Savage fired by MSNBC

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Axxon
No, Fritz, it's not. Remember, I am in the "genetic" not "choice" category so it would be the same as saying it's either ok or not ok to be bald or black or short. It's a meaningless fact, no need to have an opinion if it's right or wrong and having said opinion is absurd. The fact offers no interpretation. It is merely a fact.

So if something is genetic you just accept it without moral evaluation? Is this something you would support as a life philosophy?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
So if something is genetic you just accept it without moral evaluation? Is this something you would support as a life philosophy?

Of course. Now, I think if the genetic quirk can harm others then reasonable precautions can and should be taken to protect people but homesexuality doesn't fall into that category. There are laws to protect against unwanted sexual advances and these are perfectly fine but again, to pass judgement on a characteristic of someone who has no control over said characteristic simply because the characteristic exists and doesn't affect you makes no sense to me.

I am certainly not flawless in this thinking but whenever I find myself passing said judgements I do stop myself.

[Leonidas]

Sodomy n 1: sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2: non-coital and esp. anal or oral sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex

OK, everyone read number 2 then decide amongst yourselves who here isn't a sodomite. OK, there might be more than a couple shut-ins out there who qualify, but for the rest of us...

BTW, I see nothing in the definition about sausage or slimjims.

*definition taken straight from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Home and Office Edition 1998

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Leonidas
Sodomy n 1: sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2: non-coital and esp. anal or oral sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex

OK, everyone read number 2 then decide amongst yourselves who here isn't a sodomite. OK, there might be more than a couple shut-ins out there who qualify, but for the rest of us...

BTW, I see nothing in the definition about sausage or slimjims.

*definition taken straight from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Home and Office Edition 1998

But one could commit sodomy with a sausage or a slimjim.

[sterlingice]

I guess I'll throw something "substantive" out there

I don't give a flying fuck (hm... I think that was subconciously intended) who or what you do in the privacy of your own home. That said, I don't want to hear about it- straight, gay, goat, blow up doll, or otherwise. The people that offend me are the ones who constantly insist on talking about it and making an issue of it: I don't want some jackass at work bragging about some girl he fucked last night and I don't need anyone telling me "it's ok that I fuck men". Like I said, I don't give a rat's ass who you fuck- I just don't want to hear about it.

I have some inherent biases toward the homosexual community because a disproportionate percentage seem to insist I accept their sexuality. I don't hate the fact that they're homosexual, I hate the fact that they insist I acknowledge it constantly. It seems as if about 99% of the time there's a story like the Supreme Court decision, the news asks some guy and his title is "Joe Smith, homosexual". Every time someone gets busted for sexual assault and they're asking about it, he doesn't have the title "Joe Smith, heterosexual". This is the kind of discrepancy I'm talking about.

SI

[Axxon]

Originally posted by sterlingice
I guess I'll throw something "substantive" out there

I don't give a flying fuck (hm... I think that was subconciously intended) who or what you do in the privacy of your own home. That said, I don't want to hear about it- straight, gay, goat, blow up doll, or otherwise. The people that offend me are the ones who constantly insist on talking about it and making an issue of it: I don't want some jackass at work bragging about some girl he fucked last night and I don't need anyone telling me "it's ok that I fuck men". Like I said, I don't give a rat's ass who you fuck- I just don't want to hear about it.

I have some inherent biases toward the homosexual community because a disproportionate percentage seem to insist I accept their sexuality. I don't hate the fact that they're homosexual, I hate the fact that they insist I acknowledge it constantly.

SI

I agree with the first part but I'd venture to say that the second part is merely the homosexuals insisting that they have the same rights to annoy you with their sexual prowess as the annoying hetero pests. I don't think the word disproportionate is true at all but simply since it's not the norm it sticks in your mind more.

Kinda like the urban legend about er's on full moons. Just isn't fact.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Axxon
But one could commit sodomy with a sausage or a slimjim.

And this brings us full circle to the Macho Man comments

SI

[sabotai]

Man, this has been a blast.

Well, you all probably do know that I think it's perfectly fine to be gay. And I love women who help me be a sodomite (of the second definition variety).

