Originally posted by genocidal
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited
Collapse
X
-
But the problem is once you give this guy the right to be in a womens locker room, isnt that taking away the girls rights for privacy if i had a daughter i would be upset that this kid would be allowed in the same changing room as her.
ALL you think about is the guys being in girls locker rooms. If you REALLY cared about privacy, you would be fighting for cubicles or something similar so NOONE could look at your daughter. You do realize there are lesbians right? They could be checking her out too? But no, instead you worry about guys being in the girls lockerroom, instead of people who are sexually attracted to the people of that specific lockerroom, being in there with them.
and on that note, you dont even mention butch lesbians being in mens locker rooms etc. Again, just blind discrimination. You are clearly brainwashed/stupid, otherwise you would have mentioned all the other things besides gay males specifically.
Comment
-
I think the latter question you posed about 'gay' or 'gay friendly' highschools is absurd. This is very unsophisticated, brutish political correctness/social engineering. I'm assuming that the notion on which this is based is that the implementation of such institutions will make gay children feel comfortable and confident in themselves and their sexuality in their everyday-school life. In actuality, however, the act of describing a school by the way it treats minorities draws unnecessary attention to the differences of the students, both semantically and practically. Moreover, and by explicitly defining such differences, such institutions will gain unwanted and damaging publicity, especially in consideration of the dogmatism and bigotry of the Christian right in America. And there in lies the problem.
For as long as America has 75% of the population believing that an omniscient being authored a book which dictates who you can and cannot have sex with, it is unlikely to see progression towards the social acceptance and political acknowledgement of homosexuals. But this kind of thoughtless consciousness raising is not the answer.Last edited by MetalHeadz; 10-14-2008, 10:40 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MetalHeadz View PostFor as long as America has 75% of the population believing that an omniscient being authored a book which dictates who you can and cannot have sex with, it is unlikely to see progression towards the social acceptance and political acknowledgement of homosexuals. But this kind of thoughtless consciousness raising is not the answer.
And yes squeezer, I would take offense to a church actually holding a homosexual wedding ceremony.Rabble Rabble Rabble
Comment
-
Originally posted by MetalHeadz View PostI think the latter question you posed about 'gay' or 'gay friendly' highschools is absurd. This is very unsophisticated, brutish political correctness/social engineering. I'm assuming that the notion on which this is based is that the implementation of such institutions will make gay children feel comfortable and confident in themselves and their sexuality in their everyday-school life. In actuality, however, the act of describing a school by the way it treats minorities draws unnecessary attention to the differences of the students, both semantically and practically. Moreover, and by explicitly defining such differences, such institutions will gain unwanted and damaging publicity, especially in consideration of the dogmatism and bigotry of the Christian right in America. And there in lies the problem.
For as long as America has 75% of the population believing that an omniscient being authored a book which dictates who you can and cannot have sex with, it is unlikely to see progression towards the social acceptance and political acknowledgement of homosexuals. But this kind of thoughtless consciousness raising is not the answer.
I appreciate the opinion, you just don't have to try so hard to impress next timeMy father in law was telling me over Thanksgiving about this amazing bartender at some bar he frequented who could shake a martini and fill it to the rim with no leftovers and he thought it was the coolest thing he'd ever seen. I then proceeded to his home bar and made four martinis in one shaker with unfamiliar glassware and a non standard shaker and did the same thing. From that moment forward I knew he had no compunction about my cock ever being in his daughter's mouth.
