Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Many sites like www.afa.net and it's affiliates do nothing but complain about the content of TV shows and petition companies to pull funding from such programs as "It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia", "The Shield", and "Saving Grace" by threatening them with boycotts. They also are actively boycotting Ford for funding gay parades (I don't agree with gay parades, but boycotting them outright is a little extreme). They also threatened to boycott Wal Mart for carrying Brokeback Mountain. They speak of nothing but outrage and spend every ounce of energy trying to install a V-chip in the United States.

Discuss.

You can judge a religion by it's members.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can judge a religion by it's members.

Well, that may not be entirely true. There are Christians who are just as offended at their bullying as I am. Upon review, "Christian Organizations" was a bit too broad. However, when people think Christianity, nowadays... they think of people like this.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Well, that may not be entirely true. There are Christians who are just as offended at their bullying as I am. Upon review, "Christian Organizations" was a bit too broad. However, when people think Christianity, nowadays... they think of people like this.

Then other Christians should speak out against these people and for these programs and the freedom of speech. As for the groups that preach shit like that, I hope they all **** off and get a freaking life, bunch of retards.

Shrug; almost every aspect of life has some sort of group like this.

Just so happens that theology is a lot more offense, I suppose, because they tell you that you will go to hell and never return

They must be stopped. They do these things because of how they were taught of the Bible. So to stop--prevent this, we stop that form of teaching the Bible (or the Bible altogether) and this won't happen.

Yeah, now we need a practical to halt bias in theology, politics, education and so on...

Edit: I say use guns. All the motivation you need is a muzzle to the noggin.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Well, that may not be entirely true. There are Christians who are just as offended at their bullying as I am. Upon review, "Christian Organizations" was a bit too broad. However, when people think Christianity, nowadays... they think of people like this.

Maybe not Christianity all together, but silence is compliance.

Originally posted by parenthesis
to stop--prevent this, we stop that form of teaching the Bible (or the Bible altogether) and this won't happen.

No. Don't blame the bible or Religion for bad thigns, blame stupid peopel for bad things.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
No. Don't blame the bible or Religion for bad thigns, blame stupid peopel for bad things.

Why not blame the bible or religion? If a religion cannot give it's people the tools to be smarter, then the religion is to blame.

It does give stupid people the tools to be smarter, but the stupid people choose not to use them, or use them wrong, because they're stupid. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They let you do it even though you are an atheist? Did they have a problem with your belief? They didn't know I was an Atheist, we told them that I was some what non-religious/non-practicing. It really meant a great deal to my wife and it was her grandfather that married us, her family doesn't know I'm an Atheist they just think that I'm non-religious.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
It does give stupid people the tools to be smarter, but the stupid people choose not to use them, or use them wrong, because they're stupid. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

I disagree. I used to be a Christian and I am now a Buddhist. Christianity gave me no tools to deal with life and people in a human and loving way (or very little, treat others like you would like to be treated is about it). Buddhism on the other hand, is all about taking responsibility, and self responsibility leads to happiness; a happy person will treat other people with love. I truly believe if a religion is a good religion, then the people within the religion would also be good.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
It does give stupid people the tools to be smarter, but the stupid people choose not to use them, or use them wrong, because they're stupid. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

We are talking about manipulators getting to people who have not been exposed to anything else. How does that make them stupid?

Originally posted by chithappens
We are talking about manipulators getting to people who have not been exposed to anything else. How does that make them stupid?

The manipulators are the stupid ones.

Statement: Clearly, all Christian organizations are little more than bullies.

Query: What would Bardiel13 say about an organization that repeatedly took others to court on the basis that the others offended the organization--would this be bullying?

So who are the smart ones?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Clearly, all Christian organizations are little more than bullies.

Query: What would Bardiel13 say about an organization that repeatedly took others to court on the basis that the others offended the organization--would this be bullying?

Could you rephrase your query? And read my second post in this thread.

Its so much easier to manipultate and intimidate the masses when you motives are so apparently practical not spiritual. two sides of the same face. its about power and money and controlling the acess of free thought ,free will once called liberties.
they don't exist in america or anywhere else for that matter. the concept of organized religion has ALWAYS been about earthly power and domination.... IF THERE WERE A GOD
OF ANY CONCEQUENSE WHO SUCH A BEING ALLOW THE ABUSE OF HIS CREATIONS
ask the millions killed in the name of GOD !
THEY SCREAMED TO IN THEIR DYING BREATHS
WHERE WAS THIS MERCIFUL GOD?

Originally posted by warlock412
Its so much easier to manipultate and intimidate the masses when you motives are so apparently practical not spiritual. two sides of the same face. its about power and money and controlling the acess of free thought ,free will once called liberties.
they don't exist in america or anywhere else for that matter. the concept of organized religion has ALWAYS been about earthly power and domination.... IF THERE WERE A GOD
OF ANY CONCEQUENSE WHO SUCH A BEING ALLOW THE ABUSE OF HIS CREATIONS
ask the millions killed in the name of GOD !
THEY SCREAMED TO IN THEIR DYING BREATHS
WHERE WAS THIS MERCIFUL GOD?
Rhetorical Query: Where was this merciful God as six million Jews, His chosen, were slaughtered in the Holocaust? Where was this vengeful God as six million Jews, His chosen, cried out for respite in the death camps? Where was this merciful God as six million Jews, His chosen, were starved and worked to death in the name of human evolution?

Statement: God was where He has always been--on high, grieved by the actions of His creations, and giving the murderers and torturers chance to repent, a chance to turn from their evil and to good.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Rhetorical Query: Where was this merciful God as six million Jews, His chosen, were slaughtered in the Holocaust? Where was this vengeful God as six million Jews, His chosen, cried out for respite in the death camps? Where was this merciful God as six million Jews, His chosen, were starved and worked to death in the name of human evolution?

