GAY MARRIAGE IS NOW LEGAL IN ALL STATES ��💛💚💙💜

[Braunsberg]

No but their relationship is still natural regardless which is the probably the main point used rather than that since it has no real point in arguing it for the points you say.

But a homosexual one isn't because the genders don't work for babies?

 

That's the thing here. Marriage isn't about making babies - it's about the relationship. Even throwing aside the numerous studies that have linked homosexuality to hormone levels (a "gay" gene has not yet been established or proven, but such hormone levels ARE linked directly to genes), the fact that many animal species exhibit homosexual behavior is yet another piece of information supporting the point that homosexuality is not a choice, but biological. And therefore it's as natural as any straight relationship, just not as common.

 

 

How dare the majority rule a country! http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

 

Fixed the last line

The problem isn't that the majority group of the populace has the majority of government authority. The problem is that the majority uses this authority to place minorities in a subordinate level. You can't just say that it's okay to restrict the freedom of gays because they aren't the majority - especially, since you are so American, you should probably have plenty of respect for the fact that the Constitution and the idea of a republic/democracy is to give everyone in the populace equal rights and protection under the law.

 

And, since it is a very simple argument, consider this: assuming you are conservative, people such as yourself are fond of bringing up the second amendment in a very strict, unmoving manner when arguing against gun control. So, since you are clearly such a strict defender of the Constitution, how about that part where it very strictly calls for the separation of church and state? The argument against gays' rights is at its core a religious campaign, and according to the Constitution which you evidently hold so closely, religious doctrine is not to be used for the justification of laws placed over the populace.

 

 

Lol I just said it wasn't natural since it clearly isn't because being gay serves no purpose in nature because it kills the gene line of that specific animal.

If the gene line dies with that specific animal because it wanted to have sex with the same sex then it clearly wasn't a natural animal. 

Yes, the whole point of society is to breed and then die.

 

What you just told us is that being gay is not adaptive. Which is true, for the same reason that you've stated. But if we go by your logic, I'm unnatural because I wear glasses, because that's a negative trait and without human technology my genes would hardly make it to the next generation, if at all.

 

Things that are "natural" don't have to be suitable, logical, beneficial, or anything like that. They just have to be produced out of natural processes. Down syndrome and other unfortunate disabilities would effectively render the gene line of a human dead - so does that mean you would call people suffering from those disabilities unnatural?

 

Just the same, being homosexual is perfectly natural because it results from biological processes. Adaptable or not, "moral" or not, gay people, near-sighted people, Down syndrome people, autistic people... they are all as natural as anyone else for that reason.

 

 

Well, it should be noted that there's evidence to suggest that even though homosexual behavior has been observed, that animals never pick a homosexual relationship over a heterosexual one.

 

"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

 

Source: (In order of relevance)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-8

Levay, Simon (1996). !@#$ Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207.

 

So I don't know if you can use animals as a point of reference into determining what's normal and what's not normal for marriage within humans. In terms of some aquatic life and insects, there are creatures that are capable of both fertilizing eggs and laying theme. Plus, a lot of mammals will go from one partner to the next, while in modern human sexuality, cheating is frowned upon.

In your same article, we find this quote: "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams." Another fine example: parrots, which do indeed live in homosexual pairs for lengthy times, since mating parrots tend to remain couples for extended periods of time.

 

If you also read through the article, it says that the reason most animals do not exhibit long-lasting homosexual relationships is because they don't exhibit any long-lasting relationships. As it says, courtship and mating in animals is irregular and is often performed in reproductive and nonreproductive ways, including homosexuality.

 

In that sense, the way you present that Wikipedia article is rather misleading; it does indeed say that animals do not engage in long homosexual relationships, but not because they are instead being straight the rest of the time.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Roma

[Thalmor]

 

Yall don't Jive with Stone Cold 

 

Watch out for stunners

 

Steve Austin has also had 4 wives, so if we think ''jiving'' with Steve Austin is the best compass for marriage, we should also throw out ''death due us part'' within wedding vows.

[Braunsberg]

Steve Austin has also had 4 wives, so if we think ''jiving'' with Steve Austin is the best compass for marriage, we should also throw out ''death due us part'' within wedding vows.

