[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Stealth
What i said was in response to Mad Bomber saying "Pedophilia and worse things will never, EVER, EVER become legitimized by our society", and i was just saying: you never know  Society changes...

Oh...  misundestood... but society changes according to our will in our lifetime, so if a sufficiently great number of we act upon it, it will either be preserved through our lifetime or changed according to whatever desires we have. Anyway, what I am trying to say is, if you have elected pedophilians (in this case) that state that they would continue to do it and would legalize it AND a whole lot of other people to let de legalization process continue, you are in serious trouble even before any law is enacted.

Originally posted by WeatherOp
Here is why I don't won't gays to get married. Lets say you are walking thru the supermarket, a Gay guy slapes you on your back side and says you're hot. Now if you are like me, you would probly beat his butt in, Even if you just tell him to get lost, he can say your a racist or something like that, make a huge deal about it and sue your butt off or send you to jail. If we let it get legal, that will probly happen a lot.

Yeah... except you are the one that are going to make a huge deal about it and sues his ass off.

[Liberator]

I don't know whether to be suprised or scared that no one made a snide comment on my fear of any sort of intimate contact.

[Bobboau]

hahaha! you fear intimate contact!
hahahahahahahahaha...ha...

*heim*

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't know whether to be suprised or scared that no one made a snide comment on my fear of any sort of intimate contact.

I was tempted... now i'm just going to do it

It's your problem that you fear intimate contact, not theirs. If someone (anyone) slaps you on the butt, just say "please don't do that again" and 90% of the time (s)he'll even apologize.

Also, when have people become so prudish that a slap on the butt is considered 'intimate contact'? Now, if someone grabbed you by the crotch and stated to massage it, it would be a whole different... 'ball'game.

Anyway, i find it astonishing that even after I directly quoted from the bible that people still continue to argue against homosexuality from a religious standpoint.

As I've also said repeatedly, I hate the sin not the person.

You hate the sin, but you judge the person.

That seems a little bit retarded to me. According to the bible you are the one also commiting a sin for no person is sinless and thus cannot judge without sinning.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Bobboau
person a gets hit on by person b, person b is not interested, person a cannot call person b sexist for not being interested. or from reacting violently when person a continues to bother person b.

In the example, I was pointing out that there wasn't really a relevance to the current discussion, unless you want to bring up sexual harassment laws. It seems to me that the poster would've been offended by anyone slapping his butt, so providing an example where the person doing so didn't contribute anything.

On the other hand, his point could have been that he would only dislike it if the person doing the slapping happened to be gay (or lesbian) and he would be perfectly fine with someone who was straight slapping his butt. In which case the example would have relevance, if not being particularly supportive of his argument. Discriminating might be the wrong word, but it seems to me to be silly and inane to be making a distinction of whether someone thinks it's wrong solely because of the sexual orientation of the person doing the butt-slapping. And if the gay or lesbian who did the butt-slapping calls them on that, and they're right, they're right - and if the person being slapped is  uncomfortable with them being right about that, maybe they should rethink their views.

After all, if a guy were to ask me out, I'd say no - and my reason would pretty much be that I'm not attracted to men. I wouldn't try to lie about it, I don't see a reason to, since I don't really see anything wrong with it.

[Zarax]

You want homosexuality marriage justified by religion?
Ok, let's declare that homosexual marriages can happen under the ancient greek religion, and so opposing them is a religious discrimination.
Prove this wrong now.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Zarax
You want homosexuality marriage justified by religion?
Ok, let's declare that homosexual marriages can happen under the ancient greek religion, and so opposing them is a religious discrimination.
Prove this wrong now.

Thats a moot point. We don't live in ancient Greece. We live in a modern world which is supposedly more advanced and free.

Also, in Ancient Greece things were very different in regards of homosexuality.

[Zarax]

Homosexuals were free and accepted member of the society.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Zarax
Homosexuals were free and accepted member of the society.

Not exactly like that though

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Tiara
It's your problem that you fear intimate contact, not theirs. If someone (anyone) slaps you on the butt, just say "please don't do that again" and 90% of the time (s)he'll even apologize.


This assumes that I would get hit on in the first place, I'm hardly attractive.  More along the line of "eww, get back you wretch" or "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!"


Also, when have people become so prudish that a slap on the butt is considered 'intimate contact'?

You didn't grow up in the enviroment I did.  I got overexcited when commenting on something that happened the other day and called someone a jackass.  My father went on a tyrade about how I hadn't been raised to talk like that.  And that's now, when I'm 26, you can imagine how it was when I was younger.

