|Condoning Atheism.Page 3 of 25 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)|
|TY it beats cleaning stalls for horses for a living. If you know what I am talking about here? Think, you might. That take more then a shower to clean up after at the end of the day, boy that would s&ck |
Posted: 11/12/2009 9:53:50 PM
I totally agree, Valkyrie. Also, I don't think I took the time to mention that I really liked your post so far, they are gentle and respectful and you seem to take the time to make sure you speak for yourself only, which is appreciated. :-)
Thank you Cs. I learned a long time ago that I can never speak for anyone else unless they ask me to. I also learned that my beliefs are mine. I share some of them with Christians, and amazingly enough, some with Bhuddists, Hindus, and Pagans. But I most closely identify with Christians, as far as my personal beliefs go. And I have come to the realization that spirituality (let's stop calling it religion, just for arguments sake. I think there is a huge difference between the two) is a very private matter between one person and their chosen higher power. Mainly because a lot of people do feel like they have to explain themselves when they are questioned as to why they believe a certain way.
Yeah... errr.... sorry, have you heard of these pedophile priests? Where was god in their heart when they were raping these boys? I guess they were hypocrites. I don't know, this is just an example, but it seems to be if we follow the above definition, then the world is filled with a HELL of a lot of religious hypocrites. Maybe this stems from the fact that christian religion's values, historically, are far from the "happy love respect strike-me-on-the-other-cheek" values some Christians are quoting. The old testament was replaced by the new one, which conveniently removed some of the worst passages, but it's not like the Vatican is rejecting these scriptures either. It seems to me (from my limited knowledge on this field, correct me if I am wrong, Valkyrie) that there is a lot of selective memory going on. YOUR definition of Jesus love may perhaps be all about love and respect, but I am quite sure if you'd ask these "hypocrites" guys about their motivations, you would find them quite sincere and genuinely certain that they are doing the right thing. Just look right here right now at OpenHeart's response about gay/lesbian rights, which he happily compares to child rape, bestiality or incest! Where is jesus love and respect in this? Is OpenHeart one of the "hypocrite" you are talking about?
I am not going to say that Openheart is a hypocrite, but I do agree that there are a lot out there. And when I say a lot, I mean a lot. For a very long time I chose to separate myself completely from the Christian faith because of all the things that were done in the name of Christianity, most of it extremely hypocritical. Things like the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, even Islamic Jyhad in modern times, for example. The fact that in the middle ages in Europe the pope was the most powerful person in the world, simply because he was supposedly the leader of the only correct faith. "Bloody" Mary Tudor and her burning of heretics, simply to bring England back into favor with the church. The Spanish Inquisition (No one ever expects it!!!!! Sorry it had to be done). My point in my earlier post was that these were all instigated by man (or woman). This is not God's way.
Freetime, you are right about the prison thing, as well. But on the same note, those same people are the ones that I am saying are not truly spiritual. They may subscribe to a specific religion, but they are fooling themselves if they think they are truly living by the tenets of their religion. I have studied a lot of different religions and I cannot think of any that specifically call for murder, rape, incest, child abuse, etc. And in my own opinion, those people will have to answer for their actions to a higher power one day.
And to the question regarding gay/lesbian rights, I am actually a huge supporter in favor of their rights. It is not my place to judge them. I am not perfect. And that is not the way Jesus would have acted. (I know how cheesy that sounds, but I really do try to live my life by his example). "Judge not lest ye be judged."
I will never say that I am perfect. I will never say that I have never done anything wrong. But I do try to do the right thing, simply because it's the right thing. My faith gives me strength to deal with all the things I am going through right now. And I do believe that God watches over me. I have had too many close calls in my life. You can call it circumstance all you want. But I see divine intervention.
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:31:38 AM
|It's hard to be an atheist in prison. Or while strung out on drugs. Or while living the streets. Or anything similar. Most atheist have a 'luxury' of being atheist because they usually don't have a pressing need, want, or desire with no seemingly absolute way of getting it (or getting out of it as the case may be). |
Most people in prison want to get out of prison at some point. They want to make it through the terrible times they have in prison. Most junkies and alcoholics want the strength to break their habits. If you believe in nothing at all, then that is like giving up hope that you won't be able to get out of the dire situation you are in. Many people in these situations figure they don't have the means, power, and self fortitude to get them out of these situations; so they look above and beyond themselves for the power and see that power as 'god' - the god who gives them strength to move out, above, and beyond their dire situations when they thought it was nearly impossible to do it themselves alone or without the means to do so.