Statement: God was where He has always been--on high, grieved by the actions of His creations, and giving the murderers and torturers chance to repent, a chance to turn from their evil and to good.



God has done nothing (because he does not exist)


No amount of telling Jesus you are sorry, will ever make you clean of mass murder and torture of innocent people. That is a pure cop out.


I cannot admire a God who allows a mass murder and torturer into Heaven, simply because he decided to ask a dead man named Jesus for salvation.


While a decent person ends up in Hell for not beleiving in an illogical myth.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
God has done nothing (because he does not exist)


No amount of telling Jesus you are sorry, will ever make you clean of mass murder and torture of innocent people. That is a pure cop out.


I cannot admire a God who allows a mass murder and torturer into Heaven, simply because he decided to ask a dead man named Jesus for salvation.


While a decent person ends up in Hell for not beleiving in an illogical myth.
Query: Why is Urizen angry at God's generosity and His justice?

Assertation: FeceMan has explained this to Urizen on other occasions.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Many sites like www.afa.net and it's affiliates do nothing but complain about the content of TV shows and petition companies to pull funding from such programs as "It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia", "The Shield", and "Saving Grace" by threatening them with boycotts. They also are actively boycotting Ford for funding gay parades (I don't agree with gay parades, but boycotting them outright is a little extreme). They also threatened to boycott Wal Mart for carrying Brokeback Mountain. They speak of nothing but outrage and spend every ounce of energy trying to install a V-chip in the United States.

Discuss.

I dare say we should boycott these groups for their foolish stances.



Well, we hope anyway, since any divine justice handling and all that happened after the Nazi's responsible were dead and well beyond our ability to be certain they received any sort of punishment. Well beyond faith that God exists and does what people say he does and whatever.

Which isn't quite as comforting. And I know you don't really mean it that way, but it kind of comes off like the people who'd say "Don't worry Jimmy, yes the truck lost control due to an apparently unpredictable mechanical fault and crushed the car killing your entire family and leaving you crippled for life, but God is merciful and just. Doesn't that make you feel better?"



Are you hinting at a certain organisation that has made its life's work to attack inequality and religious imposition wherever it finds it, which includes separation of Church and State, separation of education and religion and the idea of religious organisations projecting their values and marketing into places they shouldn't?

Because if you are I'm not sure how good an example that is.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Query: Why is Urizen angry at God's generosity and His justice?


Answer: I am not angry at God. God doesn't exist. I am angry that this myth has been taken so seriously by gullible people.




Originally posted by FeceMan
Assertation: FeceMan has explained this to Urizen on other occasions.


Response: Feceman has never logically explained this. He simply gave his intepretation and his justification for a logical paradox.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
(I don't agree with gay parades, but boycotting them outright is a little extreme).

Oh I see, being openly homophobic is bad, but being secretly homophobic is perfectly fine.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I see, being openly homophobic is bad, but being secretly homophobic is perfectly fine.

Actually, the reason I don't agree with gay parades is because I am not homophobic. The concept is fine, however most of them are nothing but a display of every reason why homophobes hate gays. It's supposed to preach tolerance and show that gays are people too, but it makes them look like people who are out for attention and want nothing more than to shock people. In order for gays to be given the right to marriage, they have to be taken seriously. How do you take a man that dresses up as a Vegas showgirl seriously?

I was all at a Catholic gathering yesterday because some (fringe) friends of mine were speaking and the one keeps inviting me to stuff and I feel like a douche for putting her off. They don't really know I'm not Catholic yet, but I don't see them outside of large groups and there's never really a good time. Anyway, it was all like:

"So. Let's share our own experiences now that we've heard our speakers. What do you value most about your Catholicism? Mark, you want to start us off?"

Me: "Yeah. Um....pass?"

Gotta stop feeling awkward about it. But it can be hard when you were a freaking figurehead of the young adult church community for years.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I see, being openly homophobic is bad, but being secretly homophobic is perfectly fine.






"Just because I vote against Gay Marriage doesn't mean I dislike Gays or want them to be unhappy. I just don't think they should have the same rights that I do"



OR even better, Sithsaber's idiotic post:



"I am not Anti-Gay, I am just Pro-Straight."

Originally posted by Goddess Kali




"Just because I vote against Gay Marriage doesn't mean I dislike Gays or want them to be unhappy. I just don't think they should have the same rights that I do"



OR even better, Sithsaber's idiotic post:



"I am not Anti-Gay, I am just Pro-Straight."



Wait, was the first quote by her?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, we hope anyway, since any divine justice handling and all that happened after the Nazi's responsible were dead and well beyond our ability to be certain they received any sort of punishment. Well beyond faith that God exists and does what people say he does and whatever.
Statement: Perhaps it is beyond Imperial_Samurai's certainty, but it is not beyond FeceMan's.

Declaration, Colloquial: Life sucks; shit happens; etc.

Statement: When the believer dies, all his wounds shall be made whole, and he shall inhabit a perfect body where perfect peace, contentment, and comfort are all he knows; pain and death will be things of the past.

Interjection:

Statement: Indeed FeceMan is referring to such an organization, an organization of hypocrites and wrongdoers who claim their goals as being noble and just.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
"Just because I vote against Gay Marriage doesn't mean I dislike Gays or want them to be unhappy. I just don't think they should have the same rights that I do"
Statement: A straw man argument at its worst.

Query: Has Urizen ever considered that sithsaber might have been making a joke?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: A straw man argument at its worst.



Response: Yes, the argument; ""Just because I vote against Gay Marriage doesn't mean I dislike Gays or want them to be unhappy. I just don't think they should have the same rights that I do" is a horrible one, but unfortunately representative of many conservative and traditional perspectives.




