Originally Posted by blaked569 you didn't read anything i wrote. you don't take in anything that anyone tells you. you blindly plow forward with a blatant disregard of responsibility not only to yourself, but to others. and in that regard, you're no better than those you condemn.

Like I said this really pisses me off. I suppose your right there is no point in blindly ranting about it.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

it all comes down to equality, and no matter how much you think your god loves you and hates homosexuals we're all people.

This is certainly putting words in my mouth. I never once said that God hates homosexuals. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. I do believe that homosexual acts are sinful, but I also believe that Jesus died for SINNERS (which includes *everyone*). His forgiveness comes as we give up our sins, not as we embrace them (forgiveness won't come until we let go of our sins).

I recognize that not everyone shares these beliefs. But the law entitles EVERYONE to vote according to *their own* beliefs.

Anger and hatred are definitely no way to go about resolving things, though. I don't have any bad feelings towards you, though it seems you do towards me.

Let me ask you this, is your hatred based on the fact that I believe what I do? Is it based on the fact that I have the right to freely speak what I believe? Is your anger based on the fact that you can't force me to agree with you, or vote the way you want me to?

Do you believe it would be better to force people to fall in line with your views and force them to enact laws that reflect your own personal views, or the views of groups that you sympathize with?

These are some pretty serious and important questions that you really ought to consider.

But since you asked, I suppose I would like to hear his homosexual apocalypse theory.

I have no homosexual apocalypse theory. My point was that IF the behavior was universally practiced (which it almost certainly won't be) it would bring disaster upon our species. Knowing this, it would logically introduce the idea that it's not a good thing, since at the individual level it results in the termination of the genetic line (unless reproductive genetic material is obtained from a willing third party, assuming that there is one).

I see no difference in the question of should gay people be allowed to be married than should black people be allowed to be married. I think we should strive for a government that see us all as equals, and rights should be the same for all people who are doing no harm to others. And I wish people would vote accordingly regardless of their own personal moral decisions. I respect religious people who choose to spread their moral code through their own example. I despise religious people that try to impose their will on others.

First I'd like to respond to the second half of that. When a person goes to the polls and votes according to their conscience and beliefs, are they imposing their will on others? In other words, is voting a form of imposing your will? Have you yet, or do you plan to vote at any point in the future? Do you believe that by so doing you will be imposing your will upon society? Or do you believe that just by speaking their mind, a person is therefore imposing their will on others?

You are perfectly entitled to believe that you know better than the majority, and speak your mind as a result of that belief. But the moment you decide that it's okay to *force* everyone else to fall in line with your beliefs, or that it's okay to use violence to enact the laws you want, that's the moment that you become truly evil.

If gay marriage were voted in tomorrow, I wouldn't start a violent uprising to oppose it. I would continue speaking my mind in an attempt to help others see the merits of my beliefs, and I would seek legislation through the proper legal channels. Anger and violence against those who disagree with you, however, are not the answer, and are truly evil.

When you make statements like - "I wish people would vote accordingly regardless of their own personal moral decisions" - it leads people to wonder how badly you wish that you could enforce your personal will upon the rest of us.

Since you brought it up - black people don't have a choice in the matter of what color their skin is, and neither do white people, or asian people, or any other race of people on earth. Skin color is an inherited characteristic.

You might argue that sexual preference is also inherited. And I would likely even agree with that. However, when you have consensual sex with another person, you're making a choice (the very word "consensual" contains this fact, and if it wasn't a choice for EITHER party, it's called rape). So clearly, the act of engaging in consensual sex is a choice, NOT an inherited characteristic.

I believe that we are all equal. And I believe that God sees us as equals, too. But that doesn't mean that all behaviors are acceptable.

What is truth? Is truth dictated by the will of the people? Is truth dictated by equality? Are peoples' views of equality synchronized enough that they form the basis for a universal truth?

Is truth a self-existent tautology? Personally, I believe that it is. Do I believe that all of my views are in harmony with the tautology of truth? Of course not. To say that would imply that I believe I'm omniscient, which I don't. But like yourself, I feel strongly about my personal views, and I speak and vote accordingly.

But anger and violence are not the way. Open discussion and an attempt to understand one another are the only way we're ever going to reach an acceptable arrangement as a society.

You sound kind of nuts. There really is no discussion to be had on this because your religion doesn't really allow you to change your mind. You couldn't be part of the religion if you did change your mind, correct?

