who fail to reach those standards causing an almost opposite effect of instilling the values in the first place. This is a very different consequence from the physical consequences of religion. And the problem can be equally as devasting. And while most religions have a backdoor for this (confession, repentence, God forgives, etc.), these back doors cannot always prevent some of the results that the seemingly impossible guidelines create. Some examples: People forcing themselves to stay in unhealthy relationships because of their vow to god, Peoples lack of knowledge of sexuality leading to a series of issues when abstincy is failed to be acheived, suicide, etc.
And while these consequences may not be a definition of what ones chosen religion stands for it certainly is a direct result of its existence in those persons lives.
Yes,
and I have a great example as to why...
My friend has taught her children about sex since they were 5 years old. Her one daughter was in school one day (I think they were around 8 years old at the time) and the children found a used condom on the playground. Many of the other children thought it was a balloon and wanted to blow it up, but my firends daughter (knowing about sex and what condoms were) warned the child not to touch it and explained why.
Children are not idiots and should not be denied education for any reason. It can be taught in a fun way at young ages and more serious as you get older.
I consider myself a feminist. I am a male and yet I have always sympathized with the gender roles that were imposed onto women in our patriarchal society. I have dated feminists in the past, in fact I prefer it. I am a huge advocate of being equal and fair.
That being said, I find it absolutley mind bending that most women who I have talked to will not go dutch on a first date, will not approach men at a bar, expect to be "stay home moms", etc.....all the things that place a man in the sterotypical social role they were expected to be in for hundreds of years prior. I know that may sound sexist (and it isnt meant to).
I live in NYC, the only city in the USA where women make more money on average than men...and yet, everytime I go on a date...I have to pay or I am a creep! I feel like this mindset of what a man is suppossed to be...completely counters what women have been fighting for since the 20's!
How are we supposed to get past these gender roles? Are there women disgusted by women that continue to cling to old gender roles as badly as they are with men who cling to old-fashioned thinking? Or is this just payback for centuries of suppression?
Or maybe I am missing something...I am certainly not close-mided to hear a logical reason as to why I am wrong.
(King James version)
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
this is just one example of the bible shunning homosexuality, here is another:
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
While you are right, it never calls it a sin; I don't know what else you equate "abomination" to. The bible is certainly anti-gay and, unfortunately, so many people subscribe to it. The bible and other religious texts are a unfortunate blemish on our society.
Well the system that worked for European society for hundreds of years already i suppose.
1) Why are you only referring to European family systems?
2) If family systems "worked" to a point where we can say that homosexuals were stirring the pot, then we wouldn't need institutions like Child Services, divorce lawyers, Women's Rights movements, arranged marriages, etc. The imperfections of the "family system", ESPECIALLY in the European society, is endless. People were forced into arranged marriages, spousal abuse, child abuse, and so on. I can go on for hours to point out all the problems with the way society views what a family structure is SUPPOSED to be. And the further you go back, the more the system is flawed. At least now, we have laws protecting people from certain offenses that were the norm 100's of years ago.
Finally,
PassingBy, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality is just wrong...unless of course you are Mike Huckabee, who seems to think the same. I don't get how you can say in one breath that you are not opposed to homosexuality, but then compare it to bestiality and pedophilia. Unless of course you are condoning both of those actions as well. First of all, in both pedophilia and bestiality the act is not consensual. Homosexual sex is consensual and thus can only be compared to those sexual actions that ARE consensual also!
Agreed, I had thought from the beginning that this was a poorly worded debate, I left out the 3rd definition, because I knew that the intent of this debate was the religious form of "sin". And debating on this topic without proper clarification of its intent is pretty unproductive.
Awesome point HGrey!
Markwho...I hope you don't honestly think the human race is going to fold because of the small population of homosexuals...furthermore, just because one is homosexuals doesn't mean a person is stupid. Even if the world would somehow magically become 100% gay, threating our existance, doesn't mean that people wouldn't get the bright idea of having sex with the opposite sex, in order to keep the species alive. It's not like you become gay and cross gender sexual intercourse becomes impossible!
