Jews are bad people

[quote name='defender']

Well...this topic is getting interesting. Funny how a game forums has a really good intelligent political debate all the time. You gotta love it.[/quote]

I concur..I used to visit a politics board that was just in the toilet. Even if I am a "leftist" I try to present points in a thoughtful manner. I think the righties here do most of the time as well.
 
On Gay marriage:

I think it's funny that opponents stress the "meant to be between a Man and Woman" part but sort of dust the "forever" part under the rug.

The divorce rate in this country sickens me. It's even worse when the people who are claiming that it's a "scared practice not to be tampered with" are on their 3rd wife. "Gays can't have it, because its ours. But we can trample all over it if we want to. Sure, Britney Spears can get married and have it annulled 3 days later, but 2 men who love eachother can't get married ever. EVER!"

Sorry, I'm not meaning to thread-derail, but really. How is Gay marriage any worse than divorce? If there was an ammendment being passed that banned both divorce and Gay marriage, i'd say "well, I don't agree with it, but at least I can understand their opinion."
 
I never said I agreed with divorce either. I wouldn't mind them making some new laws about it and maybe one day it will be another debate.

Part of the divorce problem is that marriage is not taken very seriously anymore. Families are becomming more and more dysfunctional. I am pretty sure this is not a good thing and a return to a more moral time wouldn't imho be bad.
 
[quote name='Pylis']Camoor, I concede your argument in favor of gay marriage (I myself have no problem with at the very least civil unions), but abortion and stem cell research arguably encroach the rights of the unborn. Equality is not so "black and white" in this scenario. Not a point worth debating, though, since there is no clear definition of when human life begins and it comes down to personal beliefs.[/quote]

Well said, and I totally agree. I think the problem is more with the people who say "because the bible says so" rather then thinking of issues logically and forming an opinion based on present day realities. I can respect someone who has a different view as long as it isn't solely because of a position taken in their sacred texts or by their pastor/priest/cleric/shaman/guru/etc
 
Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do.

Homosexuality is not natural. We are meant to procreate. I am practically a darwinist in my views about this matter. Now will you agree? I doubt it. You seem to just have a problem with those with any religious beliefs vs actually caring about the issue. Present day reality is this. Families are in trouble and more kids are growin up dysfunctional. Your solution is to allow gays to wed? That's laughable. What's the logic behind allowing gays to marry?
 
[quote name='defender']I never said I agreed with divorce either. I wouldn't mind them making some new laws about it and maybe one day it will be another debate.

Part of the divorce problem is that marriage is not taken very seriously anymore. Families are becomming more and more dysfunctional. I am pretty sure this is not a good thing and a return to a more moral time wouldn't imho be bad.[/quote]

Legislation can not fix everything. Forcing ppl to legally stay in a marriage will not save the institution.

You do know that the idea of using romantic love to determine your spouse is only a little over 100 years old, right? Most of the rest of the world uses arranged marriages, a practice that works far better for familial stability. It's really a cutural issue. Excess legislation never solves anything (however I'd love to see the law that makes you love your spouse :lol: )
 
Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do.

You are staring at a box with information going through a little tiny rope, presumably with clothes on.

There are gay animals, your argument has no merit since humans are meant to procreate is not the samething as EVERY human must procreate.

I never said I agreed with divorce either. I wouldn't mind them making some new laws about it and maybe one day it will be another debate.

So you say you are a moderate and yet you apparently want laws forcing people to stay together (Unless you are talking about the so called "Convenant marriages". Maybe you are less moderate then you thought.
 
Can I assume you aren't married? I am not trying to get personal on you but I would like to know from what experience you are speaking from.
 
Im not married, and right now im single. No I havent spawned yet, im normal in my sexual tastes (No guys or whips). Now exactly what the hell would that have to do with anything?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do.

.[/quote]

That is a pretty narrow standard.

The "natural order of things" ? Isn't manogomy against the natural order (limiting partners= limiting chances of procreation) Isn't having sex for enjoyment against the natural order (most animals don't)? Isn't any one of the dozens of things we do everday in modern life against the natural order?
 
[quote name='evilmax17']On Gay marriage:

I think it's funny that opponents stress the "meant to be between a Man and Woman" part but sort of dust the "forever" part under the rug.

The divorce rate in this country sickens me. It's even worse when the people who are claiming that it's a "scared practice not to be tampered with" are on their 3rd wife. "Gays can't have it, because its ours. But we can trample all over it if we want to. Sure, Britney Spears can get married and have it annulled 3 days later, but 2 men who love eachother can't get married ever. EVER!"