This I can understand and identify with. I have been in some situations where the mountains seem so high it was blocking the sun and seemed unscaleable. Or the fog was so thick I couldn't see where I was going but I had to keep going anyway (figuretively speaking). And I get through it and I see the light and the sun and I'm wondering 'how did that happen? I know what I did but some things were just beyond my doing to make this happen.' It likes when the governor calls at the 59th minute of the 11th hour to stay an execution. Who's doing is that? Certainly not the person being executed. These are small little 'coincidences' of stuff happening that will move mountains and lighten darkness . And I dabble in the so-called 'occult' a little bit because I believe that we may be able to manipulate these little coincidences into happening more often. Christians, Muslims, Jews and other religions believe that too, they call it 'prayer.'
I am beginning to understand why people choose to believe in a god, and follow that with some sort of adherence to religion, whatever that might be. What I don't understand is all the make-no-sense bullshit that has to come with religion and believing in god - like what the initial poster said of the flyers and booklets offered to her and her little girl. I can't get with the different variations and translations on a theme taught by the different churches and religions. I can't get with how religion is used as a tool for control of the masses and undermining their personal freedoms, intellect, innate moral and ethical codes, and free will. I cant understand how people are so blindly led like sheep to slaughter without question or inquiry about what they know, believe, and are taught. And if you can't get with that - then you might as well call yourself an atheist, or a 'humanist' variation.
Posted: 11/13/2009 2:01:01 AM
the core of who we truly are is good, I would expect athiests by and large to be good people with values and morals that closely align to society. I would never fear an athiest, but I may fear a religious person because many religious people are scarey.. Agree with this whole quote, especially the part in bold. But the part in bold is contrary to believing that we are innately sinful and can't do the right thing without the religious intermediaries to define god and guide us. That's why they lambaste atheist as being immoral and hedonistic, because they choose to do away with the intermediaries and decide to use their own free-will based logic.
Not only do atheist go to jail less then christians they tend to have higher IQs and be better educated. I am not necissarily sure I agree with this. I gave a reason why some (probably most) would find religion in prison. But as far as being better educated and having IQ's - not so fast.
It's easier to manipulate someone who isn't educated. That's why slave masters didn't want slaves reading and writing. Keeping a person uneducated keeps them poor - and poor people are often desperate and will cling to anything that they think will lift them out their dire straights, no matter how messed up it sounds.
Wait... I'm sorta making your point aren't I?
Well you make it seem like being atheist automatically makes more educated with a higher IQ. My point is to say that is not necessarily true, but it is more question and inquiry that can make you atheist. And anyone with basic reading skills and comprehension might be atheist if they turn away from what they have been taught in school or religious circles if it doesn't make sense to them.
Posted: 11/13/2009 2:24:10 AM
What about incestuous people's rights? What about the rights of people who want to have sex with animals? And with young children? Can't we all just get along? Highly debatable quote but I thought this was sarcasm and trying to deflect an answer away from the intended question of gay/lesbian rights, not that he means this on the same level.
And yes, I would hand my sex education over to the government and public school, no problem. Please teach them what you may. But I know this isn't enough and doesn't even come close to what children need to know so I have to supplement the basic anatomy, physiology and abstinence information with what I know and from my own experiences - and in much the case I probably teach them more than the school. I don't see an argument here, I see this as something that can jointly be done by the school and the parents. But many parent's don't do a sufficient job of sex education because they themselves lack knowledge and don't feel right about sex. And the schools can't teach everything.
Posted: 11/13/2009 5:50:28 AM
|"I am not necissarily sure I agree with this. I gave a reason why some (probably most) would find religion in prison. But as far as being better educated and having IQ's - not so fast. "|
"Well you make it seem like being atheist automatically makes more educated with a higher IQ. My point is to say that is not necessarily true, but it is more question and inquiry that can make you atheist. And anyone with basic reading skills and comprehension might be atheist if they turn away from what they have been taught in school or religious circles if it doesn't make sense to them."