Damn, liberals and conservatives are funny folk, aren't they?

[Tekneek]

What is "morally reprehensible" about homosexuality? Define it in clear terms, without quoting anything from any book.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Tekneek
What is "morally reprehensible" about homosexuality? Define it in clear terms, without quoting anything from any book.

You're joking, right?

Explain how homosexuality is morally reprehensible, but don't use your basis for morality in your answer.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You're joking, right?

Explain how homosexuality is morally reprehensible, but don't use your basis for morality in your answer.

Why not, forming moral judgements without being told what to think isn't that hard. Jesus did it. So did Buddha and I'm sure many others. Hell, even Number 5 told himself that killing was wrong and he was programmed for the very opposite. Thinking for one's self is a sadly underutilized gift that we humans were granted by our creator. I imagine he weeps.

[CamEdwards]

Actually, Jesus relied on what his Father told him. I've never studied Buddhism, so I don't feel qualified to state where his moral compass came from.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Actually, Jesus relied on what his Father told him. I've never studied Buddhism, so I don't feel qualified to state where his moral compass came from.

Well, from internal thought and meditation he heard his fathers words. Surely he didn't just read them out of a book.

Besides, you still didn't explain number 5.

[Ben E Lou]

Axx:

Without some higher authority, then what in the world does it matter what my morality or your morality is. If there is NOT a standard greater than you and me, then I can say, "Well, according to MY morality, killing isn't wrong." If I make that decision about morality, then how can you claim that you're right and I'm wrong. (You might say, "the government is a higher authority." The government doesn't determine morality though. It determines laws.)

Discussing "morality" without agreeing on a higher standard is an utter waste of time. I WILL say this though. I could stand atop the Sears Tower, and say all day, "I don't believe in the Law of Gravity" and fully believe that it doesn't exist. It doesn't matter what I say. It doesn't matter what I believe. If I walk off the edge, I WILL fall. In the same way, it doesn't matter whether you or I believe it is immoral. It is, and neither of us can change that.

[Fritz]

SkyDog,

Are you saying that morality is not relative?

[Axxon]

I don't believe that you can claim right and wrong in regards to morality. You certainly can claim right and wrong in regards to public conduct and interaction though and that is the governments job.

Even if, and I really don't know how I feel about this and I've actively been contemplating the issue for over 30 years, there is a definitive final right or wrong morally with no deviation allowed, I don't feel anyone on this planet is qualified to be the one to definitively state what that may be though anyone may well have it down exactly they don't have the authority necessary to make the claim.

That's pretty much why I tell people to look inside themselves and learn what they feel is right and wrong and as long as they can practice that and not harm others then they are most likely on the right path. You can call it meditation, introspection, prayer whatever, it works and it is a better communion with your higher power than what the so called "pillar of the community" ( who tends to have issues of his own as do all people ) tells you and may well not practice.

As for the statement "it is, and neither of us can change that" isn't that rendering a judgement on your fellow man and aren't you as a christian ( assuming you believe the word of christ ) specifically not supposed to do that? Didn't he harp on this several times and several places?

I'm working on my own log, not someone elses mote.

[Ben E Lou]

Fritz: Yes.

Axx: That isn't rendering judgment as all. That is simply stating the truth. Also, your comments about looking inside oneself and determining what is right and wrong confirm what I was saying--that debating morality is useless without acknowledging a higher standard. If that is what you choose to do, of course that is your prerogative.

[Axxon]

Ok, I think I may have misread your statement Skydog. Tell me if I did. When I read "it is, and neither of us can change that" I was assuming you were passing judgement on homosexuality but on reading what you wrote just now and rereading the first post I see that you may be sating if there is a definitive moral law then debating whether something is or isn't moral doesn't matter because if it is then neither of us can change it.

If that's what you meant then I of course agree and withdraw my statement but it is still a wise statement to ponder whenever anyone tries to tell anybody else they are right or wrong for what they do.

It's one of Jesus' most profound concepts and as I said, he makes it many times. He even cautions against judging yourself lest you then open yourself to God's judgement which will be stricter and much worse on you.