Cyberwheez,
you are obviously passionate about your religion (and I very much admire passion), which blinds you to certain things. I have been on both sides of the fence and even when I was religious, I was against the role religion had in our society. That being said:
1) Schools are an institution of learning, LEARNING FACTS...we don't teach our kids that unicorns exist and you probably would be pretty pissed if they were. Are you seriously telling me that we should teach kids how to believe! It's funny because everytime I have a conversation with a religious person they tell me "Belief has to come from inside you, I can't make you believe"...HA! but you sure can try hard enough to. I don't even get why, it is so important to someone who is religious, that his neighbor believes in god also! Sometimes it seems like that is more important than the "morals and values" that religion preaches. Schools are filled with many different types of people who come from many different types of religion. What the population of this country is now, is nothing what the population was during the time of the original 13 colonies. You CANNOT have any kind of bias towards one type of religion over any other (or the lack of one). This is why we have private religious schools. Who cares? you say...the need for an understanding fair society cares. Now...if you want to offer religious historic studies in a public school...then I say fine (so long as all religions as well as the lack of one is accounted for). But, if you want to use public schools as a way to brainwash children to believing in a certain specific religion, I say no way! BUT, I do feel that the only way to be fair to ALL, is to have religion out of our schools and out of our government. Kids can go to CCD or other organization after class...or a private institution that preaches you specific religion. And yes, I would EQUALLY be pissed if teachers were telling children in public schools there is no god. That would be equally hypocritical and those teachers should (and have been) be fired. But, taking religion out of public schools IS NOT being bias...let be clear about that. Now, maybe you are for creating second class citizens (and if you don't think that religion doesn't do this to those that don't subscribe to the primary religion in this country when implemented on a governmental scale, I don't know what else to say to you)...that is your prerogative and thankfully will never prevail in this country. We are seeing more and more Supreme Court cases that are pushing out these antiquated religious beliefs that has had a stranglehold over public institutions which hold a diverse population base. Now, I understand and respect where your passion comes from. I do not...I repeat DO NOT wish for those whose lives are made happier because they have religion, to not have the right to pursue that. I am simply saying, that the only way to remain fair in the public arena is for it to be separated.
2) I am so sick of hearing about our founding forefather and what they believed in. It is SO irrelevant to anything. Most of our forefathers would be disgusted with the role religion plays in our government. They were pressing for freedom of religion, and yes many of them were religious at the time. But, this has no bearing on what they were looking for when they developed this country. They wanted a system that allowed room for change and a system where no one person had power. They wanted a system where all men were created equal regardless of sex, race, religious choice, etc. We are the same. YOU CANNOT HAVE A SOCIETY THAT DOES THAT WHEN ONE RELIGION IS FAVORED. Having a lack of religion is NOT being biased against those with religion. I'M sorry, IT IS NOT the same! Religion is a private institution. Our forefathers did not have to deal with other religions like Muslim, Hindu, Atheists etc. During that period, like today, deciding what a politicians belief is, is impossible to know because they pander to the people so they can be voted into office. Thomas Jefferson was a known atheist, but in order to function in the political spotlight, he had to use terminology that would be found acceptable to the primarily Protestant population. This is the truth about our leaders. Now, you will argue that and say "look, it says god here". And I can't argue that god is mentioned in the constitution. But if that is your main argument, it is very shaky. And certainly not progressive thinking.
3) Finally, I fail to see how my argument was not a well reasoned debate, unless you believe that anyone who has a different belief than you is an "unreasonable" debater. So please explain that statement?
PVT, sorryman, but not only did you imply that Christianity was the root of morality but you said that EXACTLY...read here:
Our societies morals and values, whether people like it or not, have been defined largely by a single religion, Christianity. By saying that what religion says in terms of morality is irrelevant and irrational you ignore this fact and thus I would challenge you to provide a source of modern morality that is completely separate from religion.
If you don't mean what you say, you should re-read what you write.
