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!