[aldo_14]

Whoo.... I love coming back to these threads in the morning and having to edit in 2 pages worth of edited replies

Originally posted by WeatherOp
Here is why I don't won't gays to get married. Lets say you are walking thru the supermarket, a Gay guy slapes you on your back side and says you're hot. Now if you are like me, you would probly beat his butt in, Even if you just tell him to get lost, he can say your a racist or something like that, make a huge deal about it and sue your butt off or send you to jail. If we let it get legal, that will probly happen a lot..

That's just ****ing stupid.  I struggle to dignify that with an answer...um.... firstly; sexual harassment lawas would apply against that.  Secondly, you wouldn't beat up a women for doing that, so it's a homophobic response.  Thirdly.... do you have any idea what you're on about?

Originally posted by Stealth
LOL weather, your 'argument' is pretty void  just let the big boys argue, k?  


Ghostavo, mate, you're missing my point  in fact, in your endeavors to refute it, you actually helped me prove it:

You thought i was saying that we should go by what people 150 years thought on homosexuality.  I was saying that 150 years ago, people would never have thought homosexuals would ever be allowed to marry (and you helped me prove my point by adding the part about slavery and civil rights for african americans in the south, 150 years ago... thanks), but it happened today, and could anyone have predicted it 150 yrs ago?  no of course not... so by the same means, for all we know 150 years from now some things that we abhor (beastiality, etc.) in society today, may be perfectly legal.  What i said was in response to Mad Bomber saying "Pedophilia and worse things will never, EVER, EVER become legitimized by our society", and i was just saying: you never know  Society changes...

Bestality and paedophilia are in now way an equivalent or applicable situation; these are acts in which the non-adult party cannot give any form of consent, in which case you can equate them with the consistent history of laws against rape. In other words, they are demonstratably harmful to another party; it would take a near complete breakdown of society to intentionally legalise them, equivalent to allowing murder or rape.

Originally posted by Stealth
Also, thought i'd mention, since many people seem to be forgetting:  Just because some people say that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed does not mean that they're anti-gay period.  Many feel that gays should get the same rights by all means that the regular citizen should, since they are, still, citizens, regardless how they choose to live their lifestyle.  However, they simply believe that allowing them to officially marry is wrong, to carry the term "married".  Many of them are still all for giving them the same RIGHTS as a married couple, just not tacking the "married" title to them.

From what I see, it isn't; I don't think any argument I've seen 'for' gay marriage is suggesting churches are forced to allow their marriage within church buildings.... assuming it's the same as the UK, I'm imagining 'marriage' in the US has a wholly non-religious meaning (with regards to the legal status of married individuals and their registration et al).

Originally posted by Liberator

This assumes that I would get hit on in the first place, I'm hardly attractive. More along the line of "eww, get back you wretch" or "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!"

You didn't grow up in the enviroment I did. I got overexcited when commenting on something that happened the other day and called someone a jackass. My father went on a tyrade about how I hadn't been raised to talk like that. And that's now, when I'm 26, you can imagine how it was when I was younger.  

1/ tell your dad to shut up; you're 26, you are more than old enough to decide what to do and say.  What did he want to bring up anyway; a human being or a well-behaved sheep?
2/ get some self confidence, or you'll keep digging yourself in an emotional hole.  Unless you're the elephant man, you're nowhere near as ugly as you think you are.  And if you are the elephant man...well, even he found acceptance & normality in the end.

[Kazan]

Liberator: your father is a psycho, and it's clear he brainwashed you to have certain opinions without thinking about them and despite evidence to the contrary


let us help you bro

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Kazan
Liberator: your father is a psycho, and it's clear he brainwashed you to have certain opinions without thinking about them and despite evidence to the contrary


let us help you bro

I think that's going a little bit too far, Kazan. His views and opinions might differ greatly from ours (nearly the opposite) but that doesn't mean he should just convert to our way of life because 8we* think that that is the best way. It would make us just as bad as the religious fanatics that we so adamantly despise.

While I do emplore Liberator to think for himself, ultimately the choice is his.

And calling his father psycho is way out of bounds.