Again, I am disagreeing with you that morals and values are stemmed from modern religion....they are not. Not at all. Morals and values stem from a need for humans to work together. We are social creatures and in order to create civilized society, rules (morals and values) needed to be established. Religion did not bring these ideas to mankind, they were built in by a need to survive. And these rules we shaped and re-shaped over time. Now, they were modified by religion over time, and in that sense, yes...religon has modified some of what are morals and values are. Murder for example, the idea of murder being immoral goes all the way back to the Sumarians, (the first known civilized society), by the way...they worshiped a sun god and did not have organized religion. No offense, but religion tries very hard to make themselves legitimate, and much of that comes from people making assumptions about what religion is responsible for (i.e. "the thought that without religion there will be no morals").
And yes, I will say it again, religion must be irrelavant because it doesnt represent everyone AND it offers no proof that it is real. We can not run a society based on a superstition. (when I call it a superstition, I call it that because it can neither be proven OR disproven. You just CANNOT run a FAIR society on that basis. You CANNOT!!!) If you believe, keep your believe in your heart...if there is a god, let HIM sort it out in the end.
Greece offered us (and the world) a very basic idea of what democracy is. If you think about, democracy is STILL imperfect even now. If you think that America is a bastion of democracy, I answer that by saying....now way. Ask any African American or American Indian about that. I can also point you to the last 2 presidential election and our WHOLE election process. This is not to say that I don't love this country and what is possible with our system. The real underlying idea is there and is strong. I personally think that we are screwed up because of capitalism...and I can argue many points about that. But, the system that we have allows room for change....and THAT makes it great.
I have to disagree with you on this one. While it is true that some of our moral and values have been mimicked from religion, they come from ideas way before mono-theism. Back in Greek times where the Idea of democracy was originally formed.
Furthermore, morals and values, even within our society range from the community you are in. The values that are important for a church community in Kansas who believe in creationism are very different from the morals and values of a gay community in San Francisco or even a primarily Hindu town like Edison, NJ.
Fortunately, our society is structured around laws that are fair for ALL, not just one group. THIS is what our society is based on....having a clause in the constitution for FREEDOM of religion is a far cry from a nation being based on Christianity.
Iran is a Islamic fundamentalist nation. THIS is an example of a government being run by religious morals and values solely. For example, if you cheat on your husband in Iran, you are stoned. That doesn't happen here. And if you say because in christianity, people aren't stoned for that...haha...I implore you to read the old testament...people were stoned for MUCH less than that. Don't forget, Islam is based from the same Abrahamic god that Christianity is...as well Judiasm.
Absolutely,
But many of people who find it sinful are people of High power...preists, rabbi, shaman, even the pope, etc. Who read parts of the bible, koran, etc. and interprets it to suit their own needs (i.e. run a congregation, get followers, group people, etc.)
I personally believe religion to be nothing more than a superstition. Religion can not be proven nor disproven with the information we have at our disposal. So therefore, laws and social standards cannot be based on what is "sinful".
Furthermore, you should realize that the original title of this debate was "IS homosexuality a sin"
my initial comments were (if you read above) that there is no doubt that in most religious groups homosexuality is considered a sin...so the debate title should be changed...and the moderator
changed it to "SHOULD homosexuality a sin".
whoa....
I am totally not questioning your belief in God....I am simply saying that sin is related to religion. You said:
Sin is not determined by organized religion, but by one's personal beliefs. It is not a sin to eat shellfish, and it is not a sin to be homosexual.
I showed you by definition...sin and religion ARE linked.
I personally see nothing wrong with homosexuality. I don't believe in sin either. It doesn't apply to me, because I don't believe in god at all and sin is linked to religion. However, I do respect and understand the need for those who belive in religion. And I accept that.
The question of this debate is "IS homosexuality a sin" ....the answer is..."Yes" because the Church has decreed it so.