That's why I advocate introspection and trying to live a life that feels morally correct to you ( and you certainly can get assistance from outside sources, don't get me wrong, I certainly get much inspiration obviously from Christs words ) and stop judging your morality but merely practicing it.

[Axxon]

Oh, and I disagree about discussing morality. It certainly helps to be exposed to others thoughts as they can add inspiration and fuel to ones inner search for a moral compass. It can only help if this is indeed what both parties are doing. I think that trying to convince others of the absolute truth and finality of your moral code though shouldn't be done.

[Ben E Lou]

Nah. I was talking about homosexual behavior.

Jesus' statements about not judging are often mis-applied, as in this case.

[Axxon]

Sorry man, I'd never have the audacity to tell the master what his words meant. Dude says not to judge, not even yourself. I didn't know that left so much wriggle room for interpretation. You'd think that if you were the all being, all mighty, all knowing creator of everything you could make a point and make it pretty darned crystal clear but I guess not.

[JPhillips]

SkyDog: Sorry to get involved here, but I can't let this go. Do you also forgive all debts every seven years as the Bible demands? Do you send your wife away during her period? Do you follow all of the dietary laws?

My point being that eveyone interprets the Bible.(At least I don't know of anyone tat follows everything) For me I try to rely on the words and actions of Jesus. I'm not much concerned with the rest of the Bible. Jesus tells me to love everyone, and although I often fall far from this, that is what I try to do. Jesus never tells me to condemn homosexuals, and I don't.

I don't know whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, and I doubt I will know before its too late to do anything here on Earth. My feeling is that Jesus would have loved homosexuals in the same way he loved prostitutes and tax collectors. That's what I try to do. Love can't ever be immoral.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Do you send your wife away during her period?

Are you insane man, he's merely God but she is SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED.

Seriously, you just described my thoughts pretty well. You're my kind of people JPhillips and that is meant as a compliment.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You're joking, right?

Explain how homosexuality is morally reprehensible, but don't use your basis for morality in your answer.

Tis not a joke. I can explain my point of view on anything without consulting a book. I expect every other human being to be just as capable.

[JPhillips]

Thanks. I have a lot of gay friends and some are more moral than others, but no different than my straight friends. For me it just doesn't matter who someone is attracted to. I know it bothers others, and they have that right. Hopefully none of us waste too much time on a issue that just isn't that important.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by SkyDog
[BDiscussing "morality" without agreeing on a higher standard is an utter waste of time.[/b]

Why must there be a 'higher standard' agreed upon? Who says the standard of the 'Bible' is higher than my own? You?

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by Fritz
SkyDog,

Are you saying that morality is not relative?

Even the 'morality' presented by the Bible is relative. Killing is ok, but killing is not ok. The Bible itself, as well as Christianity throughout history, has determined that the stance on killing is not a moral absolute. If you are willing to admit this stance is not a moral absolute, then why are humans selectively determining which ones will be moral absolutes, when nothing can be worse than killing another human being? If you are willing to rationalize a change in this one, then you must be willing to do the same for all others.

[CamEdwards]

The problem with what you're asking Tekneek, is that even if someone is stupid enough to tell you why homosexuality is "morally reprehensible" without using a book, you'll then use your own definition of morality to try and refute the other person's definition. It's a no win situation.

[Tekneek]

No, I am not looking to refute that opinion, I am looking for someone to make a case for it being 'morally reprehensible' without invoking a single book. It's not that hard, and it is not as devious as you try to make it sound.

[Ben E Lou]

Tekneek, my authority for what is morally correct and what is morally incorrect comes from a book. Otherwise, my opinion has no more authority than yours, and vice versa.

As I said earlier, without an agreed-upon authority source, arguing morality is a waste of time.

[Axxon]

OK, one of the main things we hear about nonjudgement is the old saw "love the sinner, hate the sin." Fine, but this doesn't work really.
How can one even brand someone a sinner without first passing judgement that said person is one?

Also, the whole "sinners are going to hell" thing really must piss God off. After all, isn't that strictly and wholely his choice. I see this as another cautionary reason not to judge others.