Originally Posted by sanderdaniels81 Let me ask you this, is your hatred based on the fact that I believe what I do? Is it based on the fact that I have the right to freely speak what I believe? Is your anger based on the fact that you can't force me to agree with you, or vote the way you want me to?

sorry, hombre. genteel, polite bigotry that comes wrapped in a cross and bearing a toothy grin and a firm handshake is still bigotry and thus hatred.

I have no homosexual apocalypse theory. My point was that IF the behavior was universally practiced (which it almost certainly won't be) it would bring disaster upon our species. Knowing this, it would logically introduce the idea that it's not a good thing, since at the individual level it results in the termination of the genetic line (unless reproductive genetic material is obtained from a willing third party, assuming that there is one).

Two things:

1) You're talking about something that is as unlikely to occur as...well, as unlikely as the second coming of Christ. Or, if you take offense to that metaphor, as unlikely as a Chicago Cubs World Series. So what's the point of saying something is bad given everyone does it, if, in fact, everyone does not do it?
2) You're also assuming that a population of 6 close to 7 Billion people, who've been ing and reproducing as long as we've been here, will suddenly stop ing and reproducing. Homosexual relationships, pregnancies, and parenthood are independent events, by and large. If nothing else, the modern era has shown just how detached the idea of "marriage" can be from "parenthood." This all more or less renders your point moot.

But I'm not done yet.

3) If you choose to ignore #1, let us entertain the inverse of your universal homosexuality means we'll all die out after one generation oversimiplified nonsensical juvenile theory. Why is this relevant if, given the institution we have globally now (let's call it the " and have as many kids as possible") lead to extinction on a mass level when we reach a population threshold where we can no longer maintain a balance between the planet's resources and providing persons with adequate resources to survive? In short, I'm pointing out that exponential population growth is a path to environmental disaster, and disaster for the human race as well.

So your argument fell apart quite a while back.

First I'd like to respond to the second half of that. When a person goes to the polls and votes according to their conscience and beliefs, are they imposing their will on others? In other words, is voting a form of imposing your will? Have you yet, or do you plan to vote at any point in the future? Do you believe that by so doing you will be imposing your will upon society? Or do you believe that just by speaking their mind, a person is therefore imposing their will on others?

Irrelevant. When my will is "hey, let those people do what they want," and your will is " those queers, they can't have what I have," then our wills aren't parallel. They aren't equal. My will is more righteous than yours. You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others. Sinner.

But anger and violence are not the way. Open discussion and an attempt to understand one another are the only way we're ever going to reach an acceptable arrangement as a society.

Some people don't deserve to be debated with. In my view, wanting to curtail the behaviors of other people who have no effect on your life puts you in a position where you don't deserve to be debated with. The level of folly underlying your claims, and the ease with which they were taken apart, is something else that shows you don't belong here.

Why doesn't anyone believe that homosexuals are here simply because if everyone has reproduced since the beginning of time..we'd be WAAAAY beyond 7 billion people :(

That's what ugly people are for, boo.

Originally Posted by docvinh You sound kind of nuts. There really is no discussion to be had on this because your religion doesn't really allow you to change your mind. You couldn't be part of the religion if you did change your mind, correct?

That's kind of harsh, isn't it? Faith is belief without evidence. This holds true for every defined system of belief. Even those who aren't religious have something that they place their faith in. Due to the limits of human perception and experience, it is impossible for any one person to know and understand everything. At some point, everyone has to place their faith in something. Without this, the world becomes a rather bleak place.

Is it really all right for the mind to be mutable on any subject? Is there no merit for making a stand on a decision you have already made? If a person chooses to adopt a defined belief system, you would expect him/her to turn against his/her own faith just so that they can agree with your position?

The scientific method would have us question and test everything. But humans can't actually live that way. That is the path of madness. We are built to believe.

There really is no discussion to be had on this because your religion doesn't really allow you to change your mind.

Does *your* religion of humanistic thought allow you to change your mind? What will you do if it turns out that there is actually a God, and that He actually did forbid homosexuality? Would you be willing to change your mind and try to understand why He forbid it, and why/how it was detrimental? Or would you believe that you know better than an omniscient being and choose to hate Him?

My right to change my mind about ANYTHING is not granted by, nor repealed by, my religion. That right is given me of God, and is inherent to all people. And likewise, no human mind can be changed by force - only by persuasion, discussion, and experience.

why hasn't this thread been moved or deleted by now?