Clearly his reason for posting that was not to show Steve Austin as a life model, but instead to use his quote as an expression. Because we could just as easily bring up some funny things about America's Mister Morality, Josh Duggar.

 

Edit: .....who, I might add, many people really DID use as a role model for family life and partnership morality.

 

Edit: Or how about America's number one radio talk show host, the very conservative Rush Limbaugh, who really proved his morality by getting addicted to pain medication and marrying four times, just like our friend Steve Austin. Heck, these conservatives sure do teach you to live with ethics!

Edited June 29, 2015 by Roma

[Thalmor]

In your same article, we find this quote: "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams." Another fine example: parrots, which do indeed live in homosexual pairs for lengthy times, since mating parrots tend to remain couples for extended periods of time.

 

If you also read through the article, it says that the reason most animals do not exhibit long-lasting homosexual relationships is because they don't exhibit any long-lasting relationships. As it says, courtship and mating in animals is irregular and is often performed in reproductive and nonreproductive ways, including homosexuality.

 

In that sense, the way you present that Wikipedia article is rather misleading; it does indeed say that animals do not engage in long homosexual relationships, but not because they are instead being straight the rest of the time.

 

The basis of my own argument was on that quote, thank you for the additional information. I wasn't trying to be misleading.

 

 

Clearly his reason for posting that was not to show Steve Austin as a life model, but instead to use his quote as an expression. Because we could just as easily bring up some funny things about America's Mister Morality, Josh Duggar.

 

Edit: .....who, I might add, many people really DID use as a role model for family life and partnership morality.

 

Edit: Or how about America's number one radio talk show host, the very conservative Rush Limbaugh, who really proved his morality by getting addicted to pain medication and marrying four times, just like our friend Steve Austin. Heck, these conservatives sure do teach you to live with ethics!

 

touche.

[Braunsberg]

(know these weren't intended for me, but I can answer them. )

 

Apparently you're blind because right below those two Wikipedia links, there's a reference to a page in the book ''!@#$ Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality'' by Simon LeVay. Let me post the specific source again:

 

Wikipedia has become a pretty reliable source, if you have a way to double-check its facts. But I will quote myself again when it comes to that particular Wikipedia article:

In your same article, we find this quote: "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams." Another fine example: parrots, which do indeed live in homosexual pairs for lengthy times, since mating parrots tend to remain couples for extended periods of time.

 

If you also read through the article, it says that the reason most animals do not exhibit long-lasting homosexual relationships is because they don't exhibit any long-lasting relationships. As it says, courtship and mating in animals is irregular and is often performed in reproductive and nonreproductive ways, including homosexuality.

 

In that sense, the way you present that Wikipedia article is rather misleading; it does indeed say that animals do not engage in long homosexual relationships, but not because they are instead being straight the rest of the time.

 

 

Can you provide some sources for this?

Here's one from the BBC that discusses lots and lots of evidenced possibilities: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

And here's one from the Huffington Post (I get to use a lefty source since you got to use The Libertarian Republic earlier ): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html

 

 

Okay, which ones?

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/11/study-gay-brothers-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study(And in this one is a fine quote that demonstrates Hysteria's earlier point that homosexuality, while maladaptive for a single individual's gene line, can persist by helping other individuals in separate ways: "Researchers have speculated in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men may have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile. This may be the case for genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men exclusively from their mothers.")

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/case-builds-genetic-influence-sexuality

 

The general consensus of these studies can be easily summarized: as of yet, scientists have not discovered a particular "gay gene," nor have they linked enough genes yet to fully account for sexuality. But many of these genes - alongside having some direct influence (40% according to one of the studies), they also influence the likelihood that the social environment will reinforce a homosexual orientation by maturity. And given that sexuality only begins to develop when an age of several years is reached (and doesn't finish until age 6 to age 10, even as late as puberty - mind you, this is the orientation of sexuality, not sexual maturity), this means that gays can develop the proper characteristics for homosexuality well before it emerges into their feelings and conscious realization of their sexual orientation.