Comment
-
No sooner does this thread start up than I get all the fodder I need. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html
Granted, its a charter school, but fucking christ man would you ever have a field trip to a straight wedding? Makes no sense.
lol at riske. You just dont get the point. When guys are looking at guys in the locker room and another guy notices, the situation has the tendency to 'straighten' itself out. Also, teenage boys being in the locker room with teenage girls is just flat out wrong on so many levels. Would you want to subject your daughter to that kind of treatment? I mean really. I think you need to prove to me what is wrong with boys staying in the boys locker room and girls staying in the girls locker room
EDIT: by the way you do not want to get into the christianity debate with me mhz. I personally am agnostic, however a bunch of atheist scientists who are clearly smarter than you and me have converted after trying to prove that there is no god, because although it may be possible for this universe to exist without a supernatural being, the odds are so stacked against it that you have almost no way of it possibly happening. I cannot blame 75% of people for believing, nor can I hold their beliefs against them until such a point that it becomes harmful to society. Most of these people are trying to uphold their moral values in what has been taught for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I cant anything that the average christian believes in that is harmful to society overallLast edited by Izor; 10-15-2008, 01:00 AM.I'm just a middle-aged, middle-eastern camel herdin' man
I got a 2 bedroom cave here in North Afghanistan
Comment
-
The burden of proof is on you, not on him or anyone else. You make accusations without any form of proof or reasoning other than "lol faggots" and demand others prove you wrong- that's not how it works.My father in law was telling me over Thanksgiving about this amazing bartender at some bar he frequented who could shake a martini and fill it to the rim with no leftovers and he thought it was the coolest thing he'd ever seen. I then proceeded to his home bar and made four martinis in one shaker with unfamiliar glassware and a non standard shaker and did the same thing. From that moment forward I knew he had no compunction about my cock ever being in his daughter's mouth.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Squeezer View Postexcept for the disagreeing with gays part.
I personally could care less what gay people want to do, but I'm a staunch proponent of equal rights under the law.
Comment
-
The burden of proof isnt on me...one state out of 49 has this law for some reason, with a bill to reverse all the faggotry thats already taken place. Theres no reason not to be like the others. Nice try thoughI'm just a middle-aged, middle-eastern camel herdin' man
I got a 2 bedroom cave here in North Afghanistan
Comment
-
Originally posted by genocidal View PostDisagreeing with gays? Do you mean where I said that wark and I functionally agree? That may have been a little unclear. Wark said that gays should have the same legal rights as straight people - just don't use the word "marriage." I agree, although I could care less what word you call it because words only mean things to stupid people.
I personally could care less what gay people want to do, but I'm a staunch proponent of equal rights under the law.Originally posted by ToneWomen who smoke cigarettes are sexy, not repulsive. It depends on the number smoked. less is better
Comment
-
God couldn't tolerate this kind of affront to his being, so he is putting a stop to it.Originally posted by kthx View PostUmm, it is sorta the gay disease, considering how it is largely spread throughout the gay community, more so than the straight community...
god also hates themOriginally posted by WardOK.. ur retarded case closed
Comment
-
Originally posted by Izor View PostEDIT: by the way you do not want to get into the christianity debate with me mhz.
Originally posted by Izor View PostI personally am agnostic, however a bunch of atheist scientists who are clearly smarter than you and me have converted after trying to prove that there is no god,
Originally posted by Izor View Postbecause although it may be possible for this universe to exist without a supernatural being, the odds are so stacked against it that you have almost no way of it possibly happening.
Originally posted by Izor View PostI cannot blame 75% of people for believing, nor can I hold their beliefs against them until such a point that it becomes harmful to society. Most of these people are trying to uphold their moral values in what has been taught for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I cant anything that the average christian believes in that is harmful to society overall
Religion was our first way of describing the natural world and social ethics. In a land ravaged by tribal barbarianism, religion would have played a crucial role in developing the morals of society and enforcing a divine rule of law. Whilst religion was the first way of prescribing morality and the origins of life (in the infancy of human civilisation), it was also our worst. Science and reason has eroded religious dogmas on every front. Can you think of a question that used to be answered by science that now has a better explanation offered by religion? No. Not only are the scientific claims made in our religious scriptures obselete and backward, but the ethical claims are too. I'm not going to indulge in some raging critique of the Old Testament; or the concept of jihad; or the rights of women; or any other fundamentalist dogma, easily dismissed by a religious apologist. Instead I want to talk about something central to Christianity and Christian morality, the 10 commandments.