Originally posted by FeceMan
Query: Has Urizen ever considered that sithsaber might have been making a joke?


Answer: Yes, until he stated he was serious and tried to defend that statement.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Many sites like www.afa.net and it's affiliates do nothing but complain about the content of TV shows and petition companies to pull funding from such programs as "It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia", "The Shield", and "Saving Grace" by threatening them with boycotts. They also are actively boycotting Ford for funding gay parades (I don't agree with gay parades, but boycotting them outright is a little extreme). They also threatened to boycott Wal Mart for carrying Brokeback Mountain. They speak of nothing but outrage and spend every ounce of energy trying to install a V-chip in the United States.

Discuss. Same could be said by every advocate group under the Sun. Zealots are present everywhere. Law, politics, religion, race, animal rights, environmentalists, etc....Originally posted by Goddess Kali
God has done nothing (because he does not exist)


No amount of telling Jesus you are sorry, will ever make you clean of mass murder and torture of innocent people. That is a pure cop out.


I cannot admire a God who allows a mass murder and torturer into Heaven, simply because he decided to ask a dead man named Jesus for salvation.


While a decent person ends up in Hell for not beleiving in an illogical myth. What's makes your belief in nothing more credible than those of us who believe in God? Have you disproved the existence of God?

God doesn't "Allow" mass murder. We were given Free Will by Him as a gift. Would you rather be programmed at birth? I could also say the "cop out" is not believing. You have the Free Will to admire and believe as you choose. Without Free Will this would not be possible.

Originally posted by Badabing
Same could be said by every advocate group under the Sun. Zealots are present everywhere. Law, politics, religion, race, animal rights, environmentalists, etc.... What's makes your belief in nothing more credible than those of us who believe in God? Have you disproved the existence of God?

God doesn't "Allow" mass murder. We were given Free Will by Him as a gift. Would you rather be programmed at birth? I could also say the "cop out" is not believing. You have the Free Will to admire and believe as you choose. Without Free Will this would not be possible.

The idea that god gave us free will is a cop out. If god is all knowing, then free will from "his" point of view does not exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The idea that god gave us free will is a cop out. If god is all knowing, then free will from "his" point of view does not exist. That's one way to look at it. Knowing what has been and always will be does not impact our decisions.

Free will lets us choose, act and believe as we like. We weren't hardwired to act or believe at birth. Free will.

Originally posted by Badabing
That's one way to look at it. Knowing what has been and always will be does not impact our decisions.

Free will lets us choose, act and believe as we like. We weren't hardwired to act or believe at birth. Free will.

Yes, but I am talking about why the idea of free will is a cop out. I know we have free will, but the idea of free will as applies to god does not work well.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, but I am talking about why the idea of free will is a cop out. I know we have free will, but the idea of free will as applies to god does not work well. I respect your opinion and it does seem to be a paradox.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I see, being openly homophobic is bad, but being secretly homophobic is perfectly fine.

I frankly have no inward hatred towards gays...I'd just rather not see hundreds of near-naked men dancing in a street.

That shouldn't be too hard to understand.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Actually, the reason I don't agree with gay parades is because I am not homophobic. The concept is fine, however most of them are nothing but a display of every reason why homophobes hate gays. It's supposed to preach tolerance and show that gays are people too, but it makes them look like people who are out for attention and want nothing more than to shock people. In order for gays to be given the right to marriage, they have to be taken seriously. How do you take a man that dresses up as a Vegas showgirl seriously?

That basically sums it up.

What do christian organizations do with their resources? Anyone know? Do they do anything constructive?

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
What do christian organizations do with their resources? Anyone know? Do they do anything constructive?

The leaders get male prostitutes.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Actually, the reason I don't agree with gay parades is because I am not homophobic. The concept is fine, however most of them are nothing but a display of every reason why homophobes hate gays. It's supposed to preach tolerance and show that gays are people too, but it makes them look like people who are out for attention and want nothing more than to shock people. In order for gays to be given the right to marriage, they have to be taken seriously. How do you take a man that dresses up as a Vegas showgirl seriously?

Let me get this straight.

Gay parade is display of reasons why homophobes hate gays? With all due respect, that is rather ridiculous statement. Not to mention untrue.

Some gay men are camp, others are not. Some gay men like anal sex, others don't.
Some gay men dress like women, others dont.

In fact, there is a large number of gay men you wouldn't be able to tell are gay by looking or speaking to them.

Homophobes hate those gay men as much as they hate the extravagant, stereotypical mainstream TV ones.

For you to take gays seriously, they need to be hyper-masculine mimicing straight men.

In a society obsessed with being a masculine manliness and submissive femmininity, your answer should not suprise me at all.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Let me get this straight.

Gay parade is display of reasons why homophobes hate gays? With all due respect, that is rather ridiculous statement. Not to mention untrue.

Some gay men are camp, others are not. Some gay men like anal sex, others don't.
Some gay men dress like women, others dont.

In fact, there is a large number of gay men you wouldn't be able to tell are gay by looking or speaking to them.

Homophobes hate those gay men as much as they hate the extravagant, stereotypical mainstream TV ones.

I think what he was saying is the Gay parades end up being everything that homophobes hate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think what he was saying is the Gay parades end up being everything that homophobes hate.

As I have just said above, homophobes hate gay men and women, regardless of what they act or look like.

It is highly unlikely that homophobes hate gays because they are dancing on the street half naked, once a year.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Let me get this straight.


Pun intended?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Some gay men like anal sex, others don't.

.....Then what exactly do they do for gratification?

And forgive the apparent ignorance of this question: But what's the 'point' of being gay if you're not gonna have anal with other men?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Homophobes hate those gay men as much as they hate the extravagant, stereotypical mainstream TV ones.

How do you know?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As I have just said above, homophobes hate gay men and women, regardless of what they act or look like.