Sorry, I'm not meaning to thread-derail, but really. How is Gay marriage any worse than divorce? If there was an ammendment being passed that banned both divorce and Gay marriage, i'd say "well, I don't agree with it, but at least I can understand their opinion."[/quote]

Don't pick on the Catholic Church for that one.. they don't honor or sanction any marriage beyond the first, and having marriages annulled is not nearly as easy as one would believe it to be.
 
[quote name='defender']Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do.

Homosexuality is not natural. We are meant to procreate.[/quote]

By this argument, infertile women and impotent men are unnatural as well. Should they be allowed to marry? How about men with vasectomies or women with tubal ligations? What about people who adopt instead of procreating?

Gay people aren't going to go straight and reproduce just because they can't marry so why deny them the benefits of marriage?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do.

You are staring at a box with information going through a little tiny rope, presumably with clothes on.

There are gay animals, your argument has no merit since humans are meant to procreate is not the samething as EVERY human must procreate.

I never said I agreed with divorce either. I wouldn't mind them making some new laws about it and maybe one day it will be another debate.

So you say you are a moderate and yet you apparently want laws forcing people to stay together (Unless you are talking about the so called "Convenant marriages". Maybe you are less moderate then you thought.[/quote]

I find it humorous (not to mention ironic) that you are using a simplistic argument that is similar to Aristotle's philosophical views about human arete to denounce gay marriage. Something tells me that Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers who opined on arete would disagree :D

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ARETE.HTM
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='evilmax17']On Gay marriage:

I think it's funny that opponents stress the "meant to be between a Man and Woman" part but sort of dust the "forever" part under the rug.

The divorce rate in this country sickens me. It's even worse when the people who are claiming that it's a "scared practice not to be tampered with" are on their 3rd wife. "Gays can't have it, because its ours. But we can trample all over it if we want to. Sure, Britney Spears can get married and have it annulled 3 days later, but 2 men who love eachother can't get married ever. EVER!"

Sorry, I'm not meaning to thread-derail, but really. How is Gay marriage any worse than divorce? If there was an ammendment being passed that banned both divorce and Gay marriage, i'd say "well, I don't agree with it, but at least I can understand their opinion."[/quote]

Don't pick on the Catholic Church for that one.. they don't honor or sanction any marriage beyond the first, and having marriages annulled is not nearly as easy as one would believe it to be.[/quote]

Just ask Henry VIII!
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Msut77']Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do.

You are staring at a box with information going through a little tiny rope, presumably with clothes on.

There are gay animals, your argument has no merit since humans are meant to procreate is not the samething as EVERY human must procreate.

I never said I agreed with divorce either. I wouldn't mind them making some new laws about it and maybe one day it will be another debate.

So you say you are a moderate and yet you apparently want laws forcing people to stay together (Unless you are talking about the so called "Convenant marriages". Maybe you are less moderate then you thought.[/quote]

I find it humorous (not to mention ironic) that you are using a simplistic argument that is similar to Aristotle's philosophical views about human arete to denounce gay marriage. Something tells me that Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers who opined on arete would disagree :D

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ARETE.HTM[/quote]

I think he meant to quote defender, but he didn't use the quote feature.
 
[quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='Msut77']Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do.

You are staring at a box with information going through a little tiny rope, presumably with clothes on.

There are gay animals, your argument has no merit since humans are meant to procreate is not the samething as EVERY human must procreate.

I never said I agreed with divorce either. I wouldn't mind them making some new laws about it and maybe one day it will be another debate.

So you say you are a moderate and yet you apparently want laws forcing people to stay together (Unless you are talking about the so called "Convenant marriages". Maybe you are less moderate then you thought.[/quote]

I find it humorous (not to mention ironic) that you are using a simplistic argument that is similar to Aristotle's philosophical views about human arete to denounce gay marriage. Something tells me that Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers who opined on arete would disagree :D

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ARETE.HTM[/quote]

I think he meant to quote defender, but he didn't use the quote feature.[/quote]

Not really. Msut is arguing about the natural order of things, assuming everything exists because it has a function. An extension of this argument is that fulfillment is performing the function that you are born to perform in an excellent manner (IE a horse should run fast, a judge should seek truth and dispense justice, a flower should smell sweet...)