A person who becomes an atheist does not have an IQ increase, but a person with a higher IQ is more likely to become an atheist in the first place. Also the more education one gets the more likely the are to rejected a belief in god, but you already knew both of these thing didn't you? Being smart and educated gives some the ability not to be a follower and reject group think or the majority. Not easy for the people not as educated or as smart to do. You don't have to have a PHD or have a high IQ to be an atheist, we are an equal opertunity organization all you have to do is open your eyes. You high school dropouts, your welcome too, but that might change the jail numbers; you see dumb people are much more likely to go to jail too. Peace
Posted: 11/13/2009 7:38:36 AM
A person who becomes an atheist does not have an IQ increase, but a person with a higher IQ is more likely to become an atheist in the first place. Also the more education one gets the more likely the are to rejected a belief in god, but you already knew both of these thing didn't you? Being smart and educated gives some the ability not to be a follower and reject group think or the majority. Not easy for the people not as educated or as smart to do. You don't have to have a PHD or have a high IQ to be an atheist, we are an equal opertunity organization all you have to do is open your eyes. You high school dropouts, your welcome too, but that might change the jail numbers; you see dumb people are much more likely to go to jail too. Peace Are they dumb because they got caught and went to jail (that would include some highly educated people), or are they dumb because they are not educated?
Oh and thanks for inviting me into your organzation. I so appreciate that.
There really isn't an argument or debate about this, what you say is more than likely true. But I'm speaking from the experience of a primarily middle school dropout with a GED who's last IQ test in her teens placed her somewhere just mildly below average and a little bit above borderline retarded. And even a kid can tell when something doesn't make sense when they think about it. I have the inquisitive wisdom of a kid, which isnt really a bad thing.
And I was against gay rights. I believe (may still believe) that marriage was intended for a man and a woman. That is how it's been in every country and every society whether 'advanced' or 'primitive.' At the very basic, marriage was about putting two people together to advance humankind (and keeping paternity in tact), and two people of the same gender can not do that. So that argument I understand and I wish they had another SUBJECT DU JOUR to get their point across like the right to vote, right to work, right to fair housing, etc; But they already have these rights as citizens because it was gained by women and blacks as those who participated in sufferage and civil rights; so this is pretty much the only thing they can fight and bargain for. If they are discriminated against for any of this... well welcome to the club. Some folks are ignorant, racist, sexist, and heterosexist. But you still have the basic rights before you.
But if that's what they want, then they can have it. I still think marriage was meant for a man and a woman but what changed my mind about their 'right' to have a legal state sanctioned marriage was just exactly that - it's a legal, state sanctioned, privilege with a signed document that grants you governmental perks that they are wanting and this should be absolutely void of religion. If you are familiar with that very long word antidisestablishmentter..... then you know that religion shouldn't be in legal and government matters anyway - something we preach but do not practice. I can't hold to religion to deny this legal right, and others should stop doing that too.
Political correctness... well gee golly whiz what I can I say about that???
Posted: 11/13/2009 7:49:55 AM
|a high school drop out becoming an atheist might change the jail numbers?|
Are you kidding me?
Dumb people are more likely to go to jail? Dumb maybe but uneduc ated not nessecarily. there are Thousands of educated prisoners and I guess you could say they are dumb, lol.
Posted: 11/13/2009 8:08:26 AM
|A clueless atheist? Is that even possible? |
Well I guess it is. But I will have to agree
Being smart and educated gives some the ability not to be a follower and reject group think or the majority. The masses of people who uneducated or underedcated are religious or follow the top main religions - that is Christian and Muslim (Africa, South & Central America). And in India it's Hindu. You are taught religion and religeous beliefs from birth onward. Its only after you learn to read and therefor get the knowledge and forethought to think for yourself to be able to reject religion. It is very possible to reject religion and keep a belief in 'god' (or whatever higher power you ascribe too) as witnessed by some who posted in this thread.
I don't think you can be a dumb-ass atheist.
Oh.... wait a minute. Maybe I stand corrected. You can be a dumb-ass and not believe in god. Or religion. I guess.
Maybe I don't know what a dumb-ass is.
fuggit. maybe it's me.
