... on Homosexualty, Definition of Marriage, Bronze Age, Progress and Middle Ages

Religion Reverses Everything
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquOuWx6NlA

Here is a thread which starts with one of my own comments on video - these might also be published together, in order.

Here is btw the man - M McQuarrie - whom I considered as soothing a death fear by trusting on modernity, see for yourself if he does so or if I am projecting as revya thought.

30:59 - "restricting the liberties of others, especially the rights of homosexuals"

If our God exists, the homosexuals may certainly have rights as persons, but not as specifically homosexuals. If He didn't - where would any rights be coming from anyway?

So much for RIGHTS, which is a metaphysical question. Now, LIBERTIES and RESTRICTIONS, we are getting more empirical.

It seems the more liberties homosexuals get, the less liberties others have, in certain situations. Taking orders for baking wedding cakes you approve of, if you are a baker ... keeping the child you gave birth to if two fags hired you as surrogate mother ... preaching the Gospel truth about the question if you are a pastor in Sweden.

If homosexuals are not banned from public displays of "affection" someone grossed out by such has little other things to do - legally - than walking where he won't see the horror.

M McQuarrie

So you want to be allowed to treat certain humans as less than human, by removing the civil liberties they have, based solely on sexual orientation (something that is accident of nature) because you think it's gross?

I think your bigotry is gross. Does that give me the right to treat you as less than human?

If god does exist than he is responsible for homosexuality. So clearly god doesn't mind gay people, else he would not have made them gay or given them the capacity or even ability to be gay.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have not suggested removing anyone's civil liberty to any act allowed for others because that someone has an orientation.

Sodomy should of course be prohibited whether the culprits are:

• homosexual
• bisexual
• hetero but in for a kinky moment
• hetero and being kinky to someone they tried to dominate by kinkiness.

Marriage - note that definitions are MUCH closer to the ones of Quiverfull than the ones of Gay Movement - is a civil liberty which should very definitely be open even to homosexuals insofar as they are willing to compromise with or reassess their "orientation".

I do think culprits can be treated as less than innocent humans. Thieves are locked up, I cannot see why sodomites should not be locked up. Note : sodomites, those having committed sexual acts with someone of same sex and therefore infertile. Not homosexuals just for being homosexuals, no.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So gay people are allowed to be gay, they just aren't allowed to have sex with other, consenting gay people?

So the next time you have sex with someone, can we lock you up?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not if it is with someone of opposite sex - whether straight or lesbian. In a way which makes pregnancy possible.

It is sin against nature, not sex in a natural way, nor a sexual orientation per se, which merits locking up.

Besides, I never said a gay man could not have sex with a lesbian woman. You are misconstruing what I am saying.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are aware that homosexuality exists in nature. Even among other mammalian species, homosexuality is relatively common.

You are saying a gay man may not have sex with another gay man, correct?

And your reasoning is based on a flawed moral principle and a lack of understanding of what exists in nature.

By that same token then, why shouldn't we be allowed to control your sexual habits?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) Sodomy is a sin against nature. Does not mean "doesn't exist among animals in the wild", does mean "sins against the reproductive system".

2) Society is already controlling - or still controlling - some of the sexual acts it considers abusive. Like child porn or rape. Or is at least pretending to control them.

3) There is a reason why child porn and rape are abuses, namely lack of consent and encouragement to lust going into excessive passions.

There is a reason why sodomy is an abuse to be punished, namely encouragement to lust going into excessive passions and lack of intent of fertility.

There is no such corresponding reasons against the kind of sex life I would want, i e a Christian marriage. Therefore you cannot validly make such a comparison.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl First off, I am not talking sodomy.

Child abuse and rape however, ARE NOT SEX. They are crimes. They have little, if anything to do with natural urges or passions. They are acts of violence that are abhorrent to moral people.

Coincidentally, your bible condones both. [I am answering that in detail on other thread]

By saying two gay mean cannot have sex simply because you don't like it is bigotry.

If two grown and consenting mean want to have sex with each other, and you wish to stop them, why shouldn't I or anyone else be allowed to stop you from having sex with someone of your choosing?

Answer the question, it still stands.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Rape is an act using the sexual organs. If you will call it "not sex" because it uses them in the wrong way, then so can I do with sodomy or any other sexual act (which moral theologians would class as sodomy) between persons of the same sex. The question is answered.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So is flashing. Or that one Broadway act, Puppetry of the Penis.

Rape is an act of violence. It is meant to harm. It isn't sex. And I'll remind you again, I am not talking about sodomy. So ducking and dodging behind terms isn't going to help you here.

You want to prevent two consenting people from having sex. Their genders are not the issue here.

If it isn't fair for me to discriminate against you for doing the same thing, why is it fair for you to discriminate against homosexuals?

You're not only a hypocrite, you're also a bigot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Their genders IS very much the issue, since without two opposite genders there is no such thing as offspring.

