Well, since Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion, and Sidharta Gautama was not a deity, he was a student of life that happen to write very inspirational teachings that people use to live life. He didn't write a code of ethics, he didn't assign punishments to people who did things different than him. His teachings are very interesting if you read them.
If, by religion, is meant "a teaching which takes a view of life that is more than superficial, a teaching which looks into life and not merely at it, a teaching which furnishes men with a guide to conduct that is in accord with this its in-look, a teaching which enables those who give it heed to face life with fortitude and death with serenity,"[6] or a system to get rid of the ills of life, then it is certainly a religion of religions.
Strop always makes me laugh (when i am supposed to :P).
@eyes. Just read are debate, you will get it, i don't want to explain.
@strongbow. It's not because they can't reproduce they are wrong. It's that, we were created to reproduce, so if they are going against are original meaning and purpose of are creators, that is bad.
AWeeMan147, seriously be quiet. Stop saying "good point Strongbow", hopping on her bandwagon but not contributing any thoughts of your own. Your name fits you i must say.
It's that, we were created to reproduce, so if they are going against are original meaning and purpose of are creators, that is bad.
Unfortunately most peoples argument is religion say gay people bad so gay people bad. What I find interesting about that argument is that the bible says that eating shellfish is an a abomination. Abomination is a pretty powerful word. But nobody seems to care as they eat their oysters. Sounds like our purpose involved not eating the so called "unclean" animals. The bible has talked about things that are okay such as keeping and beating slaves and the degradation of woman and I could go on. But why are these things such as the shellfish or the slavery verses ignored? While other verses are harped on and shouted to the masses?
Our modern cultures tell us these things are ridiculous. Woman should not be subservient to a man although it seems we are really meant to be since the bible talks about much and in length. Yet a woman minister would tell us that homosexuality is wrong. Why is the bible picked through and certain verses take as literal but some taken as allegory?
AWeeMan147, seriously be quiet. Stop saying "good point Strongbow", hopping on her bandwagon but not contributing any thoughts of your own. Your name fits you i must say.
You know what, Ricador? I have had enough of you. It's not enough that you come to this thread with idiotic reasons for hating a group of people that have never hurt you. If you read back on the last few pages you will see that I have been in the middle of the most heated debates. I have given a lot of my own ideas. I can jump on any bandwagon I want. Before you start calling names I would look in the mirror. If you want me to go back through the pages and pull out my beliefs that actually make sense in comparison, just let me know. You seem to be the only one with a problem, here. We were all fine until you came along.
But on topic, your argument saying our purpose is to reproduce is not true at all. I don't see a tag or a label saying what my purpose is. If every humans job was to reproduce, than your great and perfect "creator" should make every human fertile. Not every person is here just to reproduce. What about straight people that never have kids? They might as well be gay.
@eyes. Just read are debate, you will get it, i don't want to explain
I believe that "are" should be "our". Close, but no cigar.
OK WeeMan17. I was talking about our debate specifically (thanks for the spelling correction i do appreciate it. In our debate specifically you did not dish out any ideas you just congratulated Strongbow and criticized me. Now thank you for giving me and idea to work with. I to have been in some of the more heated ones, way back in earlier pages before YOU came along. So why don't we all just look in the mirror, to quote you, and slap ourselves. And also WeeMan, it is difficult to stand by yourself and argue against several different people, one of which is criticizing you half the time. It is hard to stand alone in that situation, in fact it's hard to stand alone PERIOD. You should try it some time.
Now, our purpose is to reproduce obviously because of the different body parts. (I don't want to get so graphic that i violate some of the site rules). Now i hope this gets through to you.
1+0 makes more logical sense than 1+1. (I really don't want to get inappropriate here), it is also the same with all animals. And also, if we don't reproduce, won't the race just die out. I am sure we weren't put here just to be wiped out. I don't care how we were created or put here, whether by God or something or somebody else, are bodies were designed to fit our purposes. And also, i don't hate gays. i just think being gay is wrong. If would go out of my way to help a gay as much as i would a straight person, i have gay friends, the know my opinions. Just because i think something is wrong does not mean i hate it or discriminate against it.
Homosexuality has absolutely nothing wrong with it (except for religious people yanking the homosexual people's chain), and it doesn't matter what other people think about a person's sexuality, they'll do as they wish. I'm saying this because, I LOVE LESBIANS, BYAAAAH!!!
eated ones, way back in earlier pages before YOU came along.[/quote]
Well I wasn't a member until recently. As soon as I signed up I had to come here and straighten all you guys out!
I am sure we weren't put here just to be wiped out.
It's called extinction, no one plans it. I believe there might be a list of things that have gone extinct.
And also WeeMan, it is difficult to stand by yourself and argue against several different people, one of which is criticizing you half the time. It is hard to stand alone in that situation, in fact it's hard to stand alone PERIOD. You should try it some time.
I have, it's called the Armor Games forums.
it is also the same with all animals
Then why have giraffes been known to be habitual homosexuals? Look, plenty of animals have been known to have homosexual sex. It's enjoyable! In the anus of most creatures there age nerves. When you excite the nerves a pleasant feeling is created. It doesn't matter if it's a man and a man, or a man and a woman. Stimulation is stimulation.
I have quit AG, so when i don't respond again, it's not because you won. Maybe if i return someday, we can continue this.
Until then, good bye.
@WeeMan147, good job on winning.
It's what I do best! But thank you for the support, Widdler, it means a lot to me.
Woah, ignore this page for two days and it became a flame boat! If that even makes any sense...but fortunately it seems to have...cooled down?
Now, our purpose is to reproduce obviously because of the different body parts.
Not that I'm aiming to get a response here, but I'd say that this is the core of the problem: exactly where does somebody get off on the train of correlating attribute to function? Despite everything intuitive, it still remains undeniable that one is making a normative judgment here- purpose implies "should" and "ought to" when there is (imo) no real link between function and whatever moral obligations we might have.
However these attributes do give rise to function, and hence for the most part people may not have problem with the basic functions that allow for reproduction. However some people may prefer not to, and others still cannot. We don't even have to talk about this with a focus on sexuality/sexual orientation, as you can see. That's a byproduct of our social structure.
If anything, since we're largely convinced that homosexual behaviors relate to predispositions, that attributes give rise to function then actually points towards a moral obligation to be tolerant to homosexuals, should one be so inclined, since we also happen to believe that homophobia ought to be discouraged and is 'less natural' than homosexuality itself. But as you can see, going down this path can lead to a whole raft of contradictory, inconsistent assertions as ultimately we are varied in our function.
ARRRRGGGGHHHHH I can't help it, i just want to respond one last time.
Yes, extinction will happen. But it was not supposed to be that we were pt here then immediately wiped out. Since we have made it pretty far i would say that we are doing the right thing.
When i say the same for all animals, i know there are animal homosexuals, what i was saying is that the animals have the same body parts we have for the same purposes. I am perfectly aware of animal homosexuals, and apparently giraffes to.
But you don't stand alone, you have back up from lots of people, and very smart people to. I fought this battle by myself, sure i got whupped but the point is, i tried. ANd since this is my last post, you win automatically.