It is highly unlikely that homophobes hate gays because they are dancing on the street half naked, once a year.

I know for a fact that some of them do, but that is not the main reason.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The leaders get male prostitutes.

That's just one of their perks... Like tax breaks.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As I have just said above, homophobes hate gay men and women, regardless of what they act or look like.

It is highly unlikely that homophobes hate gays because they are dancing on the street half naked, once a year.

As much as I'd like to say everyone should express themselves openly and all that liberal stuff, I simply can't. Because, realistically speaking, we live in a society where people need to do certain things to get ahead in life. For instance, if you work in an office building, it is protocol that you wear a suit. If you are a man and you come to work one day in a speedo and kabuki make-up, chances are you will get fired. It doesn't matter if you feel most comfortable in a speedo and make-up, it makes more people around you uncomfortable.
I don't care what people do with their private lives. If they like to dress in the opposite sex's clothing, like it in the butt, or have a fetish for poop. Though it may strike me as odd, I'm not going to lynch them for being different.
With gay parades, they enforce the stereotype that gays are freaks who like to dance half naked and try to be as shocking as possible. Right in the street, even! These event are highly sexualized and suggestive. But, in society's eyes, that's alright, because they're gay and gays are naturally sexual devients and freaks, so let them express themsevles. If this were a parade with straight people with women running around topless and men thrusting their groins at the pedestrians, this would not fly.
You say, most homophobes hate gays because they simply like the same sex. That is not true at all. How do I know this? Becuase, me being a non-judging person have homophobic friends. Inevitably, we have little friendly debates about this topic. All of my friends told me what they didn't like most about homosexuals is that they were attention whores that liked to freak people out. They had no sense of romance, instead they go off to their gay orgies (which in fact is one of the reason why HIV is rampant in the gay community) and have meanling hedonistic sex. Of course, I told them this wasn't all true, that many gays have long-term and loving relationships with single individuals. One replied, "I believe you. Unfortuantely those aren't the gays I'm seeing."
Homosexuality, by definition, is the sexual attraction to the same gender. With gay parades, it's less about being homosexual and more about dancing in the street with a painted-on speedo, lip-synching to It's Raining Men. And anyone who is offended by such a sight, is obviously homophobic. Along with those of African descent, gays do a hefty job of reenforcing the stereotype that all homosexuals are screaming queens that like to dance on floats in parades, making suggestive thrusts at the crowd.

Holy cow, I didn't think my rant would be that long! Have fun reading that, kids. Especially, lil bitchiness.

My problem with gay parades is there are no heterosexual parades... Where are the people flaunting their heterosexuality in the form of a parade?

Originally posted by Creshosk
My problem with gay parades is there are no heterosexual parades... Where are the people flaunting their heterosexuality in the form of a parade?

They would get arrested.

Originally posted by Creshosk
My problem with gay parades is there are no heterosexual parades... Where are the people flaunting their heterosexuality in the form of a parade?

That argument has already been put aside as stupid. Gay parades are supposed to preach tolerance towards homosexuals (although it has the exact opposite effect). If homosexuals were allowed to marry and considered everyday citizens, there wouldn't be need for any. What would be the point of a heterosexual parade? Lord knows, we straight people have it rough because of our orientation.

Declaration: The idea that all homosexual men like anal sex is preposterous.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Declaration: The idea that all homosexual men like anal sex is preposterous.

Considering there are alternatives, I'd have to agree.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
That argument has already been put aside as stupid.Naturally, as they do not want "equality" they want "special treatment" in the ruse of "tolerance".

It's much like the reason my high chool wouldn't let there be a gay and lesbian club: They wouldn't allow any clubs based on sexuality.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Gay parades are supposed to preach tolerance towards homosexuals (although it has the exact opposite effect). If homosexuals were allowed to marry and considered everyday citizens, there wouldn't be need for any. What would be the point of a heterosexual parade? Lord knows, we straight people have it rough because of our orientation. And giving them special treatment is supposed to improve tolerance?

Originally posted by Creshosk
And giving them special treatment is supposed to improve tolerance?

What kind of special treatment?

the catholic church has enough money to pay of the enitre third world debt of the world.

similar amounts of money in the combination of protestant churches. and yet what do the organisation use it for?

discriminatory lawsuits
hypocritical corporates
counteracting thinking{even on the government level} and awareness of things like contraception, aids campaigns, abortion, family planning, movements against child abuse, open minded philosophy, psychology and psychological cures, archeology, physics, liberal tv programming, etc etc etc
paying off israel to massacre palestinians
funding ethnic/relegious wars in already war torn african countries
funding christian music/movies/tv channels which preach more hate and ignorance/opening new churches/websites

well the list is endless.

not to mention after school jesus specials and bible thumping printers. plus the funding of CURING FACILITIES to exorcise the demons that turn a christian child into a homosexual/fornicater etc. and they say its their CHOICE TO enter.