Let's look at Judas, who commited a couple of heinous crimes ( betraying Jesus which I actually am not sure broke any real biblical rules, after all Peter did it three times in a night, and suicide, which is definately a no no ) but...the whole crucifiction and dying for our sins thing couldn't have happened had he not done it. So, since Judas WAS doing God's will how can any person living dare judge how God is going to treat him?

It's not our place to. It's our place to "remove the log from our eye than bother with the mote in our brothers." ( paraphrased ). I don't see how I'm misapplying the rule.

I'll even say that his quote ( again paraphrasing ) give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and onto God that which is God's can illustrate the point, don't overstep your boundaries. I know it wasn't said in that context so don't nitpick but it can be used to mean the same thing and as he did say not to judge( God's job ) it's not a stretch. Our job is to be the best we can be and worry not about anybody else's sins but work on our own. Let God decide who's the sinner and who isn't.

This all assumes a judeochristian belief system of course.

[KWhit]

I guess those that think being gay is "morally reprehensible" never masturbate. Because I think it says something about that in the book, too.

Right?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Axxon
OK, one of the main things we hear about nonjudgement is the old saw "love the sinner, hate the sin." Fine, but this doesn't work really.
How can one even brand someone a sinner without first passing judgement that said person is one?

Ummmm...considering that many of the high school kids I know drink, use drugs, and engage in premarital sex--all on a regular basis---and I love them like they're my very own children, I can testify that it isn't that difficult to love the sinner.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by KWhit
I guess those that think being gay is "morally reprehensible" never masturbate. Because I think it says something about that in the book, too.

Right?

Ummmm....I say, do and think things that are morally reprehensible all the time. I'd be the first to admit that.

[KWhit]

Ok. So back to the (sort of) topic at hand.

Should it be okay to degrade homosexuals because of their actions that you deem as immoral (but of course they deem them moral)?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by KWhit
Ok. So back to the (sort of) topic at hand.

Should it be okay to degrade homosexuals because of their actions that you deem as immoral (but of course they deem them moral)?

The general answer to that question is "no," but I'm curious how you'd define "okay" (ie immoral, illegal or what) and what actions you'd consider to "degrade" those who engage in homosexual behavior.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--

If you're specifically speaking of Savage's statement when you refer to "degrade," I'd say that it was wrong to say what he said.

[KWhit]

By "okay" I meant immoral. Legally, people can do whatever they want.

And in this particular instance I was referring to Savage's comments. But I'll take it a step further, to show what I meant when I stated earlier that I see a good bit of homophobia on this site.

SD, I have seen you use the terms "gay" and "faggotty" to describe things that you don't like or don't agree with. Basically, you're using those words to convey a negative opinion of something, right?

You're certainly not the only one here who does this - you just happen to be the one I'm posting with right now.

It's my opinion that this is degrading behavior toward homosexuals. What are you thoughts about it?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ummmm...considering that many of the high school kids I know drink, use drugs, and engage in premarital sex--all on a regular basis---and I love them like they're my very own children, I can testify that it isn't that difficult to love the sinner.

Missed my point Dog, you have to judge somebody to label them. You labeled them a sinner, not hard to do admittedly and you may not see the subtle distinction; I admit my talent for written words makes it hard for me to be eloquent enough. Still, to label someone anything requires a judgement, even in the most obvious cases.

[Axxon]

Let me use an example to hopefully say what I mean though it may well make things worse.

Let's say tomorrow you wake up and walk outside and a bush in your yard starts burning. From the bush comes the word of God.

"Ben" it says as presumably he won't call you SkyDog, "Ben I know you love and worship me and I need you to do something for me. I need you to sodomize Happy29."

Ok, now, sodomy is a sin but this is God talking to you. You may say he wouldn't tell you to do such a thing but who would have thought he'd tell Abraham to kill his son? Besides, who is anyone to dare question what God may or may not tell anyone to do...unless he's made in our image.

So, God tells you to do this and even though you don't want to, you do it. Are you a sinner in the eyes of God?? Can you be a sinner by doing the will of God? Can anybody look at you and judge you to be a sinner? Would Blackie be pissed he wasn't chosen instead as he's the King of the Sodomites??

Discuss.