However it is indeed possible that not everyone was born to make babies. Maybe some were born to be great philisophical and moral thinkers (such as Socrates, Jesus, and Nietzsche). Maybe some were born to uncover the mysteries of the physical world (such as Steven Hawking, a real freak by strictly evolutionary standards)

If making babies is a human's chief function, then a welfare mom with 8 kids has outdone every person on this board.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='evilmax17']I think he meant to quote defender, but he didn't use the quote feature.[/quote]

Not really. Msut is arguing about the natural order of things, assuming everything exists because it has a function. An extension of this argument is that fulfillment is performing the function that you are born to perform in an excellent manner (IE a horse should run fast, a judge should seek truth and dispense justice, a flower should smell sweet...)

However it is indeed possible that not everyone was born to make babies. Maybe some were born to be great philisophical and moral thinkers (such as Socrates, Jesus, and Nietzsche). Maybe some were born to uncover the mysteries of the physical world (such as Steven Hawking, a real freak by strictly evolutionary standards)

If making babies is a human's chief function, then a welfare mom with 8 kids has outdone every person on this board.[/quote]

No no I agree with you, what I'm saying is that Msut's post is supposed to look like this:

[quote name='Msat'][quote name='defender']Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do. [/quote]

You are staring at a box with information going through a little tiny rope, presumably with clothes on.

There are gay animals, your argument has no merit since humans are meant to procreate is not the samething as EVERY human must procreate.

[quote name='defender']I never said I agreed with divorce either. I wouldn't mind them making some new laws about it and maybe one day it will be another debate. [/quote]

So you say you are a moderate and yet you apparently want laws forcing people to stay together (Unless you are talking about the so called "Convenant marriages". Maybe you are less moderate then you thought. [/quote]

I'm pretty sure that Msat agrees with you too.
*Just posting for clarity*
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='Pylis']I think that Defender is bringing up the notion that there is a double standard concerning "equality." For example, we have laws against beating people up, but then we have extra laws making it extra illegal to beat up a minority or homosexual. Aren't we all protected under the same rights? Why are some afforded extra protection?[/quote]

Well, in theory, you're right. But there's a difference between theory and reality, and that's where the extra laws have to come into play (and alot of the time they don't make a difference). We had laws against murder in the early 1900's, but that didn't stop the lynch mobs. And where was the law? I thought everybody had equal rights?

While everybody SHOULD be treated equally, there is STILL discrimination in this world. I find it laughable that somebody could think that the Christian religions in the USA get discriminated against just as much other religions. Yes, there are cases of people vandalizing a church, but there are examples for everything. The FACT is that (sadly) we are NOT all equal, and to complain when you're in the majority just makes you look like an ass.

When was the last time you saw your average white Christian get beat up because he was Christian? What about somebody who was Muslim?

There are alot of people in this thread talking about "tolerance", and how people aren't "tolerant" when it comes to Christianity. Look around, all of your holidays take precedent over everybody else's. YOU'RE in the majority (by a vast amount no less).[/quote]

Your statement is dumb. Do you realize that most religious discrimination in this country IS on Christianity? You must be blind or stupid to the fact that many groups were trying to get rid of Christmas. Did you not see that?

What about colleges promoting and requiring students to take muslim classes? If it were a christian class all hell would break loose and people would claim separation of church and state.

What about people not being able to wear a simple cross around their neck to work, or place a nativity scene next to jewish religious symbols on public property during the holidays?

What about all the people trying to get rid of God in the pledge, our money or any other public place?

How dumb do you have to be to not see this very shaq-fuing board where christianity is bashed every other damn day?

Christians may be the majority, but they are also the most targeted and persecuted.[/quote]

:cry: and because I can finally use it :-({|= but I guess not feeling sorry for you is persecuting christians too huh?
 
[quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='evilmax17']I think he meant to quote defender, but he didn't use the quote feature.[/quote]

Not really. Msut is arguing about the natural order of things, assuming everything exists because it has a function. An extension of this argument is that fulfillment is performing the function that you are born to perform in an excellent manner (IE a horse should run fast, a judge should seek truth and dispense justice, a flower should smell sweet...)

However it is indeed possible that not everyone was born to make babies. Maybe some were born to be great philisophical and moral thinkers (such as Socrates, Jesus, and Nietzsche). Maybe some were born to uncover the mysteries of the physical world (such as Steven Hawking, a real freak by strictly evolutionary standards)

If making babies is a human's chief function, then a welfare mom with 8 kids has outdone every person on this board.[/quote]

No no I agree with you, what I'm saying is that Msut's post is supposed to look like this:

[quote name='Msat'][quote name='defender']Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do. [/quote]

You are staring at a box with information going through a little tiny rope, presumably with clothes on.

There are gay animals, your argument has no merit since humans are meant to procreate is not the samething as EVERY human must procreate.