 

Other studies, not the ones I've linked, have shown that homosexuality may also be strongly linked to genes in the way that they are expressed, as some genes may actually develop while others do not (explaining phenomena like two identical twins having opposite sexualities).

[Thalmor]

Roma, I gotta give you credit, you've done a great job backing up everything you support.

 

I still can't say I'll support gay marriage outright due to my religious convictions, but my cold opposition to it is something I'm going to have to evaluate and review.

[Alexander]

I still can't say I'll support gay marriage outright due to my religious convictions, but my cold opposition to it is something I'm going to have to evaluate and review.

It's all any one of us could ask.

 

And congrats Internet for a relatively thoughtful, intelligent, and respectful discussion.

[Braunsberg]

Roma, I gotta give you credit, you've done a great job backing up everything you support.

 

I still can't say I'll support gay marriage outright due to my religious convictions, but my cold opposition to it is something I'm going to have to evaluate and review.

I believe you were the only one who produced any meaningful sources on the other end. And as I told you via PM, I applaud you for your open-mindedness despite such strong opinions. It is extremely difficult - whether conservative, liberal, religious or not - to change your heartfelt opinions, no matter how well-made the opposing arguments are.

 

To finish, there is one small thing that I recognize is a valid concern of religious conservatives about this court ruling: the fear that the decision will be used to force evangelical churches to actively perform gay marriages. It is one thing to ban gays from marriage and refuse to issue them licenses, but it's very different with marriage ceremonies, where gays easily have access to other churches or sites that are more open; and it is very different, as well, from businesses (which also have been an issue here recently), which are supposed to provide service fairly to everyone.

 

With regards to that, I will assure you one thing: while there may be instances where evangelical churches are pressed for that issue (just like there are instances of other radicalities), LGBT people have no intention of using the court decision for that purpose. Gays too are ordinary people seeking ordinary lives and ordinary relationships, and their interest has been simply to gain legal access to their own way of life, not assault another way of life. I think both sides should realize that and respect one another, especially given the turbulent situation we currently find in American politics.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Roma

[Cody K]

Oh boy... I was just starting to like the United States. Sort of.

 

Hopefully Texas and South Carolina does everything in their power to do away with this, maybe even seceed if they need to.

As an individual living in South Carolina and thoroughly enjoying his time here, you disgust me.

[Severus Ryan]

All right, out of curiosity, if gay marriage was left to the election booth in 2016, how would you vote? Would you stick to your religious beliefs and vote against or would you take in account the oppression of civil liberties and the secular nation we reside in and allow it? This is all assuming that religious institutions are not forced to wed homosexual couples (which I am firmly against because it infringes on the church's liberties.)

The reason I ask this is because I am curious as to whether you will decide your vote on your religious beliefs, or the fundamental values of freedom either of which will be forced onto many individuals.

Why are you even making the "freedom" argument? We all know the leftists wont stop until they cast the last church stone upon the last priest - its karmic retribution in their eyes, not an attempt to "fight" for their liberties. They are already infringing on people's freedoms, and they won't stop there.

 

>inb4 "muh slippery slope"

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html

 

This is the AGE of the slippery slope :^)

[Severus Ryan]

As an individual living in South Carolina and thoroughly enjoying his time here, you disgust me.

>fights for equality

>looks down on people

 

Ha ha ha ha

[Braunsberg]

Why are you even making the "freedom" argument? We all know the leftists wont stop until they cast the last church stone upon the last priest - its karmic retribution in their eyes, not an attempt to "fight" for their liberties. They are already infringing on people's freedoms, and they won't stop there.

 

>inb4 "muh slippery slope"

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html

 

This is the AGE of the slippery slope :^)

First, I think the debate was supposed to be over. Everyone got a chance to say what they wanted to say and it ended on a nice note for everyone.

 

As for the "freedom" argument, um, he's making it because that's what this entire issue is about? It's about gays having the same freedom to marry as straight people. You enjoy that freedom, I enjoy that freedom, he enjoys that freedom, she enjoys that freedom - to us it is fundamental and inherent. Up until now, for gays, it has been something they have been excluded from due to religious doctrine seeping into law, which under our Constitution is not supposed to happen.