And yes, I think flashing of the broadway act puppetry of the penis should be legal offenses as well.

Sexual organs were created for a purpose. That purpose is not filled by the acts that moral theologians call sodomy. If you call something else or only part of it sodomy, that doesn't mean that two adults of same sex having acts together that excite their sexual organs is radically different from sodomy or radicaly similar to the act by which children are made.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So if you have sex with someone but you don't get her pregnant, does that me we get to lock you up in prison?

If a woman can't have children, or a man get produce sperm do we get to ban them from having sex?

If rape produces a child does that make the rape okay?

Should we arrest anyone who masturbates?

You really don't have a leg to stand on here. You think it is okay to mandate a part of life that is as natural as breathing. Not only is what you are positing horribly immoral. It's also stupid as fuck.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Failing to get children is not same as chosing deliberate combinations where they are out of the question.

If rape produces a child, the child is at least ok. The rape is not, but it can be forgiven.

Masturbation among celibates is sometimes a weakness. Some punishment is attached to it, like you try to go to a monastery, you don't ditch that habit, you are kicked out of the monastery.

But a weakness is sth other than a deliberate choice. Someone who really goes into the business of making others masturbate, like a porn producer, should be arrested. Someone who goes out of his way to exploit weak moments in younger men should be arrested.

But a man who does that should be trying to get a wife. And not using any birth control.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So it comes down to choice. You want to mandate something that is not a choice for people.

But you don't want others to mandate the choices you make.

How are you not a hypocrite? How are not immoral in what you posit? You are literally trying to make sex illegal.

[Omitting an insult and a blasphemy, given in that order, let us hope he intended more to insult me than to blaspheme God!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not trying to make sex illegal. I am trying to make non-sex or the worst kinds of it once more illegal as they were in better times.

Bill Clinton said one true word. When charged with perjury for saying under oath he had not had sex with Monica Lewinski, he said "that is not sex". So, what I would want forbid is not sex.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl That's exactly what you are trying to do. You are trying to impose what you think is or is not sex and mandating everyone just along with it. But you are unwilling to have anyone else do it to you.

Who are you to decide what is or is not sex, especially when you don't seem to have a clear grasp on the concept yourself?

How is that not hypocritical? How is not immoral? And how is it any business of yours if it does not harm or involve you in anyway?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Imposing what is sex and what is not is not forbidding sex.

I am imposing nothing on my own authority but declaring my loyalty to the Church and to the civilisation it made. If anyone is to hear a "who are you to x?" it is your revolutionary side. If anyone is hypocritical it is your side. Not mine.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes it is.

Setting aside that you have no right to make that call, you set the precedent for someone else to come along and enforce what they think should or shouldn't be sex.

It's especially hypocritical when the side who is trying to enforce said mandate is a collection of ungoverned, superstitious, hysterical virgins.

Namely the church.

And the Catholic Church has already betrayed this trust.

If you and yours get to mandate what is or isn't sex because of arbitrary bronze age traditions and the book of myths that inspired them, why cannot I do the same to you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If someone is hysterical, it is you.

You have no tradition reaching from the bronze age. If you outlaw straight sex, you doom humanity to extinction.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Well it's a good thing I am not trying to do that then. Maybe now you get the point?

We've abandoned almost every other bronze age tradition for good reason. They don't work.

So who are you to demand we keep and enforce one of the most immoral traditions of that period?

And if you get to mandate that, what's stopping me from getting to mandate how should get your rocks off?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We have abandoned almost every other bronze age tradition? No.

We have agriculture. We have clothes. We live in houses. We use language. We use writing. We bake. We cook. We weave textiles. We make cities. We have drains in cities and irrigation in fields. I have seen irrigation tubes in Spain.

We are staying with most bronze age traditions because they do work.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Like what? Antiquated technology and medical practises? Tribalism? Theocracy?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Everything you mentioned. All useful technology is antiquated, nearly (excepting medicine which has had some boosts very recently) and when we do not have the right kind of tribalism and theocracy, we have the wrong kinds of them.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl But we make technological advances and move forward. YOU ARE WANTING TO TAKE US BACKWARDS.

"and when we do not have the right kind of tribalism and theocracy, we have the wrong kinds of them."

Congratulations, you've identified a tautology!

[I missed to answer this, no there is another logical possibility which I excluded from being factual, namely having none of it at all.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The technological advances are for life up keeping purposes, excepting medicine, marginal to what they were in the bronze age and what we keep of them.

That 100 years has seen technological advances is no guarantee the changes in morality same time are real advances making things better.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You got it backwards. Advances in medicine and technology have improved our quality of life by leaps and bounds.

The fact that acts of violence and barbarism are LOWER now than there were in the bronze age is clearer indication that abandoning those bronze age traditions and immoral views benefits humanity.