surprising how the government doesnt take any legal actoin. oh yea, forgot, theyr mostly christian too.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
As much as I'd like to say everyone should express themselves openly and all that liberal stuff, I simply can't. Because, realistically speaking, we live in a society where people need to do certain things to get ahead in life. For instance, if you work in an office building, it is protocol that you wear a suit. If you are a man and you come to work one day in a speedo and kabuki make-up, chances are you will get fired. It doesn't matter if you feel most comfortable in a speedo and make-up, it makes more people around you uncomfortable.
I don't care what people do with their private lives. If they like to dress in the opposite sex's clothing, like it in the butt, or have a fetish for poop. Though it may strike me as odd, I'm not going to lynch them for being different.
With gay parades, they enforce the stereotype that gays are freaks who like to dance half naked and try to be as shocking as possible. Right in the street, even! These event are highly sexualized and suggestive. But, in society's eyes, that's alright, because they're gay and gays are naturally sexual devients and freaks, so let them express themsevles. If this were a parade with straight people with women running around topless and men thrusting their groins at the pedestrians, this would not fly.
You say, most homophobes hate gays because they simply like the same sex. That is not true at all. How do I know this? Becuase, me being a non-judging person have homophobic friends. Inevitably, we have little friendly debates about this topic. All of my friends told me what they didn't like most about homosexuals is that they were attention whores that liked to freak people out. They had no sense of romance, instead they go off to their gay orgies (which in fact is one of the reason why HIV is rampant in the gay community) and have meanling hedonistic sex. Of course, I told them this wasn't all true, that many gays have long-term and loving relationships with single individuals. One replied, "I believe you. Unfortuantely those aren't the gays I'm seeing."
Homosexuality, by definition, is the sexual attraction to the same gender. With gay parades, it's less about being homosexual and more about dancing in the street with a painted-on speedo, lip-synching to It's Raining Men. And anyone who is offended by such a sight, is obviously homophobic. Along with those of African descent, gays do a hefty job of reenforcing the stereotype that all homosexuals are screaming queens that like to dance on floats in parades, making suggestive thrusts at the crowd.

You have hit on a lot of reasons why I would personally never identify as "gay" or "bi" or whatever or participate in such parades

but you need to learn how to make a much better argument. You have some substance, but learn how to present it in a way that doesn't make you look ignorant.

Interjection:

Statement: Leonheartmm should blame not the Church for such doings but the government, which is composed of humans (who are inherently selfish).

Statement: To say that the United States government is mostly composed of Christians--especially conservative Christians--is laughable.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Interjection:

Statement: Leonheartmm should blame not the Church for such doings but the government, which is composed of humans (who are inherently selfish).

Statement: To say that the United States government is mostly composed of Christians--especially conservative Christians--is laughable.

church is an organisation created socially by human beings. it has no reality outside the imaginations of the people who believe in it.

officially over 40% of the american government is evangelical adherant. practically the entire right wing is. the current administration is completely. and much of the the left wing are also adherant albeit not the majority{or rather, theyr not CONSERVATIVE adherant}.

think before posting.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
What kind of special treatment? Are you seriously asking that or is that supposed to be a clever rhetorical question?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Are you seriously asking that or is that supposed to be a clever rhetorical question?

Well, from the sound of it, you think I condone giving gays special treatment. What treatments did you have in mind?

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Well, from the sound of it, you think I condone giving gays special treatment. What treatments did you have in mind? Umm I was joking around about the whole thing.

Come on ... a heterosexual parade where people flaunt their heterosexuality?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They would get arrested.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Umm I was joking around about the whole thing.

Come on ... a heterosexual parade where people flaunt their heterosexuality?

Ah. I see. Carry on, then.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Perhaps it is beyond Imperial_Samurai's certainty, but it is not beyond FeceMan's

Yes, many a night I have lay in bed ruing the fact I just can't accept things on what is almost blind faith to the point of certainty.

For all I know, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, Nazi war-criminals died when Nazi war-criminals died. They didn't go on to meet some greater judgement.

And so wait - if I was certain their was nothing beyond their deaths... well what? Would your certainty and my certainty have a fight to the death?



Uh huh.



I guess I could ask you to justify the "hypocrites and wrongdoers" line. But then I remembered I asked you once before the same thing and never got an answer.

Something to the effect of:

"You'll have to point me in the direction of their prejudice and inequality, because when I look at the website I kind of get bogged down in all calls of equal rights for all and well meaning messages."

Originally posted by Badabing
God doesn't "Allow" mass murder. We were given Free Will by Him as a gift. Would you rather be programmed at birth? I could also say the "cop out" is not believing. You have the Free Will to admire and believe as you choose. Without Free Will this would not be possible.




1) The existance of a Christian God poses to many logical paradoxes, as I already explained, as have others, in various threads, look it up, I wil not repeat what I say 100 times over.


2) You beleive in a highly unlikely and non evident myth which contradicts science as well as logic. The Burden of Proof is ON YOU




3) Free Will is not entirely free. There are conditions and consequences which shape your choices such as reward and punishment, such as cause and effect, such as desire and necessity.



Choices are not free, we pay for every choice we make.


Existance of Free Will is not evidense of a Christian god.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
As much as I'd like to say everyone should express themselves openly and all that liberal stuff, I simply can't. Because, realistically speaking, we live in a society where people need to do certain things to get ahead in life. For instance, if you work in an office building, it is protocol that you wear a suit. If you are a man and you come to work one day in a speedo and kabuki make-up, chances are you will get fired. It doesn't matter if you feel most comfortable in a speedo and make-up, it makes more people around you uncomfortable.
I don't care what people do with their private lives. If they like to dress in the opposite sex's clothing, like it in the butt, or have a fetish for poop. Though it may strike me as odd, I'm not going to lynch them for being different.
With gay parades, they enforce the stereotype that gays are freaks who like to dance half naked and try to be as shocking as possible. Right in the street, even! These event are highly sexualized and suggestive. But, in society's eyes, that's alright, because they're gay and gays are naturally sexual devients and freaks, so let them express themsevles. If this were a parade with straight people with women running around topless and men thrusting their groins at the pedestrians, this would not fly.
You say, most homophobes hate gays because they simply like the same sex. That is not true at all. How do I know this? Becuase, me being a non-judging person have homophobic friends. Inevitably, we have little friendly debates about this topic. All of my friends told me what they didn't like most about homosexuals is that they were attention whores that liked to freak people out. They had no sense of romance, instead they go off to their gay orgies (which in fact is one of the reason why HIV is rampant in the gay community) and have meanling hedonistic sex. Of course, I told them this wasn't all true, that many gays have long-term and loving relationships with single individuals. One replied, "I believe you. Unfortuantely those aren't the gays I'm seeing."
Homosexuality, by definition, is the sexual attraction to the same gender. With gay parades, it's less about being homosexual and more about dancing in the street with a painted-on speedo, lip-synching to It's Raining Men. And anyone who is offended by such a sight, is obviously homophobic. Along with those of African descent, gays do a hefty job of reenforcing the stereotype that all homosexuals are screaming queens that like to dance on floats in parades, making suggestive thrusts at the crowd.