 

Furthermore, you are forgetting quite bluntly that many, many liberals (and independents, and Republicans who support gay marriage) are Christian as well. They simply do not take quite the unmoving and rigid stance that you have adopted. Just because left-wing people oppose a single tenet of your religion does not mean that the Democrats are ready to burn down your churches. It's also rather hypocritical to say that the gays are already taking your freedoms, because you just finished arguing in favor of infringing on theirs.

 

As for the slippery slope, have a look at Scandinavia. Brazil. Argentina. Canada, France. Spain. New Zealand. They've been ahead of the United States with gays' rights, and have they fallen down your "slippery slope?" Not in the slightest. Unless your "slippery slope" is that the junk seeping out of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Krauthammer are finally not seen as "news."

 

 

>fights for equality

>looks down on people

 

Ha ha ha ha

To quote Voltaire: "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

 

Simply because Cody K disapproves of your political stance does not mean he stands against equality. I would trust him a lot more than you to stand true to that perspective, given that you have quite vehemently argued against the ability of gays to enjoy the same rights as others.

 

Now let it rest. Everyone has had their fill.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Roma

[Ashland]

LOVE WINS

No it doesn't...?

 

Gay people have always been able to be in relationships, it just couldn't be a marriage. Marriage has always been defined by the constitutions of several states as being between a man and a woman. In this decision, the Supreme Court as said ''lol, we don't care'' and has just stomped all over that. They stomped all over the states that give them the rights to even have power. The only thing that gay couples gain from this is the same benefits that heterosexual couples get when they marry, so why even celebrate this decision so happily as so many people have? As OP is doing? Homosexuals still can't have their own children without complex medical procedures; and they still die sooner.

 

Also, If your only basis of what is right when it comes to sexual attraction is ''love'' then why can't a person marry a truck? What about marrying a horse? What about, even, a preteen? Where can a society take a step back and go ''This isn't right.''

 

Furthermore, what's the one thing that all animals have in common? They want to reproduce. Homosexuals, really by their very definition, cannot reproduce. Most homosexuals will also claim to have been born gay. Putting this information together, we can conclude that there's something in their brain telling them to be attracted to people of the same gender, thus forgoing millions of years of evolution and the macro sexual norms of 99% of the global population...for...some reason. With this in mind, we can conclude that homosexuality is a mental disease. So the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of less than 2% of the population - who have mental deficiencies - against the written constitution of many states, against the views of tens of millions of Americans.

 

It's also not much of a win once you consider that there's several countries in which being gay is punishable by death. So we can celebrate that homosexuals have a few more privileges over here in the U.S., but in the grand scheme of things concerning the gay rights movement, it's not a huge victory globally.

 

One could argue that it's more symbolic than anything else. That could be true, until you consider that the Supreme Court is - as most of Washington is - bought off by tons of companies and corporations. Such a corrupt institution forgoes any legibility once they become corrupt and remain so for many years. It's symbolic value is also not pragmatic once you consider that, as stated above, tens of millions of Americans aren't in favor of it.

 

Finally, I am very confident that this isn't the last thing we'll see out of the LGBT rights movement. Within a few years, they'll push some sort of other extreme. It could be open marriages between multiple people, marriages between children, marriages between people and objects, etc. It'll also all be under the guise of ''equality'' and ''progress'' and the same arguments will be used as they've been used with this issue.

 

GG no re

 

P.S: Of course, I'm open to any counter-arguments anybody as: if you think I'm wrong on anything, please state so and explain why.

 

I've been offering you my consulting services lately, at a discount I might add, to help you and your alliance build up.  I will no longer be offering those services to you.

 

Good day, sir.

[LordRahl2]

I do find it interesting that people's in game actions are influenced by this sub board.

[Braunsberg]

I've been offering you my consulting services lately, at a discount I might add, to help you and your alliance build up.  I will no longer be offering those services to you.

 

Good day, sir.

Do you think maybe that's a bit harsh? I do understand that Cirrus is strictly your business, but in Thalmor's defense, he at least was noticeably reasonable about conducting his arguments, especially here at the end of the debate. I don't think it would be very right to shut him out just because he holds that opinion - if he had offended someone it would be different, but I don't think he did any such thing. I think even the OP here, Alex, would agree.