Posted: 11/13/2009 8:17:39 AM
|btw BadMonkeyFunker your posts are lame and leaves much to be desired but your profile is hella funny and a pleasure to read up until 'this is a joke.' |
A joke. Are you serious. I saw truth in everything I read.
oh well, guess that kinda answers the above.
Posted: 11/13/2009 8:21:12 AM
|"a high school drop out becoming an atheist might change the jail numbers?|
Are you kidding me?
Dumb people are more likely to go to jail? Dumb maybe but uneduc ated not nessecarily. there are Thousands of educated prisoners and I guess you could say they are dumb, lol"
Studies in prisons confirm that prisoners have lower IQ’s than the norm. In particular, they tend to have lower verbal IQ, while their performance IQ may be normal. This performance IQ > verbal IQ pattern is also seen in sociopaths.http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/iq-is-a-meaningful-construct-and-measurement/
Only 51 percent of prisoners have completed high school or its equivalent, compared with 76 percent of the general population.
Both dumb and under educated people are more likely to end up in jail, when looked at next to more educated or people with higher IQs. How can that even be a disputed. Again google try it.
Posted: 11/13/2009 8:27:20 AM
|But how is converting to atheism going to change this?|
Posted: 11/13/2009 8:40:45 AM
Both dumb and under educated people are more likely to end up in jail, when looked at next to more educated or people with higher IQs. How can that even be a disputed. Again google try it. I can probably dispute this from a racial standpoint since blacks are over represented in prisons. Does that mean we overall are dumber and less educated than whites or those least represented in jail like the Native Americans? You can say yes or you can say no. It doesn't matter it was more of a rhetorical question. In either case the implications of that are more than I care to think about or debate. And getting even further away from the thread topic.
All I will say is that I do condone atheism, but not erratic behavior that does not take into the consideration the health and safety of others as well as yourself - and that not the exclusive territory of atheist. I remember when I tell folks I am atheist (or pagan or heathen) they automatically think I have no morals, ethics, and that I believe in chaos, anarchy, or condone criminality. I tell them if a crime is committed against them or someone else, it is more likely to done by a professed 'Christian' or religious person than an atheist. They can't and don't argue against that, but only to tell me that those people weren't 'true Christians' to begin with - which undermines the point of atheist being amoral but it proves my point.
Maybe that's why there are few atheist in jails and prisons. Most of those who commit crimes are of the professed religions.
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:10:03 AM
|I'll answer your questions ConsciousSoul but it will require more time and thought than I am willing to give it right now. So later. |
You know I always felt irritated when LGBTQ compared their struggles to Blacks. I didn't think it appropriately fit especially with whites because they would still be very racist and yet choose to hide behind their minority status as a different sexual orientation.
It still irritates me because I see whites as a privilege majority and sexual orientation can easily be hidden unlike the color of one's skin. But on the other hand I do relate to things better from a racial perspective. And what I just said can be said about blacks - that we can be very heterosexist or against gays but can comfortably choose to hide behind our own 'minority' status. Ofcourse I don't believe that about us, don't want to believe it; but it may be a very apt argument.
btw, that antonym gets longer and longer. I remember when it was just Lesbians and gays, then LBGT, and now it's LGBTQ. Next it will be LGBTQPORP - POP meaning polyamory open relationship polygamous or something.
Posted: 11/13/2009 11:37:44 AM
What you do in your bedroom is a choice.
One question regarding this, if homosexuality is a choice, why in God's name would anyone choose to be gay? And suffer all the discrimination and consequences that go along with that? When I say consequences, I am not referring to the after life. I am referring to getting beaten up by complete strangers for your sexual orientation. Being ostracized by your parents because they think you are wrong and want to "cure" you. Being an outcast at a young age because of your confusion. being told over and over that there is something wrong with you and causing you to hate yourself. Why would someone actually choose that?
Posted: 11/14/2009 2:06:13 AM
|I would never ever ever never turn my back on my kids for being gay/lesbian.|
Of course i dont aspire for them to be, but if they are, it doesnt change that it is my beloved child. I would invite their partner over for Sunday dinner even.
Posted: 11/14/2009 9:25:19 AM
Brilliant. The majority even in liberal California want to protect marriage as between a man and a woman, and that means they want to own humans as slaves. Excellent deductive reasoning once again, ConsciousSoul.