Some people don't deserve to be debated with. In my view, wanting to curtail the behaviors of other people who have no effect on your life puts you in a position where you don't deserve to be debated with. The level of folly underlying your claims, and the ease with which they were taken apart, is something else that shows you don't belong here.

Apparently your religion of humanism allows you to discriminate on the basis on opposing views.

My religion allows me to hear you out, give you a chance to speak, and asks that I treat you with respect, now matter how abhorrent I believe your statements to be.

Your religion tells you that since I disagree in a way that is abhorrent to you, you should alienate me with statements like "you don't belong here" and telling me that it's worthless to listen to what I have to say, because you already have all of the answers.

Your approach assumes your own omniscience, to such a degree that all points of view that differ from your own are completely shut out.

I'm willing to hear what you have to say and consider it thoughtfully.

Which of these approaches is more open minded?

The desire and attempt to silence your opposition is not the way of democracy. It is the way of dictatorship.

Originally Posted by sanderdaniels81 Does *your* religion of humanistic thought allow you to change your mind? What will you do if it turns out that there is actually a God, and that He actually did forbid homosexuality? Would you be willing to change your mind and try to understand why He forbid it, and why/how it was detrimental? Or would you believe that you know better than an omniscient being and choose to hate Him? My right to change my mind about ANYTHING is not granted by, nor repealed by, my religion. That right is given me of God, and is inherent to all people. And likewise, no human mind can be changed by force - only by persuasion, discussion, and experience.

Wouldn't your "God" just strike me down for not believing him? I have nothing against religion, I just believe your interpretation of your religion is wrong. I actually have had fairly in depth discussion about homosexuality with religious folk, and surprise, they're okay with homosexuality. So either your interpretation is wrong, or their interpretation is wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're going to say they're wrong.

Originally Posted by Richard Kain That's kind of harsh, isn't it? Faith is belief without evidence. This holds true for every defined system of belief. Even those who aren't religious have something that they place their faith in. Due to the limits of human perception and experience, it is impossible for any one person to know and understand everything. At some point, everyone has to place their faith in something. Without this, the world becomes a rather bleak place. Is it really all right for the mind to be mutable on any subject? Is there no merit for making a stand on a decision you have already made? If a person chooses to adopt a defined belief system, you would expect him/her to turn against his/her own faith just so that they can agree with your position? The scientific method would have us question and test everything. But humans can't actually live that way. That is the path of madness. We are built to believe.

I place my faith in here and now. My life isn't looking to be filled up by something. I don't expect them to turn against their faith, I'm just saying the tenants of their religion don't allow them to question anything within it. Well, his/her religion anyway. I stand by my opinion of him/her being nuts.

At least homosexuals don't come knocking on my door at 8am on a Saturday. Plus, they help keep the world population under control. Can others say the same?

Originally Posted by sanderdaniels81 Apparently your religion of humanism allows you to discriminate on the basis on opposing views. My religion allows me to hear you out, give you a chance to speak, and asks that I treat you with respect, now matter how abhorrent I believe your statements to be. Your religion tells you that since I disagree in a way that is abhorrent to you, you should alienate me with statements like "you don't belong here" and telling me that it's worthless to listen to what I have to say, because you already have all of the answers. Your approach assumes your own omniscience, to such a degree that all points of view that differ from your own are completely shut out. I'm willing to hear what you have to say and consider it thoughtfully. Which of these approaches is more open minded? The desire and attempt to silence your opposition is not the way of democracy. It is the way of dictatorship.

Two things:

1) I did consider your arguments, and I did point out multiple fatal flaws in them. I don't have to do it politely. You choose to ignore that I pointed out the folly in all of your claims, instead cherry picking the last line of my post to attack that, as if it is the only thing I said to you. Should I assume you have nothing to say in response to my retort of your original claims?

2) I just noticed your telling me to go back and take statistics classes above. You have yet again misread something to make an argumentative point. What I said was that lazy people "instinctively distrust statistics." I am referring, of course, to people who are not capable of thoughtful refutation or deep questioning of theory, of methodology, or of statistics; I am referring to people who offer no deeper a refutation of data than "I don't believe that." There is a huge difference between that and informed skepticism, that considers the study and argues against it. But a flippant disregard of data is a vote in favor of anti-intellectualism and a vote in support of uninformed ideology. Given the religious foundation of your belief system, I'm not at all surprised that you are afraid of empiricism. But being religious is not something that goes hand in hand with illiteracy. If you are going to continue to respond to my posts, please have a grasp of what I'm saying first. I'm a bit tired of responding to refutations of things I did not say, and refutations of cherry-picked and misinterpreted statements in my posts.