[Severus Ryan]

First, I think the debate was supposed to be over. Everyone got a chance to say what they wanted to say and it ended on a nice note for everyone.

 

As for the "freedom" argument, um, he's making it because that's what this entire issue is about? It's about gays having the same freedom to marry as straight people. You enjoy that freedom, I enjoy that freedom, he enjoys that freedom, she enjoys that freedom - to us it is fundamental and inherent. Up until now, for gays, it has been something they have been excluded from due to religious doctrine seeping into law, which under our Constitution is not supposed to happen.

 

Furthermore, you are forgetting quite bluntly that many, many liberals (and independents, and Republicans who support gay marriage) are Christian as well. They simply do not take quite the unmoving and rigid stance that you have adopted. Just because left-wing people oppose a single tenet of your religion does not mean that the Democrats are ready to burn down your churches. It's also rather hypocritical to say that the gays are already taking your freedoms, because you just finished arguing in favor of infringing on theirs.

 

As for the slippery slope, have a look at Scandinavia. Brazil. Argentina. Canada, France. Spain. New Zealand. They've been ahead of the United States with gays' rights, and have they fallen down your "slippery slope?" Not in the slightest. Unless your "slippery slope" is that the junk seeping out of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Krauthammer are finally not seen as "news."

 

 

 

To quote Voltaire: "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

 

Simply because Cody K disapproves of your political stance does not mean he stands against equality. I would trust him a lot more than you to stand true to that perspective, given that you have quite vehemently argued against the ability of gays to enjoy the same rights as others.

 

Now let it rest. Everyone has had their fill.

>implying I am christian

>implying I am american

>implying those political fossils you mentioned have any influence over my political beliefs

>implying I wanted you to "trust" me with anything, but you can trust me when I say I am no hypocrite - unlike a common friend of ours

>implying I actually argued against gay marriage, all I've done so far is call people out on their bullshit

>implying those countries do not already openly embrace other forms of degeneracy, oh if only I could repost that pic of Brazil's "Slutwalk". Maybe you should look up Sweden's rape statistics? :^)

 

For a bunch of "intellectuals" you sure do like to assume things out of nothing

Edited June 30, 2015 by Severus Ryan

[Ashland]

I do find it interesting that people's in game actions are influenced by this sub board.

 

Do you think maybe that's a bit harsh? I do understand that Cirrus is strictly your business, but in Thalmor's defense, he at least was noticeably reasonable about conducting his arguments, especially here at the end of the debate. I don't think it would be very right to shut him out just because he holds that opinion - if he had offended someone it would be different, but I don't think he did any such thing. I think even the OP here, Alex, would agree.

 

Nope.  It's my business and I can turn away customers for whatever reason I like.  I discriminate against people who are stupid and who want to see institutional discrimination against me.  Tit for a tat.

[Severus Ryan]

Nope.  It's my business and I can turn away customers for whatever reason I like.  I discriminate against people who are stupid and who want to see institutional discrimination against me.  Tit for a tat.

This guy gets it. Businesses should be free to turn away whoever they want, for whatever reason

[Thalmor]

Nope.  It's my business and I can turn away customers for whatever reason I like.  I discriminate against people who are stupid and who want to see institutional discrimination against me.  Tit for a tat.

 

You know, maybe if you'd actually read the thread instead of having an autistic knee jerk response. you would've seen that Roma had actually managed to be able to convince me that some of my points were questionable to the point where I had recanted and wasn't so opposed to the idea.

 

I actually had some more business in mind for you, so by doing this, you just lost out of millions of dollars worth of future business. Finally, I can have you reported to moderation for your calling of me ''stupid'' - which is name calling, and is against the rules.

[Braunsberg]

>implying I am christian

>implying I am american

>implying those political fossils you mentioned have any influence over my political beliefs

>implying I wanted you to "trust" me with anything, but you can trust me when I say I am no hypocrite - unlike a common friend of ours

>implying I actually argued against gay marriage, all I've done so far is call people out on their !@#$

>implying those countries do not already openly embrace other forms of degeneracy, oh if only I could repost that pic of Brazil's "Slutwalk". Maybe you should look up Sweden's rape statistics? :^)

 

For a bunch of "intellectuals" you sure do like to assume things out of nothing

Oh don't worry, we can tell you're a Christian.