1. You shall have no other Gods but me.
This is the first item of a moral code. What kind of moral preaching is this? What greater proof do you need to infer that religion is man made? On a more serious note, such exclusive claims about the legitimacy of the divine has been the cause of conflict the world over, not least in the Middle East.
2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
Again, I don't know how 'God' is prioritising these maxims, but they don't seem to be in order of ethical necessity. God is apparently scared of us worshipping the wrong guy.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
Blasphemy, again, not what I would call a moral teaching relative to a 21st century audience.
4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
God apparently cares about what days you have off. Assuming that the 10 commandments represents God's top wishes, he cares more that you have Sundays off than you molesting and raping children.
5. Respect your father and mother.
I concede that this resonates as a decent moral code, and will for the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean we require religion to believe and practice this, however.
6. You must not kill.
Ok, this seems reasonable enough on a very basic level: but how relevant and practical a moral code is it? I can see that for a society who lived in an era where a wheel was advanced technology that this would have been a good way to inhibit murder. But should we never kill somebody regardless of the consequences? Is this a sophisticated moral teaching? Is this even a moral teaching? I would say that this was positively immoral. To say that there was no circumstance in which you would kill, even if killing meant saving thousands of other lives, you are at worst immoral and at best amoral. This is the same reason that I believe pacificism to be immoral. Clearly the bible has not accounted for complicated moral issues facing us today.
7. You must not commit adultery.
I can think of worse things for a supreme being to be concerned about.
8. You must not steal.
Not even to pay for food to save your family? Again, ethically questionable.
9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.
What impact does this have on America today?
The belief that a celestial being has opinions about human affairs gives those who believe this, and affiliate themselves to 'him', an undeserved sense of self-righteousness. This is the primary cause of totalitarianism (Hitchens, 2007). The combination of belief in God with the belief that he wants you to act in a certain way necessitates that you be non-negotiable in your approach to ethics. This has caused a great deal of hostility in America, and has polarised secularists and religious fanatics.
The case against abortion, for example, actually has reasonable secular grounds. But it is the way that religious zealots have hijacked this debate that is indicative of religious infallibility. The faith-based opinion that the soul enters the zygote at the point of conception, and the biblical corroboration of this (6. You must not kill.) has given many Christians the impetus to campaign on this issue. Without religion we would be free to engage in public discourse without sensationalist, dogmatic preachments and we would be able to discuss the merits and costs of such issues rationally. The case of the abortion doctor murders is a prime example.
The argument against teaching of evolution in schools is one also instigated by the scientifically ignorant. Anybody with any self-respect will agree that the deletion of Evolution from the school syllabus, or the inclusion of Creationism would be disasterous, UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE. Unwarranted credulity has gone unpunished in your political narrative for too long and it will have serious repercussions on the scientific intelligence of your society if you carry on allowing it to go unquestioned.
As I have demonstrated, Christianity and other religions offer us no relevant insights into science or morality. The religious scriptures were written in a completely different social environment and apply only to that generation. What is good about religion can be easily grasped by atheists: it's not sophisticated whatsoever. Anything which we call 'progress' will be at the detriment of religion including, coincidentally, the gay-rights movement.Last edited by MetalHeadz; 10-15-2008, 11:59 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Liquid Blue View Postguess who's trying really hard to sound smart
I appreciate the opinion, you just don't have to try so hard to impress next time
Comment
-
from MHz's above statements i gather that he is taking or just finished philosophy 101 or finished reading Plato and a Platypus Walked into a BarTWDT Head Op Seasons 2, 3, and 4
TWL Season 14 & 17 Head Op
Season 13 TWLD Champion, Seasons 13 & 14 LJ Champion
Winston Churchill: "That is the sort of nonsense up with which we will not put!"
Those who dare to fail miserably can achieve greatly.
- John F. Kennedy
A sadist is a masochist who follows the Golden Rule.
Originally posted by kthxUmm.. Alexander the Great was the leader of the Roman empire, not the Greek empire guy.
Comment
Channels
Collapse
Comment