Unfortunately, OpenHeart, this could very well end up being the case. Once you open the door for discrimination against anyone for any reason it sets a precedent and makes it that much easier to add another group and another and another. If you deny people the same rights as others based on their sexual orientation, what's the next group people are going to go after? The aged? Religious? Before long everyone that is not blond haired, blue eyed and pure Christian will be discriminated against. And don't doubt that would happen. People tend to be afraid of what they don't understand and therefor it is evil and must be destroyed.
Posted: 11/14/2009 12:42:21 PM
|Atheism is the result of a man thinking for himself rather then being programed with religious propaganda. |
Religion = Separatism/hatred
Only the mentally lazy need religion to auto pilot their brains.
Posted: 11/14/2009 4:53:32 PM
|nobody has posted anything about atheism in 2 pages, might as well kill the thread or change the title.|
Posted: 11/15/2009 1:36:18 AM
It means procreating. Having children. It has nothing to do with love or showing love or orphans or lesbians using IVF or sperm donorship to have babies. All that wasn’t available before, or marriages were arranged by families for social and political reasons that had nothing to do with love for the marry-eds. I’m talking strictly good ol fashioned man-woman sex coitus offspring.
At the very basic, marriage was about putting two people together to advance humankind (and keeping paternity in tact), and two people of the same gender can not do that.
I would like to challenge this claim, nappyKAT. First, what does "advancing humankind" means, exactly
Not necessary to visit every society on the planet, but I do know that every society on the planet since antiquity has been putting two people together, a man and a woman, with or without ceremony – for the purpose of having children to further their own society and human species; from Eve and Isis to now. From Mesopatomaia to the US. From Africa, India, South & Central Amer to Asia, to North and South Pole to the US. Even Rome, with it’s history and preference for homosexuality, relied on male-female relationships and intercourse to produce children. Many a married men engaged in homosexuality, but I’ve never heard or read of them allowing for marriage between same gender, just between men and women.
I believe (may still believe) that marriage was intended for a man and a woman. That is how it's been in every country and every society whether 'advanced' or 'primitive.'
First, I am not sure you have actually visited *every* society on the planet, in order to claim this.
Third, lesbian couples CAN have children today, using insemination. So if procreation was the criteria for preventing two people to marry, then lesbian couples should be allow to marry?Insemination is a fairly new concept that was not available some years ago so unless lesbians had sex with men, they couldn’t procreate. All of this new technology changes things but procreation was originally the sole feat of men and women. Their body parts fit with each other for this reason. Pherimones and other nuances like voice were made to attract the opposite sex for this reason – procreation mainly. Homosexuality is an anomaly of the human and animal species that you probably can’t change but anomalies are not the accepted norm. I’ll have to repeat that since many people do not want to understand or accept that - Homosexualty is an anomaly and not an accepted norm for the human species. That’s why they are anomalies – meaning they are different and out of the ordinary. That’s not the only anomaly of the human species, it happens and happens often. Some of them happen over time – start out as a genetic mutation for some reason and then get passed down the line until you’re so used to the difference that it’s part of the accepted norm. Some anomalies are instant – like a genetic ailment passed to a child. You want us to now accept homosexual anomalies as the accepted norm for the human species (because some of you can now procreate even tho the men are loathe to do so) and be granted the same privileges that the already accepted norm (male and female coitus and marriage) has.
I don’t know if I will ever accept homosexualty as anything more than a genetic (or social) anomaly out of the norm of male and female togetherness. And it has nothing to do with what you do in the bedroom because opposite sex couples do commit sodomy (by whatever legal definitions their state has) and pretty much do the same type of sex that homos have. But I will not fight against the social and legal construct of them wanting to marry for "accepted connotation in our society….When you say to someone "we are married", you don't need to explain the commitment…the official ceremony, the lifetime vows… the social recognition of two loving adults who decided to spend their life together…fight for their right to be treated the same…They are human beings. They love. They commit. They marry. They spend their lifetime together. They want society to recognize that." Society is changing and I do believe there is a place for same-sex couples in it and to thrive in it and do well – children or no children.
But I’m still unsure if I want those legal rights to be called a marriage – because I did think marriage should be reserved with its original intensions – male and female. I thought a ‘civil ceremony’ was just fine. But since my own views on marriage has changed since becoming atheist/heathen (and figuring that one of the original motivations for marriage was to control women and keep women from sleeping around so paternity can be established for children), I just don’t give a dam what consenting legal-age adult wants to get married anymore.