You may not be an American, but you sure do care a lot about American politics, so it's quite safe to assume you are.

Those "political fossils" don't have to influence your beliefs - because they influence the opinions of about 90 million other Americans.

I didn't say you wanted me to trust you. I just said I wouldn't choose your reliability over Cody K's when it comes to others' freedom of opinion.

If you were unable to figure it out yourself, you were arguing against gay marriage. Saying that I have to "imply" that is so bloody dumb I can't even laugh.

First one you've gotten right: yes, implying those countries don't have other forms of "degeneracy." And yes, please do have a look at their rape statistics, because they're about 10 percent that of the US. And while you show me Brazil's Slutwalk, I'll show you a KKK march sponsored by your friendly neighborhood Americans.

 

I didn't say anything about me being an intellectual. But I can say with confidence that you dang straight aren't one.

[Severus Ryan]

Oh don't worry, we can tell you're a Christian.

You may not be an American, but you sure do care a lot about American politics, so it's quite safe to assume you are.

Those "political fossils" don't have to influence your beliefs - because they influence the opinions of about 90 million other Americans.

I didn't say you wanted me to trust you. I just said I wouldn't choose your reliability over Cody K's when it comes to others' freedom of opinion.

If you were unable to figure it out yourself, you were arguing against gay marriage. Saying that I have to "imply" that is so bloody dumb I can't even laugh.

First one you've gotten right: yes, implying those countries don't have other forms of "degeneracy." And yes, please do have a look at their rape statistics, because they're about 10 percent that of the US. And while you show me Brazil's Slutwalk, I'll show you a KKK march sponsored by your friendly neighborhood Americans.

 

I didn't say anything about me being an intellectual. But I can say with confidence that you dang straight aren't one.

Ooh, getting sassy.

I'm Filipino.

I'm agnostic.

Those fossils you mentioned are irrelevant, and it's funny how you supposed intellectuals are forcing me into your stereotypes lol

2015 and STILL on the left-right spectrum, talk about obsolete

Oh and sorry if I didn't bite - if you didn't notice, "arguing" on the internet accomplishes literally nothing, so no, I don't play your game.

Backtrack and see for yourself :^)

Oh and yeah because population-wise, Sweden matches up to America pound for pound, right?

Always relying on your statistics and yet cannot even do the metamath lol

And yeah, I'm not an intellectual. As if being one is something to be proud of :^)

Edited June 30, 2015 by Severus Ryan

[LordRahl2]

Nope.  It's my business and I can turn away customers for whatever reason I like.  I discriminate against people who are stupid and who want to see institutional discrimination against me.  Tit for a tat.

 

I just said it was interesting.  You can do whatever you want, I do not care.

 

It remains interesting from an intellectual standpoint . . . although I just heard that being an intellectual is not something to be proud of.

[Hysteria]

I just said it was interesting.  You can do whatever you want, I do not care.

 

It remains interesting from an intellectual standpoint . . . although I just heard that being an intellectual is not something to be proud of.

Ashland gone Ashland

 

But F you and your intellectual thoughts and logics Rahl!

 

We all know we just do what a 2,000 book says we are supposed to do and we are done with it.

 

Even though in the Bible it says we should stone women who get divorced and people that cheat to death. Why don't we do that anymore?

Edited June 30, 2015 by Hysteria

[Braunsberg]

Ooh, getting sassy.

I'm Filipino.

I'm agnostic.

Those fossils you mentioned are irrelevant, and it's funny how you supposed intellectuals are forcing me into your stereotypes lol

2015 and STILL on the left-right spectrum, talk about obsolete

Oh and sorry if I didn't bite - if you didn't notice, "arguing" on the internet accomplishes literally nothing, so no, I don't play your game.

Backtrack and see for yourself :^)

Oh and yeah because population-wise, Sweden matches up to America pound for pound, right?

