Discussion in 'Religion' started by Sorcerer, Feb 24, 2014.
Ok, so you lied again.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Erm, they do. But in this case we are not dealing with some abstract change; we are dealing with a propaganda onslaught by a privileged minority. It hardly matters what the minority is; such behaviour is not compatible with liberty or democracy. Why vote, if the critical issues of the age are decided by the back door and no dissent permitted.
I wonder how long before we get real fascism again, nationalistic but socialist? Not long, I would say, if I read the trends aright. When that happens, you will regret establishing the principle that the people don't matter, and that dissent may be silenced without a qualm. Times change, you know; and change very quickly.
It may be "accepted" that a man may go through a mock ceremony of marriage with another man, an animal, or his wrist. But if you mean YOU accept it, more fool you. And I don't accept it. And most people don't. Which is why the activists didn't try to put it to a vote. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
These kinds of argument are not different in kind those of a Nazi yelling at someone who objects to persecuting the Jews. The tone, the arguments ... all are identical. (And, in our wretched society, we are now not even allowed to make this simile without some gullible fool mouthing "Godwin's law" - ask yourself just why the establishment would create a meme to silence that comparison, and tremble)
But of course to those who merely worship convenience, and care nothing for logic, reason, science, morality or anything else, except as it is useful... words are merely a tool to beat people with. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Think for yourselves. Do you imagine that the establishment has chosen to make us all kowtow to a vile vice, out of any motive other than spite? Or that YOU are the intended beneficiaries?
And the treatment of Jan Ardena in here is not markedly different to that which a negro showing up at a club in the pre-war deep south might have received. Shame on all those trying this lynch-mob treatment.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."
Notice, Jan, that the definition of marriage has always meant people can get married because they want to and because they can, whether they are of the same sex or not. Marriage is a representation of the rights and obligations of the "spouses", always has been and will continue to be. Your bigotry and homophobia are irrelevant to the definition of marriage.
And yet, you expect us to go back through your posts when you conveniently forget what you said.
Yes, we can find mountains of peer reviewed papers linking religious beliefs with mental illness, with schizophrenia and bipolar being two of the leading disorders that are found with most fundamentalists or those who take the inerrant word of God over reality.
Who is the privileged minority? Are you saying gays are the privileged minority?
Because they are being given equal rights?
My, this is the very same argument I've heard whites spout when blacks were given rights.
The majority want to allow homosexual marriage.
So what's your problem with that?
A Pew Research Center poll released in March 2014 researched support for same-sex marriage among Republican leaning voters in the United States. 61% of Republican leaning voters aged 18-29 support allowing same-sex couples to marry, while only 27% of Republican leaning voters over 50 years of age are supportive.
And that's just amongst Conservative voters in the US. You still think your bigoted side would win that vote?
Why? Because the majority support gay marriage?
What rights are you losing when homosexuals are allowed to marry? What privilege are you losing?
Are you channeling Glenn Beck?
What is there to regret in giving everyone equal human rights?
This is the last time you are going to be told to cease and desist with the homophobia. If you persist, I will moderate you.
Your side lost.
Deal with it. Homosexuals also have equal human rights now.
And the world cares about what you want because....?
Get with the times. Polls have been showing that the majority support gay marriage for years. If it went to a vote, your side would lose.
You are comparing a fight for civil rights for gays to this? Right..
Lets see. Science, reason and logic, not to mention morality and everything else point to the fact that homosexuality is something one is born with, cannot control and is natural (ie exists in nature).. Not to mention that logic, morality, justice and science also deem that all humans, regardless of their sexuality, have human rights and equal rights should also apply to homosexuals. You obviously have a problem with this and you think using words to defeat homophobia like yours is a bad thing. Perhaps you should move to Russia or Uganda. I hear the climate for gay bashing and gay murder's there is ripe. You'd feel right at home. No words needed.
What vile vice?
Two consenting adults having sex or being in a relationship is a vile vice?
Do you think giving homosexuals equal and their intrinsic human rights is done out of spite? Oh poor you.. People you deem to be beneath you are now deemed equal and have the exact same rights as you..
What do you lose by homosexuals being allowed to marry?
As a person of colour who has faced that kind of bigotry, I find you to be a bigoted simpleton. What's the matter? You don't like the fact that we don't welcome homophobes here? Poor you.
Move to Uganda. They welcome lynching gays there.
Although I'd suggest you don't give sneering description of a "negro" like you just did there. Your homophobia won't even save you from that.
You're a homophobe, spewing your poison here, which makes just about the lowest of the low, and on a par with racism. You should clear off.
Kittermaru, are you a Christian?
That would be those who are against gay marriage. They care nothing for the logic, reason, science and morality of gay marriage. Their words are merely a tool to beat people with. Well said, sir.
True, Jan would be the one leading that negro to the nearest tree with a rope in hand.
Why does the government have to force legislation for same sex marriage if it was always the way you say?
I'm neither a bigot or homophobic.
Because of homophobic bigots like you who are lobbying the government.
Odd, your words here would show contrary to that.
So only those who are properly ordained and situated in the right spiritual position should be the ones allowed to stone adulterers and prostitutes?
I am a modified Christian; I believe that the sacrifice of Christ was meant as a new beginning, a new sacrament in which we join upon consecration and baptism and that we renew with communion. We are still called to be His followers and spread His good works, but it is known that we are imperfect and sinful beings who cannot enter Heaven but for the love of Christ, His death upon the Cross, and subsequent conquering of Death by rising from the grave. We are called to "love thy neighbor"... full stop. It is not "love thy neighbor so long as he believes in your beliefs and follows your traditions and worships your God"... it is love thy neighbor, period.
So you really do mean that adulterers and prostitutes should be stoned?
I think that makes you a disgusting person who doesn't belong in a civilised country. You should go to Iran or Saudi, you'd fit in really well - if you converted to Islam, that is, otherwise they'd persecute you in the same way that you persecute gay people.
What do you mean by outdated?
What is it that you're talking about?
What makes you think Pastors and the like are anything more than ordinary?
No, as it is a transgression (check the corrinthinans text).
Are the priests who molest young boys homosexuals (in your eyes)?
I see the failure in your comprehension of the purpose of religion.
It's not about what you or I think.
Where hav i persecuted gay people?
You really are a angry person aren't you?
I'm not even a reductionist yet I know morally condemning a behavior is condemning the person who performs the behavior. So what point exactly did I illustrate?
Separate names with a comma.