It's particularly insidious when you opt to not include the parts of my posts where you are disarmed of the "logic" of your argument.

Two things: 1) You're talking about something that is as unlikely to occur as...well, as unlikely as the second coming of Christ. Or, if you take offense to that metaphor, as unlikely as a Chicago Cubs World Series. So what's the point of saying something is bad given everyone does it, if, in fact, everyone does not do it? 2) You're also assuming that a population of 6 close to 7 Billion people, who've been ****ing and reproducing as long as we've been here, will suddenly stop ****ing and reproducing. Homosexual relationships, pregnancies, and parenthood are independent events, by and large. If nothing else, the modern era has shown just how detached the idea of "marriage" can be from "parenthood." This all more or less renders your point moot. But I'm not done yet. 3) If you choose to ignore #1, let us entertain the inverse of your universal homosexuality means we'll all die out after one generation oversimiplified nonsensical juvenile theory. Why is this relevant if, given the institution we have globally now (let's call it the ****" and have as many kids as possible") lead to extinction on a mass level when we reach a population threshold where we can no longer maintain a balance between the planet's resources and providing persons with adequate resources to survive? In short, I'm pointing out that exponential population growth is a path to environmental disaster, and disaster for the human race as well. So your argument fell apart quite a while back.

You choose to ignore that I pointed out the folly in all of your claims, instead cherry picking the last line of my post to attack that, as if it is the only thing I said to you. Should I assume you have nothing to say in response to my retort of your original claims?

There was nothing to refute. I already stated in my initial post that it would never be universally practiced, but that the fact that it would be cataclysmic if it were should act as an indicator that it isn't good. You really didn't pick ANYTHING apart here. All you did was say "this will never happen, so it isn't bad."

The claim that I made is a fact. If it were universally practiced it would be the end of man. That part is simple fact, so there's nothing to refute. Your argument was based on the premise that since it will never happen, my conclusion was false. If you understand the mechanics of implication, you understand that when A implies B, ~A does NOT imply ~B. Therefore the logic upon which your assertion is based is flawed.

Your accusations against overpopulation came completely out of left field, since I never advocated unrestrained, unplanned pregnancy, to the point of overpopulation. In the world of logical fallacies, this is what is known as a straw-man argument. You've attributed an assertion to me which I never made, and then attacked this assertion in an attempt to discredit me. Unfortunately for you, I never made any such assertion.

Irrelevant. When my will is "hey, let those people do what they want," and your will is "**** those queers, they can't have what I have," then our wills aren't parallel. They aren't equal. My will is more righteous than yours. You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others. Sinner.

For starters, you put words in my mouth here. Secondly, this entire statement is essentially you professing that your beliefs are better than mine. You aren't making any points to refute here other than attempting to say that what you have to say is more correct than anything I have to say.

"You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others." <-- This statement is so dripping with irony that it's hard to see how you let this escape your mouth (or fingers, in this case) without recognizing it. You clearly believe that your life choices and points of view are superior to mine.


The final piece of your comment was already addressed by my previous comments, which you referred to as "cherry picking". I had to admit that I find it funny that you accuse me of "cherry picking" and immediately introduce some misdirection by addressing a post I made several pages back, with the intention of defending someone that you launched a personal attack at - on the basis that you are smarter than him, and that his distrust of statistics is ignorantly unfounded (which it is not, as I have previously pointed out in plenty of detail).

But back to the point at hand - you have continued to make accusations that essentially say "i'm better than you, and my point of view is more valid."

Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Originally Posted by sanderdaniels81 I recognize that not everyone shares these beliefs. But the law entitles EVERYONE to vote according to *their own* beliefs.

This is where you're wrong. I think as an American it's you responsibility to vote for what's best for the country and your countrymen. And while gay marriage in no way benefits you or your beliefs, it certainly does not stand in your way. How would you feel if laws were put in place that limited the legal privileges of mormons?

This is where you're wrong. I think as an American it's you responsibility to vote for what's best for the country and your countrymen. And while gay marriage in no way benefits you or your beliefs, it certainly does not stand in your way.

I think it's safe to say that you don't understand democracy. Under a democracy, people are entitled to vote according to their conscience and beliefs, and are not bound by any external forces or regulations to vote in any specific way. The fact that you used the words "I think" qualify your statement as your opinion. You are perfectly entitled to vote according to that opinion, but no one else is required to do so. They are entitled to vote according to THEIR opinion.