So according to you, people at gay parade reinfirce a gay stereotype, which you evidently hate.

Should we all asume that at Italian Heritage Parade, Italians reinforce stereotypes and thats why some people are hated.
Should we also assume that Irish-American parade is also where people of Irish origin create stereotype of themselves that everyone hates.

How about African-American day parade? Do a lot of black people walk about making stereotypes of themselves so racist hate them?

Parades are held in celebrations of something. So it appears everyone else can celebrate being something - apart from gays. Because thats what makes people hate them.

Convincing.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So according to you, people at gay parade reinfirce a gay stereotype, which you evidently hate.

Should we all asume that at Italian Heritage Parade, Italians reinforce stereotypes and thats why some people are hated.
Should we also assume that Irish-American parade is also where people of Irish origin create stereotype of themselves that everyone hates.

How about African-American day parade? Do a lot of black people walk about making stereotypes of themselves so racist hate them?

Parades are held in celebrations of something. So it appears everyone else can celebrate being something - apart from gays. Because thats what makes people hate them.

Convincing.

I've never seen an Italian Heritage Parade or any other heritage parade. What kind of content is common in such parades, since you seem to know more about them? What kind of people would find it offensive? Is it as offensive as a half naken man thrusting his groin at you?

Originally posted by Badabing
Same could be said by every advocate group under the Sun. Zealots are present everywhere. Law, politics, religion, race, animal rights, environmentalists, etc.... What's makes your belief in nothing more credible than those of us who believe in God? Have you disproved the existence of God?

God doesn't "Allow" mass murder. We were given Free Will by Him as a gift. Would you rather be programmed at birth? I could also say the "cop out" is not believing. You have the Free Will to admire and believe as you choose. Without Free Will this would not be possible. My entire post since you selectively left out parts of it.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
1) The existance of a Christian God poses to many logical paradoxes, as I already explained, as have others, in various threads, look it up, I wil not repeat what I say 100 times over.


2) You beleive in a highly unlikely and non evident myth which contradicts science as well as logic. The Burden of Proof is ON YOU




3) Free Will is not entirely free. There are conditions and consequences which shape your choices such as reward and punishment, such as cause and effect, such as desire and necessity.



Choices are not free, we pay for every choice we make.


Existance of Free Will is not evidense of a Christian god.
Faith has paradoxes. Hence the word FAITH. It seems you're looking for science to predict or explain something that isn't science. Could you use a Political Science Doctorate to explain Particle Physics?

The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the person who seems to have absolute Faith in the non-existance of God. All I asked if you could prove it or is this just your Belief? It's ironic how your Faith and Beliefs in no God are just as unprovable as my Faith and Beliefs in God. I do know Jesus, the Apostles and Moses existed.

I never said choices were free, I said we have the Free Will to make our own choices.

I never said Free Will was "evidence" of God, I said it was one of His gifts.

If you are going to talk at least be honest and/or comprehend what I'm saying. Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Should we all asume that at Italian Heritage Parade, Italians reinforce stereotypes and thats why some people are hated.
We Italians are all Exactly like the Sopranos, Godfather and Goodfellas!

Originally posted by Badabing
...The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the person who seems to have absolute Faith in the non-existance of God. All I asked if you could prove it or is this just your Belief? It's ironic how your Faith and Beliefs in no God are just as unprovable as my Faith and Beliefs in God. I do know Jesus, the Apostles and Moses existed. ...

That is not true at all: I will explain why in an example.

The teapot analogy





You are claiming that there is a teapot floating in space (something that cannot be proved like god), and then you say the burden of proof is not yours. No one can prove that something that does not exist, does not exist. You must provide proof that your god does exist if you wish other people to believe also. You may believe in a teapot in space (god), but to claim that other people must prove you wrong is silly.

I knew it God is short and stout

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is not true at all: I will explain why in an example.

The teapot analogy





You are claiming that there is a teapot floating in space (something that cannot be proved like god), and then you say the burden of proof is not yours. No one can prove that something that does not exist, does not exist. You must provide proof that your god does exist if you wish other people to believe also. You may believe in a teapot in space (god), but to claim that other people must prove you wrong is silly. The problem is that I never claimed proof. The only claim I made is my Faith. I'm not silly, read my initial post. I asked Kali if he had proof that God doesn't exist. So, your post and analogy aren't relevant to anything I've posted.

It seems Faith in God is a very touchy subject on a Religion Forum.

Originally posted by Badabing
The problem is that I never claimed proof. The only claim I made is my Faith. I'm not silly, read my initial post. I asked Kali if he had proof that God doesn't exist. So, your post and analogy aren't relevant to anything I've posted.

It seems Faith in God is a very touchy subject on a Religion Forum.

You cannot ask someone if they have proof unless you have proof. What is your proof?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You cannot ask someone if they have proof unless you have proof. What is your proof? *sigh* I never claimed proof, only Faith. I ASKED Kali if there was proof of God's nonexistence which I didn't know about since he claimed God is a myth.

Reading comprehension FTW! duryes

Originally posted by Badabing
*sigh* I never claimed proof, only Faith. I ASKED Kali if there was proof of God's nonexistence which I didn't know about since he claimed God is a myth.