OK, I understand this now. Even if I knew that the person's comments where meant to be taken as sarcasm or as a joke, I too would have felt compelled to answer in a similar and defensive way that you did because I still would have seen it as offensive to me as a black person. ‘Oh nice joke hahahaheehee but what the hell does black rights and black/white screwing around have to do with incest, animal sex and pedophilia? Are you trying to compare these? That’s not funny, its derisive and offensive.’
What about incestuous people's rights? What about the rights of people who want to have sex with animals? And with young children? Can't we all just get along?
Highly debatable quote but I thought this was sarcasm and trying to deflect an answer away from the intended question of gay/lesbian rights, not that he means this on the same level.
…Now, nappyKAT, let me ask you this, in all honesty and as genuinely as possible.
I know you are also part of a minority. Imagine instead of gay/lesbian rights, we go backward a few years - barely 40 years - and I was asking this question instead:
"What about black people rights?"
And someone else answered with :
"What about incestuous people's rights? What about the rights of people who want to have sex with animals? And with young children? Can't we all just get along?"
Now, be honest here. How would you feel?
Then, if someone else pointed this, and the above author responded with:
"My point was not and is not to say that I would view a back screwing a pig in the same way I'd view a back screwing a white."
How would you feel?
Sexual orientation as a choice – I’m not entirely sure that sexual orientation isn’t a choice. For some it seems like a nature thing (born that way). For others it seems like a nurture (choice) – women who ‘turn gay’ because of constant bad relationships with men or because they are ‘gay’ as long as the their fling lasts with a woman and when its over they are back with a man. Or the men who are ‘straight’ but has the desire to get his butt poked or been turned out in jail, through abuse, or some wild ass same sex fling he had in college or high school. Or the bisexuals who can’t seem to make up their mind and go either whichaway – thereby making a choice to be either gay or straight depending on whichever way the wind blows (now I understand why they had to fight to be included in the antonym. Gays don’t like it either when you can’t make up your mind and including bisexuals would seem to actually hurt the cause than help it. Including bisexuals would make everyone else think homosexuality really was a choice and not born). And then there are transsexuals who claim they are straight but dress in drag. If that’s not suppose to be gay, then what the hell is it??
Yes, I know. Theses people should not have to define themselves for the cause of same-sex marriage. And you’re right. They are not mutually exclusive and regardless of how they define themselves, they (along with heterosexuals) should fight and be welcome to join in the cause of marriage equality for everyone (that is of legal consenting age to do so – I have to add so folks would stop talking about marrying children and animals). All I’m saying on this is…. I understand why many people believe it’s a choice to be homosexual and use that to bolster their argument against homosexual marriage, given what I said in the previous paragraph. When they look at those for which homosexuality seems to be a choice (transsexuals, bisexuals, those who ‘turn gay’ because of circumstance) then what they are saying is ‘Marriage has always been and always should be between a man and a woman. If you choose to be homosexual, then don’t choose it and we don’t have to worry about it. Choose heterosexuality and we will allow you get to married.’
If I thought homosexuality was strictly choice I’d likely call it a homosexual ‘fling’, ‘recreation’, or ‘phase’ and say the same thing above. Personally I think it goes either way – by choice and by born.
Posted: 11/15/2009 2:06:50 AM
But keep in mind : you never know if your kids were born gay / lesbians. What will you do if they happen to be, and all your life you raised them into this hatred and bigotry? Is being raised into hatred and bigotry why some of the choose to stay there? Like homosexual Catholics? I never could figure that one. I mean even if they chose a gay pope - the entire religion is ademently against homosexuality. That's like me becoming treasurer to the KKK. The KKK wants to diversity and choose me, but they're still against blacks. That's an absolute cross-parallel.
I would never ever ever never turn my back on my kids for being gay/lesbian. A homosexual person would say the exact same thing. Even gay people aspire for their offspring (gay or biological) to be heterosexuals, not gay. Any idea why?
Of course i dont aspire for them to be, but if they are, it doesnt change that it is my beloved child. I would invite their partner over for Sunday dinner even.