How would you feel if laws were put in place that limited the legal privileges of mormons?

Firstly, I find it odd that you seem to be making the assumption that I'm a Mormon, since I never identified myself as such, and since there are numerous other religions that openly and vocally oppose gay marriage, including Catholics, Muslims, and MANY others.

Regarding the "limited legal privileges" - I think it's safe to say that Mormons know something about this, since they are one of only THREE groups of people in the USA whose wholesale murder was sanctioned by governmental authority.

Africans were brought to the USA as slaves, and were often killed by those who had enslaved them, with the governmental approval to do so. Native Americans also had MANY orders issued by the government for their slaughter. In the 1800's, there was an extermination order issued in the state of Missouri for the legal murder of Mormons. A possible fourth group could be Japanese Americans, who while there was never an explicit order for their murder, were placed in internment camps during World War II, and many of them died.

And what was the cause for the issuing of this extermination order against Mormons? Sadly, it was because of differing political views. See, Mormons didn't believe that slavery was acceptable, and they voted accordingly. The residents of Missouri didn't like that so much, and they convinced the governor to sign an extermination order against Mormons.

They essentially threw democracy to the wind, and decided that what THEY wanted was more important than democracy, to the extent that they sought the MURDER of their political opponents. This is what I like to refer to as pure evil, and the antithesis of democracy.

There's pretty much no way to deprive someone of more rights than by murdering them.

The constitution requires that ALL people be guaranteed the right to LIFE. There's really no debating that one, since the word "life" is mentioned SPECIFICALLY by name.

There is no such mention of "marriage" as a right.

Well, we can agree on that. The government shouldn't recognize any type of marriages at all, they should only be recognizing civil unions for legal reasons. I have no idea how this evolved into a talk about dictatorship.

Originally Posted by sanderdaniels81 But back to the point at hand - you have continued to make accusations that essentially say "i'm better than you, and my point of view is more valid." Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Wait, what? He spoke his mind, he thought your opinion was stupid. Isn't he allowed to think his opinion is superior, I mean you certainly think your opinion is correct, right? I'm confused at what you're trying to say here.

Originally Posted by sanderdaniels81 Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

I get it now.

1) You're intolerant of homosexuals sharing the same rights as heterosexuals. This is ok.
2) I'm intolerant of your intolerance. That's not ok.
3) You're intolerant of my intolerance of your intolerance. This is ok.

And yet somehow you think you're above value judgments.

Christ.

Originally Posted by sanderdaniels81 I think it's safe to say that you don't understand democracy.

I think you don't understand this country.

Under a democracy, people are entitled to vote according to their conscience and beliefs, and are not bound by any external forces or regulations to vote in any specific way. The fact that you used the words "I think" qualify your statement as your opinion. You are perfectly entitled to vote according to that opinion, but no one else is required to do so. They are entitled to vote according to THEIR opinion.

Let me make this clear for you and all you other idiots out there. This country is not a Democracy, has never been a Democracy, and hopefully will never be a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic so that idiots like you cannot infringe upon the rights of others because you don't like them.

Firstly, I find it odd that you seem to be making the assumption that I'm a Mormon, since I never identified myself as such, and since there are numerous other religions that openly and vocally oppose gay marriage, including Catholics, Muslims, and MANY others. Regarding the "limited legal privileges" - I think it's safe to say that Mormons know something about this, since they are one of only THREE groups of people in the USA whose wholesale murder was sanctioned by governmental authority. Africans were brought to the USA as slaves, and were often killed by those who had enslaved them, with the governmental approval to do so. Native Americans also had MANY orders issued by the government for their slaughter. In the 1800's, there was an extermination order issued in the state of Missouri for the legal murder of Mormons. A possible fourth group could be Japanese Americans, who while there was never an explicit order for their murder, were placed in internment camps during World War II, and many of them died. And what was the cause for the issuing of this extermination order against Mormons? Sadly, it was because of differing political views. See, Mormons didn't believe that slavery was acceptable, and they voted accordingly. The residents of Missouri didn't like that so much, and they convinced the governor to sign an extermination order against Mormons. They essentially threw democracy to the wind, and decided that what THEY wanted was more important than democracy, to the extent that they sought the MURDER of their political opponents. This is what I like to refer to as pure evil, and the antithesis of democracy.

You don't know what Democracy means. Democracy is mob rule. Exactly what you described. The majority makes the rules. Republic is the antithesis of Democracy, because in a Republic people have unalienable rights.