[Easy Mac]

Let's ask Al Quaeda, they were commiting murder in the name of God (so they felt). Does that still make their murder moral?

[Ben E Lou]

God will not contradict Himself. He spared Isaac. He would spare me in such a situation as well.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Let's ask Al Quaeda, they were commiting murder in the name of God (so they felt). Does that still make their murder moral?

Can't say. I can't judge their relationship with their God. I know it sucks and can't be tolerated by man's laws and that's good enough for me. I have said repeatedly that the government can and should act to preserve it's best interests. Morality needn't enter the picture.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
God will not contradict Himself. He spared Isaac. He would spare me in such a situation as well.

No offense but that's just dodging the question. God ordered many people killed in the bible but said thou shall not kill is one of the ten most important rules.

If that's not contradictory then nothing is. That is, if man has to judge, there is no denying it is. He gets to decide though, not us, period. Another proof of why christians should leave the judging to God but anyway, lets say he told you to murder Happy29, which he has done, one example aside, and he's meant it, and they've done it, would you be a sinner???

[edit] which he has done in the bible with other people. I don't want you to get the suggestion that I"m saying God has asked you to murder Happy29.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Axxon
thou shall not kill is one of the ten most important rules.

Bah, that was just for the Jews.

[John Galt]

I am no biblical scholar and have no current affiliation with an organized religion. However, many gays do and do not believe the Bible condemns homosexuality and the passages that are used to attack gays are primarily due to poor translations (and sometimes poor interpretation). Here is one website that has collected the arguments for the relevant passages in the Bible used in discussing gays as sinners:

http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

I always find it troubling that people derive morality from any text given the systemic and inherent problems in interpretation and translation, but if you insist on attacking gays for their "sins," I implore you to read the above link with an open mind.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by KWhit
By "okay" I meant immoral. Legally, people can do whatever they want.

And in this particular instance I was referring to Savage's comments. But I'll take it a step further, to show what I meant when I stated earlier that I see a good bit of homophobia on this site.

SD, I have seen you use the terms "gay" and "faggotty" to describe things that you don't like or don't agree with. Basically, you're using those words to convey a negative opinion of something, right?

You're certainly not the only one here who does this - you just happen to be the one I'm posting with right now.

It's my opinion that this is degrading behavior toward homosexuals. What are you thoughts about it?

This is a very good issue and I'll be the first to admit it, while I don't say these things to people, sometimes when angry I do THINK in this derogatory fashion and it pisses me off because I don't for one second actually believe any of it.

I've thought about this a good bit because I'm fascinated about how the human mind works and this is definately something that gets right to the core of our fundamental makeup.

I think fundamentally there well may be some sort of ingrained ( be it chemical or genetic or evolutionary or whatever but I don't think it's environmental ) part of the male human makeup that somehow equates less masculine as being inferior. Women certainly aren't spared from this either. I've even heard gay friends make comments like this in the heat of battle and surely they don't mean them.

I can't figure it out past this. When I analyse it the thought vaporizes and I can't get a hold of it to figure out where it came from. It seems silly at that point. Luckily for me, I am very, very precise in my speech and not to be politically correct, but to accurately state my thoughts ( thats why so many of my posts are long and boring too ). When these thoughts come up they don't make it through the filter so I'm not needlessly hurtful but I am aware and it does make me think.

I do know though that if I WANT to hurt someone who is not homosexual I can say these things and no matter how tolerant they are it gets a rise out of them. I believe it is more hurtful to them than it is offensive to a homosexual. That's why I'm figuring it goes way deeper than mere bigotry.

I'm sure I offended somebody by posting this though.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
Bah, that was just for the Jews.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Tekneek, my authority for what is morally correct and what is morally incorrect comes from a book. Otherwise, my opinion has no more authority than yours, and vice versa.

So, as long as I get my positions/thoughts/opinions from a book they are valid, but if I arrive at them on my own they hold no authority?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Tekneek
So, as long as I get my positions/thoughts/opinions from a book they are valid, but if I arrive at them on my own they hold no authority?

Well, if the book contains ultimate truth, then of course. If the book doesn't, then what's the point?