Reading comprehension FTW! duryes

Why would you ask Kali for proof? You don't have proof, why would you think Kali needs proof? Maybe he has faith that god does not exist.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Along with those of African descent, gays do a hefty job of reenforcing the stereotype that all homosexuals are screaming queens that like to dance on floats in parades, making suggestive thrusts at the crowd.

I don't follow the "African descent" and gay connection.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

And so wait - if I was certain their was nothing beyond their deaths... well what? Would your certainty and my certainty have a fight to the death?
Statement: FeceMan's certainty and Imperial_Samurai's certainty have little to do with anything. FeceMan could be certain that his clock is ten minutes fast while Imperial_Samurai could be certain that FeceMan's clock is five minutes fast, but it matters little when the clock is two minutes slow.

Statement: Imperial_Samurai does not realize it, but those "calls of equal rights" are a mainstay of their hypocrisy. They are a cloak under which the ACLU guises their...doings--after all, it is a right for people to own child pornography.

Originally posted by chithappens
I don't follow the "African descent" and gay connection.

What's not to get? African Americans and homosexuals both commonly conform to a certain stereotype. Many young lower class blacks tend to listen to a certain type of music, dress and speak a certain way. While at gay parades, you see almost nothing but muscular dudes in pinl speedos grinding against each other to "In the Navy."

Originally posted by Bardiel13
What's not to get? African Americans and homosexuals both commonly conform to a certain stereotype. Many young lower class blacks tend to listen to a certain type of music, dress and speak a certain way. While at gay parades, you see almost nothing but muscular dudes in pinl speedos grinding against each other to "In the Navy."



what a balanced and especially nuanced analysis of the situation

Originally posted by Badabing
*sigh* I never claimed proof, only Faith. I ASKED Kali if there was proof of God's nonexistence which I didn't know about since he claimed God is a myth.

Reading comprehension FTW! duryes

simple facts.

1. you have no proof of god
2. kali has disproof of your MODEL of god based on contradiction
3. you only have FAITH of your model of god
4. kali also has no proof of your model of god
5. kali has no DISPROOF of the existance of "A" god{but has disproof of the existance of "THE" god which is the model of god you claim
6. a negetive can never be disproven
7. a negetive can NEVER be used to prove the existance of a thing in question
8. you are playing with words


""Faith has paradoxes. Hence the word FAITH. It seems you're looking for science to predict or explain something that isn't science. Could you use a Political Science Doctorate to explain Particle Physics?

The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the person who seems to have absolute Faith in the non-existance of God. All I asked if you could prove it or is this just your Belief? It's ironic how your Faith and Beliefs in no God are just as unprovable as my Faith and Beliefs in God. I do know Jesus, the Apostles and Moses existed.""

""The problem is that I never claimed proof. The only claim I made is my Faith. I'm not silly, read my initial post. I asked Kali if he had proof that God doesn't exist. So, your post and analogy aren't relevant to anything I've posted.

It seems Faith in God is a very touchy subject on a Religion Forum""

"*sigh* I never claimed proof, only Faith. I ASKED Kali if there was proof of God's nonexistence which I didn't know about since he claimed God is a myth.

Reading comprehension FTW!"

9. you are lying in the above posts as can be seen.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
What's not to get? African Americans and homosexuals both commonly conform to a certain stereotype. Many young lower class blacks tend to listen to a certain type of music, dress and speak a certain way. While at gay parades, you see almost nothing but muscular dudes in pinl speedos grinding against each other to "In the Navy."

Very well thought out post that could go for any stereotype.

Good job.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Imperial_Samurai does not realize it, but those "calls of equal rights" are a mainstay of their hypocrisy. They are a cloak under which the ACLU guises their...doings--after all, it is a right for people to own child pornography.

I think I heard about that (well, in an Australian newspaper) - didn't the ACLU clarify that it is against Child Pornography that involves real children but say virtual/animated stuff is different and is up to the people involved?

But this is why I ask for specific examples. Australia doesn't have such an organisation, since some might say Australia doesn't have the same conflicts (and our last Census shows Atheism on the rise so religious over-the-topness has never been a problem).

So I admit I don't see the hypocrisy in that example there if they are not advocating child pornography, not saying it should be allowed to involve children, but are saying if people want to drawn their own pictures then they can do so.

But if that is not the case and the ACLU is going around saying "people should be able to take pornographic pictures or children if they want" then you would have a point, since that would infringe upon the rights of children and would equal hypocrisy.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simple facts.

1. you have no proof of god
2. kali has disproof of your MODEL of god based on contradiction
3. you only have FAITH of your model of god
4. kali also has no proof of your model of god
5. kali has no DISPROOF of the existance of "A" god{but has disproof of the existance of "THE" god which is the model of god you claim
6. a negetive can never be disproven
7. a negetive can NEVER be used to prove the existance of a thing in question
8. you are playing with words


""Faith has paradoxes. Hence the word FAITH. It seems you're looking for science to predict or explain something that isn't science. Could you use a Political Science Doctorate to explain Particle Physics?

The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the person who seems to have absolute Faith in the non-existance of God. All I asked if you could prove it or is this just your Belief? It's ironic how your Faith and Beliefs in no God are just as unprovable as my Faith and Beliefs in God. I do know Jesus, the Apostles and Moses existed.""

""The problem is that I never claimed proof. The only claim I made is my Faith. I'm not silly, read my initial post. I asked Kali if he had proof that God doesn't exist. So, your post and analogy aren't relevant to anything I've posted.

It seems Faith in God is a very touchy subject on a Religion Forum""

"*sigh* I never claimed proof, only Faith. I ASKED Kali if there was proof of God's nonexistence which I didn't know about since he claimed God is a myth.

Reading comprehension FTW!"

9. you are lying in the above posts as can be seen. Take a deep breath and learn how to properly quote a post.