In the following

I twice divide up the comment sequences. The comments as written are marked as A - I, three of them are together, six divided, including the last four.

Hans-Georg Lundahl A 1 - 4

(1) Advances in medicine have improved life expectancy of ill people. The one major reason violence and barbarism is lower than certain corners of the bronze age - if that is still true - is Christianity. (2) 13th C. was very certainly less violent than 20th. And more Christian. Apart from medicine improving life of cancer patients by prolonging it and similar, (3) how has technology IMPROVED our quality of life?

(4) Internet has improved interactivity above what it has been since printing press - but printing press made interactivity less, so internet is only restoring, not over all improving.

[Note the non-numbered parts also, which he did not answer.]

1

M McQuarrie B

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "Advances in medicine have improved life expectancy of ill people."

No. Medical advances have improved life expectancy for everyone not just sick people.

People weren't living to their 80s in the bronze age.

Hans-Georg Lundahl C

Oh?

But they were living to the seventies in the Middle Ages. Nel Mezzo del Cammin di nostra vita, you know.

2

M McQuarrie B

"13th C. was very certainly less violent than 20th"

Do you just ignore history on a regular basis? Violence has gone DOWN universally in ever developed nation around the world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl C

Whereever you learned your history was not a university faculty of history.

In a real historical work, about the Thirty Years War, given me in my teens as I was and am still a history buff, there were stats for percentages who died in wars in Europe. The two peaks since 13th C. were Thirty Years War and XXth C. Not XIIIth. Not XVIIIth.

3

M McQuarrie B

"how has technology IMPROVED our quality of life?"

Try living a year without electricity and plumbing and get back to me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl C

Plumbing has been invented well before modern times. Electricity I have lived two years nearly without in ma's and mine appartment in Vienna. Cooking on fire and lighting oneself with burning materials rather than with glowing light bulbs is not a bad quality of life.

4

M McQuarrie B

"Internet has improved interactivity above what it has been since printing press"

The internet has allowed information to be passed halfway around the world in a matter of minuets (depending on connection of course). While I do not discredit the advances of the printing press, the winner is obvious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl C

That is both for better and for worse.

Interactivity was better before the printing press and has improved again after internet was invented.

However, public schools have also deteriorated interactivity in favour of one way communication. And that has not been corrected adequately.

M McQuarrie D (1-4 as above)

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Okay. Now you are onto another subject entirely, one I couldn't care less about at this point.

Are you done now?

Hans-Georg Lundahl E (new division 1 - 4 for the following)

No, I am not.

(1)I say there is objective moral reason to condemn deliberately infertile sex. You call that "bronze age". (2) I pointed out that most useful things of bronze age are being perpetuated, (3) why not marriage too. (4) You pretended life has VASTLY improved since bronze age. I answer that quite simply it hasn't.

So if you give up the line "we must abandon bronze age superstition because we do things so much better now" what is your next line of attack? On humanity, as on marriage, by the way!

M McQuarrie F 1

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "I say there is objective moral reason to condemn deliberately infertile sex."

What is it exactly?

And why do you get to make that call?

Hans-Georg Lundahl G 1

1) What is the exact moral reason against deliberately infertile sex?

The exact same reason as why is it wrong to eat and puke so you can eat again. Your stomach was created to nourish you, and that is where your taste bud pleasures fit in. Your balls and a woman's ovaries and uterus are for making babies. And that is where any pleasure in ... well you know what areas we talk about ... fit in.

Why personally I myself get to "make that call"? Because I am a normal person believing the normal morality, because I am a Catholic believing the Catholic morality.

In other words : because it is NOT I who am getting to "make that call".

You have not explained anything like why you get to make all the calls you are making.

M McQuarrie H 1

+Hans-Georg Lundahl 1) You committed an equivocation fallacy. First off you assume god created us (you haven't shown this to be true) second, the idea of food binge and purge can be shown to be unhealthy.

That's not the case with sex (again not talking sodomy so take your Catholic hang ups and pound sand).

You still don't get to make that call either. If god exist then it is god who is responsible for homosexuality in the first place. Either god wants gay people to be gay or god doesn't care that they are.

Or he doesn't exist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl I 1

Food binge and purge is unhealthy for the individual. Sex binge with birth control (including but not limited to sodomy) is unhealthy for the population. Have you noted inverted pyramid of ages in certain states of Europe where it is more done than in US?

God has very certainly not created anyone to prefer deliberately infertile sex over the Christian marriage.

M McQuarrie F 2

"I pointed out that most useful things of bronze age are being perpetuated,"

Like?

Hans-Georg Lundahl G 2

2) Shall I copy paste my own list from above?

Will you read it this time?

We have agriculture. We have clothes. We live in houses. We use language. We use writing. We bake. We cook. We weave textiles. We make cities. We have drains in cities and irrigation in fields. I have seen irrigation tubes in Spain. To be precise : irrigation tubes, open on the top, made of concrete, in fields in the Meseta.