[quote name='defender']I never said I agreed with divorce either. I wouldn't mind them making some new laws about it and maybe one day it will be another debate. [/quote]

So you say you are a moderate and yet you apparently want laws forcing people to stay together (Unless you are talking about the so called "Convenant marriages". Maybe you are less moderate then you thought. [/quote]

I'm pretty sure that Msat agrees with you too.
*Just posting for clarity*[/quote]

Ohhh OK. I get it now (after reading it for the third time :D :wave: )

Haha - OK Defender, I was really replying to your comments.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='Pylis']I think that Defender is bringing up the notion that there is a double standard concerning "equality." For example, we have laws against beating people up, but then we have extra laws making it extra illegal to beat up a minority or homosexual. Aren't we all protected under the same rights? Why are some afforded extra protection?[/quote]

Well, in theory, you're right. But there's a difference between theory and reality, and that's where the extra laws have to come into play (and alot of the time they don't make a difference). We had laws against murder in the early 1900's, but that didn't stop the lynch mobs. And where was the law? I thought everybody had equal rights?

While everybody SHOULD be treated equally, there is STILL discrimination in this world. I find it laughable that somebody could think that the Christian religions in the USA get discriminated against just as much other religions. Yes, there are cases of people vandalizing a church, but there are examples for everything. The FACT is that (sadly) we are NOT all equal, and to complain when you're in the majority just makes you look like an ass.

When was the last time you saw your average white Christian get beat up because he was Christian? What about somebody who was Muslim?

There are alot of people in this thread talking about "tolerance", and how people aren't "tolerant" when it comes to Christianity. Look around, all of your holidays take precedent over everybody else's. YOU'RE in the majority (by a vast amount no less).[/quote]

Your statement is dumb. Do you realize that most religious discrimination in this country IS on Christianity? You must be blind or stupid to the fact that many groups were trying to get rid of Christmas. Did you not see that?

What about colleges promoting and requiring students to take muslim classes? If it were a christian class all hell would break loose and people would claim separation of church and state.

What about people not being able to wear a simple cross around their neck to work, or place a nativity scene next to jewish religious symbols on public property during the holidays?

What about all the people trying to get rid of God in the pledge, our money or any other public place?

How dumb do you have to be to not see this very shaq-fuing board where christianity is bashed every other damn day?

Christians may be the majority, but they are also the most targeted and persecuted.[/quote]

:cry: and because I can finally use it :-({|= but I guess not feeling sorry for you is persecuting christians too huh?[/quote]

I'm not surprised liberals don't feel sorry when christians get attacked. It's not like liberals have ever been for people who promote morals and good behavior. You people would much prefer to cry over scum like Ward Churchill.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'] You people would much prefer to cry over scum like Ward Churchill.[/quote]

care to back that up? Who is crying over that guy? I just don't want his idiocy to give conservatives a reason to go after higher education.
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='Scrubking'] You people would much prefer to cry over scum like Ward Churchill.[/quote]

care to back that up? Who is crying over that guy? I just don't want his idiocy to give conservatives a reason to go after higher education.[/quote]

Ward Churchill? They were going to bring that guy to my college, I think it would have been interesting to watch him ramble on about nazi's, the twin towers. To bad it got canceled, instead we get Ron Jeremy to talk about censorship.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Scrubking']Your statement is dumb. Do you realize that most religious discrimination in this country IS on Christianity? You must be blind or stupid to the fact that many groups were trying to get rid of Christmas. Did you not see that? [/quote]

Christians love to be martyrs (not to say that other religions don't as well). And since they are a huge majority in the US, of course they are a big target and they will have a lot to complain about.

Who are these groups trying to get rid of xmas? Banning nativity scenes on public property is not the same as getting rid of xmas. It's not having the government promote one religion over another. No group can or ever will ban xmas. Period.

[quote name='Scrubking']What about colleges promoting and requiring students to take muslim classes? If it were a christian class all hell would break loose and people would claim separation of church and state.[/quote]

At a time when we are at war with muslim fanatics, I don't think it's a bad idea to try to understand their culture better. It's not a church/state issue because, unlike grade school, you are not required to go to college. It's not an indoctrination into islam, it's an understanding of the culture that most people wouldn't get outside of that class.

[quote name='Scrubking']What about people not being able to wear a simple cross around their neck to work, or place a nativity scene next to jewish religious symbols on public property during the holidays?[/quote]

I've never heard about the jewelry thing. Do you have a link? Was this a safety issue? Was it only limited to crosses or did it exclude all religious symbols?