Ofcourse I got my own ideas, but I'll leave it. This is a circular argument.
You wanna get married. I got it. Get married.
I don't care. I don't feel superior to anybody by being hetero and thinking that heteros and their unions are better. Do whatchu do.
Posted: 11/15/2009 2:22:31 AM
"love thy neighbor" is only if that neighbor is a an American?
Lordy, lordy. I knew with that statement that you are definitely NOT American because the answer to that question would be a resounding YES!
Didn't you know? Apparently you havent met our Christians or our Military. It's 'God Bless AMERICA' in time of crisis and war and peace. Not 'God Bless Those Whose Ass We Wanna Stump.'
And sure enough, you're British Columbia. Where the hell is that? Europe or Canada Dry?
I am a socialist Hello Ms. Socialist. Meet America, Mr. Capitalist. America hates Commies. Socialist - pretty much the same thing.
Posted: 11/15/2009 6:20:59 AM
However, even if I accept your view of it being an anomaly, then why does it mean that we have to discriminate these people when it does not cost us absolutely nothing except opening our mind to NOT discriminate them?I am not condoning discrimination. The is not my point. As a matter of fact, I don't have a problem with gay marriage on a legal and social basis. And I have no religious ground to stand on either to deny anyone marital or civil rights. I believe my posts was pointed out because I said I believe marriage is between a man and woman, not based on religion or legalities but because that is what seems right to me. It is what fits with the human structure and the human body in my mind. So I understood this statement by those whose espoused it (even if they do condone discrimination) and wished the LGBTQ community could find another subject as their main subject to fight about. And I was asked to explain that since my perspective was not a religious one.
Also - what is the big deal about - is it a choice or not? Even if it was a choice, what does it change on the principle? I already said it - if it can be proven that homosexuality is a choice, then there is no reason to make something a 'right' when it seems most everyone believes the behavior is aberrant. We could simply say 'oh that behavior is a choice? Well make the right choice (heterosexuality) and we don't have to worry about. We don't have to worry about giving rights to the 'wrong choice' (homosexuality) when most of us believe it is wrong.' Those who fight for marital and civil equality for homosexuals always ask this question and fail to see why heterosexuals always use this argument about 'choice' or chosen sexuality. And it's exactly for the reason I stated. If you don't know about your enemies weapons and why or how they use them, then how do you plan to defeat them? Or at the very least, get them to change their mind or open their mind?
What if, furthermore, nature is regulating its own procreation rate through the use of mechanism like homosexuality, in order to slow down the pace of reproduction when too many people are burning the resources? I don't buy it. If that was true then there needs to be a lot more of them. Gays and natural disasters certainly aren't slowing the population growth. Infant and maternal mortality is doing an OK job of that. Universal birth control would do even an even better job. Besides, that not an apt argument since.. as a point you made... lesbians can still bear children and gays can still produce viable sperm to have them. Clay Aiken being only one of many examples. The only way they would be reducing population growth is by not having children at all - be it through insemination or sperm donation or good ol' opposit- sex sex
Not necissarily. I've heard of mixed race kids who grow up to either hate or resent the black parent and the black race or the white parent and the white race. By your logic, you would think if you are mixed race with a black parent and a white one - you would embrace tolerance, respect, and their parents. And they could - but that would depend on the parents and their surroundings. Same with gays. Being gay doesn't automatically produce a respectful and tolerant child who loves and respect the gay parent. If that gay person is messed up, low self-esteem, depressed, sexing anything, and feel like they can't leave an unhealthy gay relationship because nobody else would want them - then that kid is liable to be very messed up. My only sibling was gay, and exactly as I described. I had hoped he'd have one kid, but he probably would have given that kid some issues if he spent any significant time in their life.
Gay parents would certainly raise their kid in a lot more respect for diversity and LGBTQ issues; besides, a kid raised by gay parents has... a great way to stop the cycle of intolerance.
I think if they brought up children who have more respect for gays, it would be mostly due to the parents being gays. They children naturally accept their parents.
Speaking of my sibling - I am heterosexual and my kids did love and respect my brother very much. He died 2 years ago and they say they miss him. They know he was gay. They also have a gay/pre-op transgendered teenage cousin that they fond of. No one here has homophobia or supports or condones it.
25 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)