Always relying on your statistics and yet cannot even do the metamath lol

And yeah, I'm not an intellectual. As if being one is something to be proud of :^)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHHKU4znvo8&feature=youtu.be

 

1. Yup. Sassy like your entire presence on this thread.

2. You're Filipino? Give us a good reason to believe you. Like a nice sample of Filipino or Spanish, as you would be fluent in one of the two. Written in better grammar than Google Translate offers you.

3. Agnostic? Good, I am too, so I have a good idea of your perspective with regards to this issue. So let's look at your arguments: attacking others by saying that gays are stomping on religion. Saying that the leftists will throw stones until they take down the last priest. Worrying about "moral degeneracy." Claiming that procreation is the idea of marriage. And, of course, much more. Particularly emphasizing that last one, agnostics - given that we find no need for religion - have no need of or attraction to values that are so strictly religious as those you clearly cling to. Although I cannot prove it and you cannot prove otherwise, I'm going to call some serious BS on your being agnostic.

4. Oh, they're irrelevant? Why don't you ask the Republican National Committee. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Charles Krauthammer are extremely influential to American right-wing politics. Which is precisely why I mentioned them. (As for forcing you into stereotypes? No, you welcomed yourself to the club pretty fast.)

5. XD It's obsolete? Then why have you talked about the "leftists" throughout your entire parade here? You just called out your past self as much as targeting me.

6. Backtrack? Oh, I will. Since you are having so much difficulty determining what your opinion is, I have some fine quotes from your past self that may help you:

--Example 1: "Here you prove that the more spoiled people are, the more they degenerate and abandon the principles of the nation from which they leech off of. I'm not challenging these statistics, because they prove my point. Kali Yuga is here, and the only way is down :^)" Here you proclaim that people are "spoiled" for hopping onto what you seem to view as the bandwagon of gay marriage support.

--Example 2: "Opening the doors to your freedom led to other, even more disgusting doors to open." Ah, perfect. You just told us yourself: "even more disgusting doors to open". So you basically just said to us that you view homosexuality as disgusting, for starters.

--Example 3: "I'll have you know I graduated college with flying colors, so right there and then" Nothing to do with the ordinary stuff, I was just curious; was it Kentucky Mountain Bible College?

--Example 4: "Oh and I wasn't trying to "position" the church as a victim, its clearly already being victimized by your kind without my interference!" Yup. Victimized because the gays have their way? Straightforward enough.

--Example 5: "The only reason both pedophilia and bestiality are viewed with disdain is, guess why? Christianity. Or Judeo-Christian ethics to be more specific." Another perfect it: you just told us that Jewish and Christian ethics are the only reason pedophilia and bestiality are looked down upon. I guess that's why the very nonreligious nations of Scandinavia are quite strict about pedophilia. And why native American groups - how about the Aztecs, for example - were very strict about ordinary families and their sexual lives. To be fair, nobles had concubines - but forms of deceptive cheating and pedophilia were enough to have you killed. And the Aztecs weren't even on the same side of the globe, honey.

7. ...Ok? Like that's not even relevant? Why don't you use statistics (oh!) rather than lining up the population? Look it up for yourself - Sweden lists separate instances of rape/abuse of a same couple as separate cases. For example, if a man rapes his girlfriend four times before police are notified, it is counted as four cases. Which is why Sweden, if you look, is specifically explained as different if you read about its rape stats. And, by the way, it's also rated #1 in the world for gender equality. The United States is 47th.

 

As for that last bit... I am tempted to let out some hearty chuckles, but I will keep that to myself.

[Hysteria]

Yeah I mean I thought he was trolling. If your actually serious with those comments Ryan then uber sad face.

 

Society has these things called social norms. They change over time according to what most of the people in the society deem socially acceptable. So while yes religion plays a lot into it, people are starting to move away from organized religion in large numbers. A lot of people don't hold these religious values as the absolute end all guide to social interaction. Also in America we forgot about having church and state separate and that has !@#$ed up a lot of social policy in the United States.

 

Our founders have stated the United States of America is no way shape or form a Christian nation or formed on the values of said religion. 

You have to understand when the bible was written this men believe the earth was flat and unicorns existed on the land and sea. 

 

Grow up and accept people for who they are.  That can be the hardest part. Learning not to be a jackass

Edited June 30, 2015 by Hysteria