As for the nativity scene, I don't think any religious symbol should be on public property. Every church can put up whatever symbols they want - why do they feel the need to do it in front of the county courthouse?

[quote name='Scrubking']What about all the people trying to get rid of God in the pledge, our money or any other public place?[/quote]

Again, the government should not appear to sponsor one religion over any others. "Under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950s at the height of the Red Scare. The minister who actually wrote the pledge probably would have opposed including "under God" in it.

Why do you feel that we need to give God a shout-out on all of our money? Again, that phrase was added to paper money back when we were trying to root out commies (it's been on coins for far longer). Does it make the love of money less root-of-evilish?

[quote name='Scrubking']How dumb do you have to be to not see this very shaq-fuing board where christianity is bashed every other damn day?

Christians may be the majority, but they are also the most targeted and persecuted.[/quote]

As long as some christians:
1. hold themselves as morally superior to everyone else,
2. try to force their beliefs and values on all of us,
3. attempt to deny rights to homosexuals,
4. out every cartoon character,
5. support politicians who worship the almighty dollar more than helping their fellow man,
I will continue to point out their hypocrisy.[/quote]

A) They can't ban christmas no, yet they can take christmas away from incidents where it once existed with no problems. For instance, some groups and people called for christmas celebreations to be taken out of schools. It's not much in the scope of things, but I'd say that's trying to get rid of christmas at least. People of every religion will tell you Christmas has far evolved passed a simple christian holiday, and there's no real problem with letting kids have candy or exchanging gifts is there.

B) While it is most assuredly a good idea to learn about other religions/cultures, if a state or federally funded school required courses/programs to be taken it would be a church/state issue. They can offer these things so long as they are optional courses/programs at any college I think, but because college itself is optional is not the reason.

C) I think that probably happens in certain work places and such, but Christians are the victims of it no more than any other religion. And yes, no relgious symbols should be erected on federal government grounds. If they are built into the architecture or whatever that's fine IMO, so long as they are treated as simply architechture.

D) I'd agree with that too, I never much understood why we printed money and everything "in God's trust" so to speak.

E) That's fine too, point out the hypocrisy of some christians if you feel like it. However make sure you don't stereotype it to all christians and be prepared to spread those feelings of feelings of hypocrisy to many other members of other religions as well for most of the same points you indicated.
 
[quote name='Msut77']To bad it got canceled, instead we get Ron Jeremy to talk about censorship.

Lucky, did you get an autograph?[/quote]

Nope, it's going on right now. I think I'll go swing by see the last 10 minutes.
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='usickenme'][quote name='elprincipe']

Wow, I must have missed something because I never knew the Pope was telling people to hate gays. Disapproving of a certain kind of behavior and hating someone are much different things. No wonder so many on this board don't understand religion.[/quote]

Understanding religion and making excuses for the things people do in it's name aren't the same thing.[/quote]

I do believe you are the most ignorant and hateful person on this board (now that Quackzilla is gone), and that's saying something.[/quote]

because I happen to recognize when some people do stupid things in the name of religion?..um okay.

I think you are presuming way too much. The fact is ,for me see the hypocrisy of the actions of some religious folks, I would have know enough about religion to know when they are going astray. And I do.

Speaking of hypocrites, you cry when someone accuses Christians of "hating" gays but have no problem labeling me as "hateful" based on nothing.[/quote]

Go back and read your post I first responded to. You labeled the Vatican as "bigoted" because they disapprove of homosexuality on religious grounds. I said you were hateful because your post betrayed that attitude.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='defender']Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do.

Homosexuality is not natural. We are meant to procreate.[/quote]

By this argument, infertile women and impotent men are unnatural as well. Should they be allowed to marry? How about men with vasectomies or women with tubal ligations? What about people who adopt instead of procreating?

Gay people aren't going to go straight and reproduce just because they can't marry so why deny them the benefits of marriage?[/quote]


Do you really want me to answer this question? This thread is long enough as it is. Start another one for that topic.
 
[quote name='defender'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='defender']Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do.

Homosexuality is not natural. We are meant to procreate.[/quote]

By this argument, infertile women and impotent men are unnatural as well. Should they be allowed to marry? How about men with vasectomies or women with tubal ligations? What about people who adopt instead of procreating?