[Mongoose]

Kazan, as foreign and implausible as it may seem to you, did you ever suppose that Liberator has the opinions that he has because he chose them or because he feels that they represent him in the best way?  The way you make it seem, everyone has to think exactly like you to have your approval.  For someone who's incessantly obsessed with "minority rights," you certainly seem to enjoy infringing on the rights of the minority on this board.  I happen to agree with Liberator on many of his points; does this make me "brainwashed" too?  Yup, I guess it does.  As much as you may scorn it, many people come to religious beliefs through a lot of rationalizing, thinking, and weighing of opinions; it's not all "mindless sheep" and "brainwashing."  Maybe you should try learning more about the people you're stereotyping in such a fashion instead of jumping up and down like a petulant three-year-old, screaming "Christofascists!!!!11!1"

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Mongoose
Kazan, as foreign and implausible as it may seem to you, did you ever suppose that Liberator has the opinions that he has because he chose them or because he feels that they represent him in the best way?

yes, but opinions should be based upon REALITY

Originally posted by Mongoose
The way you make it seem, everyone has to think exactly like you to have your approval.  

no - they have to be based upon reality - even if they're conclusion is wrong

because they atleast the person is ATTEMPTION rationality

Originally posted by Mongoose
For someone who's incessantly obsessed with "minority rights," you certainly seem to enjoy infringing on the rights of the minority on this board.

and how exactly in the hell am i doing that?

I'm not infringing your right to have your opinion by arguing with your opinion

I am not proposing denying your right to have your opinion either

What I am proposing is changing your opinion, you don't have to you if don't want to: but you _should_ want to

Originally posted by Mongoose
I happen to agree with Liberator on many of his points; does this make me "brainwashed" too?  Yup, I guess it does.

so long as you base your reality off your opinions then yes you are brainwashed

Originally posted by Mongoose
As much as you may scorn it, many people come to religious beliefs through a lot of rationalizing, thinking, and weighing of opinions;

they come to religious beliefs through THINKING they're rational, thinking and weighing the options

there are a great numerous logical errors that people make every single day, and don't realize it's an error in logic

wonderful things like fundamental atribution error, deying the anticedent, etc etc (those two I named by name because they're two of the most common used to support religion)

Originally posted by Mongoose
it's not all "mindless sheep" and "brainwashing."

yes it is - being religious fits every single primary psychological definition of a delusionary psychosis

furthermore religious individuals regularily distort reality to support their viewpoints --


you people think **** like "The earth is 10,000 years old" and think that scientists agree with you when we know that the planet is somewhere near 4.3 billion years old

you people think **** like creationism, you people think that it's a rational decision to believe in something that you HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR (I know you think you have evidence, however everything that you think is evidence is because you're committing things like fundamental attribution error, denying the antecedant, etc)

Originally posted by Mongoose
Maybe you should try learning more about the people you're stereotyping in such a fashion instead of jumping up and down like a petulant three-year-old, screaming "Christofascists!!!!11!1"

A) that "stereotyping" you think i am comitting holds up 100% to the group I am applying it to: fundamentalist right wing christians like you

I would like to remind that any christian who is not a fundamentalist that I don't mean to lump you in with the fundamentalists: they're just as much a threat to you as they are to me.

B) you whine, and act like im wrong when i call people like you "christofascists", i wish you were correct on that count.

The sad truth is you are christofascists

Why don't you go read the article linked in this thread: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,28132.0.html


Fascism is a far-right, extremely-authoritarian form of government, and that's exactly what you people are pushing for, and you are pushing for a religiously-controlled fascist state

If you were a student of history you'd know the scary resemblance between the USA in 2000-2004 and Germany during the initial rise of the nazi party

we're only missing one thing: as bad as an economy as they had

well guess what: indicators are pointing tword that horrendous economy becoming ours too

[Ford Prefect]

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." -William Shakespeare

[Tiara]

Ooookayyy, that last post of kazan makes me think of him much like I do about Lib.

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by Kazan
ngtmr1 that "up" and "down" can be concretely defined too

Yes.

But your opponents have reversed definitions. And any moral issue is, by it's nature, subjective.

[aldo_14]

Kazan, do you have excess stock of "christofascist"s to use up or something?

[Stealth]

Originally posted by aldo_14
From what I see, it isn't; I don't think any argument I've seen 'for' gay marriage is suggesting churches are forced to allow their marriage within church buildings.... assuming it's the same as the UK, I'm imagining 'marriage' in the US has a wholly non-religious meaning (with regards to the legal status of married individuals and their registration et al).

marriage in the US is beyond simply religion now, i mean to add definitions of marriage in the Constitution... i'm sure you see how far past religion it is.  it's more tradition than religion at the moment.