Finally, you are on a debate site EVERYBODY is pushing their beliefs!
sin IS determined by organized religion. This is the official definition of sin:
sin
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
note the first meaning DIVINE law
While I agree with eveything you say, You may want to rephrase your debate title to "Should homosexuality be a sin" or "is homosexuality wrong"; by asking "IS it a sin" the answer couldn't be anything but "Yes" (of course this also depends on what religion you are talking about) but "sin" is a figment of religion, not a figment of rational thought. And most religions have declared homosexual behavior as "sinful".
Interestin point Loud...
According to religion...it is a sin...so my answer is YES.
But, religion and sin, are irrelavent concepts until you can prove religion to be true beyond any doubt, which is impossible by its own definition. Religion is faith. Thus meaning any argument religion has in regards to what is right and wrong in our society is not relevant and irrational.
However, to add yet another circular argument...
In reality, you can argue that because of their numbers amongst popular belief, that religion FORCES relevance. But, if we are talking rationally and philosophically...religion is a virus on a productive and foward moving society.
First of all, humour is subjective...so deciding the ability of what gender is more capable of humour would first mean having to put limits on what humour is.
Furthermore, saying that humour is the only way to attract a mate and that only men can profit from its use would be false. It is a tool of attraction on both sides, but not the only one. Not to mention, humour also serves a function in developing our brains.
Finally, it would seem to me, that if you looked at the evolution of humans, that women would be more apt for humour because when we were a hunter gatherer society, men would separate from the tribe and needed to be quiet during the hunt, while women would stay at the camp in groups chatting in order to ward off potential predators. More talking, more likelihood of humour.
(haha...I just realized that my response makes me seem like I have absolutely NO sense of humour and I was defending those without it...damn internet!)
how do you know you weren't simply programmed to believe that HAL is real? Furthermore, how do you know you werent programmed to believe humans are inferior? Were it to be true, your whole existance would be insubstantial, thus making you worthless.
I dont like that when you go to the debate page, the sides are organized by points, then you don't know what order they were enter and someone may be responding (without directly opposing or favoring but instead by adding a new argument) to something someone or referring to something someone said earlier, but you can't tell who they are referring to. It sould be in order of when it was entered.
That is a ridiculous statement...considering that everyone who pays taxes, pays for public property. So...sorry, I pay taxes, I am an atheist and to be fair...KEEP YOUR RELIGION IN YOUR HOME!!! I dont want my kids to have to say..."In GOD we trust" , thats not how I teach them to think.....and I dont want my public school, WHICH I PARTIALLY PAY FOR....to be biased. Thats it. I have no problem with people praying or believing in a god. i don't go around telling people to be atheist. It always these religious nuts who HAVE TO SPREAD the word of their God! Save it for someone who cares...someone who wants to go to your PRIVATE INSTITUTION that is the church. There, you can ban homosexuals, ban pro-choiceer, ban the infidels, whatever you need. And pray to your god. But in public....can we be fair, can we be understanding of other beliefs and cultures and respect that! Religious people are so afraid that if they arent in everyone's face 24/7 then their precious religion will disappear (I can only hope for that). Lets be fair...huh!
By the way, Our founding fathers had slaves....so they have done MUCH worse than holding a religious opinion to be sued for.
yes cyberweez...science should have a role in politics...because science is proven....religion is a myth or in the very least an unproven theory. Thus...cannot dictate how we create laws. Furthermore, Are you going to seriously argue that scientific evidence should be ignored in our society? That's a scary thought. Have you heard of that story about the parents who decided to "pray" for their daughter who had diabetes instead of getting her medical attention? she's dead now and they will thankfully be going to jail. (see link below) And, if you are one of those people who believe that because God is written in the Constitution in a couple of places that its intent was to secure a Christian Nation, then you both havent read the Constitution NOR know anything about our founding fathers.
Because...more than HALF of the girls taken in between 14-17 (there was over 100) were pregnant! Look...I want to be clear, I am not against polgamy, BUT...only if the woman (and men) being involved are at least old enough to make the choice and not be forced into polgamy. This is a seriously harmful situation that needed authorities to step in.