Gay people aren't going to go straight and reproduce just because they can't marry so why deny them the benefits of marriage?[/quote]


Do you really want me to answer this question? This thread is long enough as it is. Start another one for that topic.[/quote]

Hey, if the arguement is just too hard to answer maybe you need to re-examine your position. We need all of the thinking, rational, freedom-loving Americans we can get, so consider it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
Go back and read your post I first responded to. You labeled the Vatican as "bigoted" because they disapprove of homosexuality on religious grounds. I said you were hateful because your post betrayed that attitude.[/quote]


I think YOU ought to go back and read who wrote what. Since I never used the word "Vatican" or Bigoted" or even mentioned them in any context, I can't see how you got that from what I said.

In your rush to judgement, you got lost in the qoutes..
 
[quote name='defender'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='defender']Well...I personally do not need a priest to tell me that gay marriage is wrong. It goes against the natural order of things. It goes against procreation and what our species is meant to do.

Homosexuality is not natural. We are meant to procreate.[/quote]

By this argument, infertile women and impotent men are unnatural as well. Should they be allowed to marry? How about men with vasectomies or women with tubal ligations? What about people who adopt instead of procreating?

Gay people aren't going to go straight and reproduce just because they can't marry so why deny them the benefits of marriage?[/quote]


Do you really want me to answer this question? This thread is long enough as it is. Start another one for that topic.[/quote]

I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want an answer. If you want to argue that homosexuals are not natural because they don't procreate so therefore they can't marry, how does that affect all other non-procreating couples who want to marry?
 
[quote name='defender']Homosexuality is not natural. We are meant to procreate. I am practically a darwinist in my views about this matter. Now will you agree? I doubt it. You seem to just have a problem with those with any religious beliefs vs actually caring about the issue. Present day reality is this. Families are in trouble and more kids are growin up dysfunctional. Your solution is to allow gays to wed? That's laughable. What's the logic behind allowing gays to marry?[/quote]

The sole purpose of all life is propagation of the species. Given that I don't think gay marriage is wrong, but I do think that those who do not produce offspring (gay or straight makes no difference) are failures no matter what else they accomplish in life.

And for the record, I have no plans or desire to ever have children on my own, and have already accepted my failure.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='defender']Homosexuality is not natural. We are meant to procreate. I am practically a darwinist in my views about this matter. Now will you agree? I doubt it. You seem to just have a problem with those with any religious beliefs vs actually caring about the issue. Present day reality is this. Families are in trouble and more kids are growin up dysfunctional. Your solution is to allow gays to wed? That's laughable. What's the logic behind allowing gays to marry?[/quote]

The sole purpose of all life is propagation of the species. Given that I don't think gay marriage is wrong, but I do think that those who do not produce offspring (gay or straight makes no difference) are failures no matter what else they accomplish in life.

And for the record, I have no plans or desire to ever have children on my own, and have already accepted my failure.[/quote]

Interesting opinion.

So who contributes more to the world? The fat divorced alcoholic mom who had 8 kids and abuses them all? Or the scientist who never has kids, but improves things for everybody?

I'd say that the purpose of life is to do your part to better society. Any 13 year old girl whose been sexually abused can go out and get pregnant with some 30 year old guy. These people are not "successful".

Any loser can make a baby. You would think that creating life would be more special, but it isn't. The real miracle is when the child is properly raised, and we get somebody normal. Where do you think all of the criminals come from? They're not born that way, they're raised that way.

Base the society on it's quality, not it's quantity.
 
[quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='defender']Homosexuality is not natural. We are meant to procreate. I am practically a darwinist in my views about this matter. Now will you agree? I doubt it. You seem to just have a problem with those with any religious beliefs vs actually caring about the issue. Present day reality is this. Families are in trouble and more kids are growin up dysfunctional. Your solution is to allow gays to wed? That's laughable. What's the logic behind allowing gays to marry?[/quote]

The sole purpose of all life is propagation of the species. Given that I don't think gay marriage is wrong, but I do think that those who do not produce offspring (gay or straight makes no difference) are failures no matter what else they accomplish in life.

And for the record, I have no plans or desire to ever have children on my own, and have already accepted my failure.[/quote]

Interesting opinion.

So who contributes more to the world? The fat divorced alcoholic mom who had 8 kids and abuses them all? Or the scientist who never has kids, but improves things for everybody?

I'd say that the purpose of life is to do your part to better society. Any 13 year old girl whose been sexually abused can go out and get pregnant with some 30 year old guy. These people are not "successful".

Any loser can make a baby. You would think that creating life would be more special, but it isn't. The real miracle is when the child is properly raised, and we get somebody normal. Where do you think all of the criminals come from? They're not born that way, they're raised that way.

Base the society on it's quality, not it's quantity.[/quote]

You make some very good points, and I agree with everything you said.