M McQuarrie H (2)

2) All of which has been vastly IMPROVED since the bronze age. So why do want to live in a time without those improvements?

And why do you want to live in a time and under a tradition where rape was permissible and slavery lauded? Where you had no electricity or medicine? Where you could reasonably expect to live to 30 tops?

Hans-Georg Lundahl I (2)

2) "All of which has been vastly IMPROVED since the bronze age."

You say vastly. I say marginally. [Languages have arguable even deteriorated since iron age.]

"So why do want to live in a time without those improvements?"

I did not say I wanted to.

"And why do you want to live in a time and under a tradition where rape was permissible"

Rape was NOT permissible, you have failed to show that.

"and slavery lauded?"

Slavery was not exactly lauded in the Hebrew tradition of the Old Testament, still less in the New Testament. It was just not condemned.

"Where you had no electricity"

No electricity is fine with me - if all the world goes that way. Otherwise I would like to be near a public library where there is internet.

I am however saying electricity is a marginal improvement.

"or medicine?"

There was medicine in the bronze age and there was medicine between bronze age and modern times. For instance in the Middle Ages.

"Where you could reasonably expect to live to 30 tops?"

That is not a fact. You have provided no source stating that as a fact, and your teacher said so or you read it in an intro to an article about developments in science specifically medicine is just NOT good enough for my sense of historic accuracy.

M McQuarrie F 3

["I pointed out that most useful things of bronze age are being perpetuated,"]"why not marriage too."

Because of passages like 1 Corinthians 7:3-5.

Hans-Georg Lundahl G (3)

3) You make the ideal of marriage a reason to not perpetuate marriage?

Is your ideal celibacy? Or is it harlotry.

M McQuarrie H (3)

3) Personally I hate marriage as a construct. I would rather see it fixed or altered from its current state. I don't think you should arbitrarily abstain from sex simply because you aren't married. If you as an adult want to have sex with somebody and they want to have sex with you, why should I or you or anyone have the right to tell you no?

Hans-Georg Lundahl I (3)

3) As you just put it, you prefer harlotry over marriage.

That was how slavery dehumanised slaves in the pre-Christian Roman world.

One way in which Christianity prepared the abolition of slavery (not saying it abolished slavery immediately) was by showing that slaves too are capable of conjugal fidelity and of virginity.

M McQuarrie F 4

"You pretended life has VASTLY improved since bronze age."

I fail to see how it hasn't since violent crime has universally decreased, knowledge and education has increased, we have things like electricity, plumbing, medicine that works and sanitation, and as a result average life expectancy has risen by at least 50 years FOR EVERYBODY.

The quality of life hasn't just marginally improved. It's go forward by leaps and bounds. WE WENT INTO SPACE FOR BALL'S SAKE.

And you want to go back to the bronze age?

WE DO THING MUCH BETTER NOW. WE DO DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING BETTER NOW.

Hans-Georg Lundahl G (4)

4) Violent crime has universally decreased?

Not.

Knowledge has increased? In some fields, but in others the contrary has happened.

Education has increased? With compulsory education and compulsory miseducation like common core, you have got it. But if you mean effective education to a civilised lifestyle and a civilised body of knowledge shared with others, no, not over the last century. But when it really did increase, like during the Middle Ages, that was when people were believing what you call "bronze age traditions".

Electricity is not just a boon.

Plumbing and especially sanitation has existed before modern times, including in the bronze age. Get a grip about history or shut up about it.

Medicine does not always work now, did not always fail in the bronze age. Average persons have about the same health as then , or worse due to cancers due to stress and pollution.

Average life expectancy has risen by at least fifty years for everybody?

Again, get a grip. Average life expectancy, once infantile mortality is off (or even with infantile mortality if you count abortions) is about the same as now.

"The quality of life hasn't just marginally improved. It's go forward by leaps and bounds. WE WENT INTO SPACE FOR BALL'S SAKE."

Going into space is not improving the life of everyone. It hasn't happened to very many. But that a few men have gone into space, lucky them, but there were lucky people in in the bronze age too.

"WE DO THING MUCH BETTER NOW. WE DO DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING BETTER NOW."

Except reasoning, and knowledge of history, as you have just shown.

M McQuarrie H (4)

4) You are demonstrably wrong on everything you have outlined here.

I am done with you. You think it should be okay for a husband to rape his wife. You want to go back in time to get your slaves back. You are morally inept.

Hans-Georg Lundahl I (4)

4) I am demonstrably wrong? Demonstrate it if you have sources!

I think it should be okay for a husband to rape his wife? Not what I said.

I want to go back in time? Not what I said.

I want my slaves back? Not what I said.

I am morally inept? No, you are, because you are a misquoter.