I think I should clarify here that although I do believe that producing offsping is the purpose and therefore measure of life, I (as previously stated) have no interest in being a success by that standard. To me, personally, there is much greater value in a life of "quality", and I would consider many people to be successful regardless of having children or not. But from a "big picture" viewpoint nothing else in life is meaningful.

Basically I'm stating what I believe to be fact though it conflicts with my personal values.

It is a difficult position to explain, but it is my position.
 
My answer isn't hard for me...it's hard for you.

I do not have the need to explain myself if I do not want to. Sometimes certain arguments are just not worth it.

I am sure you can predict what I would say and I can predict your wonderful response...so what. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours.

I am not in the mood for it.
 
do not have the need to explain myself if I do not want to. Sometimes certain arguments are just not worth it.

So your whole entire postion is that you are bigoted against gays, mostly because of some half understood biblical or biological reasons. And now all you want to do is take your ball and go home?
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Basically I'm stating what I believe to be fact though it conflicts with my personal values.[/quote]

I think that's one of those indications that you need to change your perception of the facts.

Evolution is just a scientific theory, I do not think that we as humans should equate purpose in life with evolutionary prowess.

However if we are taking bets on the next evolution of man, I throw my chips in with Nietzchie's Ubermensch.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Basically I'm stating what I believe to be fact though it conflicts with my personal values.[/quote]

I think that's one of those indications that you need to change your perception of the facts.[/quote]

Why should I change what I believe? To me it's no different than knowing I should be eating healthy foods but still going to sonic for lunch. The fact is that eating shit like sonic will eventually kill me in all probability, but I value the enjoyment I get from eating a breakfast burrito. Even if I decide to believe that eating at sonic everyday will let me live to 120, it doesn't change the facts.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Basically I'm stating what I believe to be fact though it conflicts with my personal values.[/quote]

I think that's one of those indications that you need to change your perception of the facts.[/quote]

Why should I change what I believe? To me it's no different than knowing I should be eating healthy foods but still going to sonic for lunch. The fact is that eating shit like sonic will eventually kill me in all probability, but I value the enjoyment I get from eating a breakfast burrito. Even if I decide to believe that eating at sonic everyday will let me live to 120, it doesn't change the facts.[/quote]

I guess that's the difference. I know I should eat healthy, and therefore I do eat healthy.

I believe that all people should be given equal rights and privledges under the law, and I fight to give them those rights.

Knowing the right thing to do, but choosing the lazy and materially comfortable option instead is the very definition of evil according to most world philosophies and religions.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Basically I'm stating what I believe to be fact though it conflicts with my personal values.[/quote]

I think that's one of those indications that you need to change your perception of the facts.[/quote]

Why should I change what I believe? To me it's no different than knowing I should be eating healthy foods but still going to sonic for lunch. The fact is that eating shit like sonic will eventually kill me in all probability, but I value the enjoyment I get from eating a breakfast burrito. Even if I decide to believe that eating at sonic everyday will let me live to 120, it doesn't change the facts.[/quote]

I guess that's the difference. I know I should eat healthy, and therefore I do eat healthy.

I believe that all people should be given equal rights and privledges under the law, and I fight to give them those rights.

Knowing the right thing to do, but choosing the lazy and materially comfortable option instead is the very definition of evil according to most world philosophies and religions.[/quote]

I believe in equal rights and privledges as well.

I'd don't concern myself with world philosophies or religions.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Basically I'm stating what I believe to be fact though it conflicts with my personal values.[/quote]

I think that's one of those indications that you need to change your perception of the facts.[/quote]

Why should I change what I believe? To me it's no different than knowing I should be eating healthy foods but still going to sonic for lunch. The fact is that eating shit like sonic will eventually kill me in all probability, but I value the enjoyment I get from eating a breakfast burrito. Even if I decide to believe that eating at sonic everyday will let me live to 120, it doesn't change the facts.[/quote]

I guess that's the difference. I know I should eat healthy, and therefore I do eat healthy.

I believe that all people should be given equal rights and privledges under the law, and I fight to give them those rights.

Knowing the right thing to do, but choosing the lazy and materially comfortable option instead is the very definition of evil according to most world philosophies and religions.[/quote]

I believe in equal rights and privledges as well.

I'd don't concern myself with world philosophies or religions.[/quote]

So where did you develop your life philosophy from? It sure sounds similar to social darwinism to me. Let me quote you for clarity:

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']I think I should clarify here that although I do believe that producing offsping is the purpose and therefore measure of life, I (as previously stated) have no interest in being a success by that standard. To me, personally, there is much greater value in a life of "quality", and I would consider many people to be successful regardless of having children or not. But from a "big picture" viewpoint nothing else in life is meaningful.
[/quote]

Now let me quote one of the most influential social darwinists, Herbert Spencer

[quote name='Herbert Spencer']...this law of organic progress is the law of all progress. Whether it be in the development of the Earth, in the development of Life upon its surface, the development of Society, of Government, ..., this same evolution of the simple into the complex, through a process of continuous differentiation, holds throughout[/quote]

You're proposing that passing your genetic code into the next generation is the measure of success, of progress. You're proposing that the scientific theory of Darwinism, a process that describes how natural beings evolve, can also be understood as the meaning of life, the yardstick against which our level of success as human beings can be measured. It's somewhat frightening when you think of all the actions that can be justified using this philosophy.
 
My reply would only be more off-topic than this has gone. I stated that it would require a new topic for me to really get into it.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Basically I'm stating what I believe to be fact though it conflicts with my personal values.[/quote]

I think that's one of those indications that you need to change your perception of the facts.[/quote]

Why should I change what I believe? To me it's no different than knowing I should be eating healthy foods but still going to sonic for lunch. The fact is that eating shit like sonic will eventually kill me in all probability, but I value the enjoyment I get from eating a breakfast burrito. Even if I decide to believe that eating at sonic everyday will let me live to 120, it doesn't change the facts.[/quote]

I guess that's the difference. I know I should eat healthy, and therefore I do eat healthy.

I believe that all people should be given equal rights and privledges under the law, and I fight to give them those rights.

Knowing the right thing to do, but choosing the lazy and materially comfortable option instead is the very definition of evil according to most world philosophies and religions.[/quote]

I believe in equal rights and privledges as well.

I'd don't concern myself with world philosophies or religions.[/quote]

So where did you develop your life philosophy from? It sure sounds similar to social darwinism to me. Let me quote you for clarity:

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']I think I should clarify here that although I do believe that producing offsping is the purpose and therefore measure of life, I (as previously stated) have no interest in being a success by that standard. To me, personally, there is much greater value in a life of "quality", and I would consider many people to be successful regardless of having children or not. But from a "big picture" viewpoint nothing else in life is meaningful.
[/quote]

Now let me quote one of the most influential social darwinists, Herbert Spencer

[quote name='Herbert Spencer']...this law of organic progress is the law of all progress. Whether it be in the development of the Earth, in the development of Life upon its surface, the development of Society, of Government, ..., this same evolution of the simple into the complex, through a process of continuous differentiation, holds throughout[/quote]

You're proposing that passing your genetic code into the next generation is the measure of success, of progress. You're proposing that the scientific theory of Darwinism, a process that describes how natural beings evolve, can also be understood as the meaning of life, the yardstick against which our level of success as human beings can be measured. It's somewhat frightening when you think of all the actions that can be justified using this philosophy.[/quote]

I didn't really "develop" my philosophy, at least not knowingly. As a side effect of the knowledge I have aquired in my short time it just seemed obvious to me. As they say, great minds think alike. ;)
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='elprincipe']
Go back and read your post I first responded to. You labeled the Vatican as "bigoted" because they disapprove of homosexuality on religious grounds. I said you were hateful because your post betrayed that attitude.[/quote]


I think YOU ought to go back and read who wrote what. Since I never used the word "Vatican" or Bigoted" or even mentioned them in any context, I can't see how you got that from what I said.

In your rush to judgement, you got lost in the qoutes..[/quote]

Ah, you are correct and I'm sorry. It was evilmax who labeled the Vatican bigoted, my mistake. I guess I did get lost in the quotes, too many of them. I think he was responding to one of yours and I somehow thought you had written that. Again, sorry about that.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Basically I'm stating what I believe to be fact though it conflicts with my personal values.[/quote]

I think that's one of those indications that you need to change your perception of the facts.

Evolution is just a scientific theory, I do not think that we as humans should equate purpose in life with evolutionary prowess.

However if we are taking bets on the next evolution of man, I throw my chips in with Nietzchie's Ubermensch.[/quote]

Faster than a speeding bullet . . . more powerful than a
locomotive . . . able to leap tall buildings at a single
bound . . . Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird . . . it's a
plane . . . it's Superman! Yes, it's Superman - strange
visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers
and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Superman . . .
who can change the course of mighty rivers; bend steel in
his bare hands; and who, disguised as Clark Kent,
mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper,
fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the
American way!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top