1. Never claimed proof only Faith.
2. Are you trying to say DISPROVED? I'm not presumptuous to "model" God as you say. I have Faith and centuries of Judea/Christian philosophy as a reference.
3. Yes, I have Faith in God. Never claimed a model or proof.
4. Okay.....
5. Kali DISPROVED my God? Neat trick since I haven't defined God. duriroll
6. A NEGATIVE? Is that what you're trying to say? Okay, but I haven't mentioned a NEGATIVE. whatdur Your perception isn't my problem.
7. NEGATIVE...dur I never claimed proof, only Faith.
8. I'm not playing with words. Your inability to follow a post isn't my problem. doped
9. Now I'm lying. crylaugh I will define the word faith for you so you can keep up.
Faith, broken down succinctly, is belief without evidence.

Goodnight people. If anybody wants to continue please PM me.

Originally posted by Badabing
Take a deep breath and learn how to properly quote a post.

1. Never claimed proof only Faith.
2. Are you trying to say DISPROVED? I'm not presumptuous to "model" God as you say. I have Faith and centuries of Judea/Christian philosophy as a reference.
3. Yes, I have Faith in God. Never claimed a model or proof.
4. Okay.....
5. Kali DISPROVED my God? Neat trick since I haven't defined God. duriroll
6. A NEGATIVE? Is that what you're trying to say? Okay, but I haven't mentioned a NEGATIVE. whatdur Your perception isn't my problem.
7. NEGATIVE...dur I never claimed proof, only Faith.
8. I'm not playing with words. Your inability to follow a post isn't my problem. doped
9. Now I'm lying. crylaugh I will define the word faith for you so you can keep up.
Faith, broken down succinctly, is belief without evidence.

Goodnight people. If anybody wants to continue please PM me.

lmao. smiley's can not hide idiocincricy and stupid intentions, {that IS what you were hoping on wasnt it. since the CONTENT of your message is lacking in all areas where brain and logic is required}

first off the lack of brains is clear from your inability to understand what "MODEL" of god mean. for the less idiotic, it mean SUBSET of the universal set defined as GOD. it is limiting god to a certain model based on DEFINITION{e.g. trinity, creater, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolant, omnipresent, angry, selfish. singular/multiple}

and yes, the JUDEO/CHRISIAN "model" of god has been utterly disproven as a fallacious self contradicting construct which is incmopatible with itself and the world. it doesnt EXIST. although your too full of yourself to probe that deeply or sensibly and ill forgive you for that.

lol at point 5. your LYING, now and before. JUST now you referred to the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN god. youve defined it and it was apparent from that beginning what you were referring to. too bad, that has been disproven.

6. yes you have, it is obvious to every1 here not playing games or deluding themselves that you were trying to establish the judeo/christian god's existance by rebutting on kali to counter your argument merely by producing NEGETIVE proof. and here is the evidence.{which i posted before too}






LMAO. your very sentence reads, PROOF OF "NON" EXISTANCE. textbook definition of negetive proof. please play your games with people of your own mental level. your inability to understand the argument isnt the problem of other members.

9. your lying because your claims have been proven to be untrue and were all assuming your atleast smarter than a nursery kid who could figure that out. im well aware what faith mean. yet that has nuthing to do with the argument.

thank you for elaborating your mental state

So we're all having a friendly chat about God, eh.

Originally posted by chithappens
Very well thought out post that could go for any stereotype.

Good job.

Are you mocking me?

You guys need to settle the hell down. And stop flinging around "proof" or "no proof". If there was such widespread proof, no one would be Christian, and we know that isn't the case (and this coming from an atheist). I'd say there IS legit evidence to the contrary, but calling it "proof" makes me (or anyone else) as dogmatically rigid as many of the fundamentalists who are supposedly so diametrically opposed to such claims of proof of God's non-existence, and no better than them in unshakable belief.

I'm just going to claim the agnostic route and say "We don't know." We don't have anything concrete either way. And really, before we discovered atoms did they not exist simply because we had no "proof" of them?

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

It hasn't been proven either way. ermm

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think I heard about that (well, in an Australian newspaper) - didn't the ACLU clarify that it is against Child Pornography that involves real children but say virtual/animated stuff is different and is up to the people involved?

But this is why I ask for specific examples. Australia doesn't have such an organisation, since some might say Australia doesn't have the same conflicts (and our last Census shows Atheism on the rise so religious over-the-topness has never been a problem).

So I admit I don't see the hypocrisy in that example there if they are not advocating child pornography, not saying it should be allowed to involve children, but are saying if people want to drawn their own pictures then they can do so.

But if that is not the case and the ACLU is going around saying "people should be able to take pornographic pictures or children if they want" then you would have a point, since that would infringe upon the rights of children and would equal hypocrisy.
Statement: It is hypocritical because the ACLU champion themselves as defenders of what is morally right--the rights and liberties of people . However, they allow what is clearly morally wrong--child pornography--and so undermine any attempt at being more than an organization that spits in the face of right and wrong.

Quotation:


Statement: The information can be found here .

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: It is hypocritical because the ACLU champion themselves as defenders of what is morally right--the rights and liberties of people . However, they allow what is clearly morally wrong--child pornography--and so undermine any attempt at being more than an organization that spits in the face of right and wrong.

Looking at their website I don't see them claiming to be defenders of what is moral right, they speak about rights extensively though - protecting rights, making sure peoples rights are protected, preserving rights. Somehow I don't their usage of the word is the same as your usage of it in "morally right".

What you seem to be doing is equating moral considerations (a relative thing considering the many ways people feel about many things) with their aim of attacking inequality and defending rights as they see them defined by the US. Bill of rights and by way of universal rights. Since when has that been synonymous with "defenders of moral rights".

I imagine - protecting the right for a women to choose an abortion as opposed to pro life organisations that claim to be doing what is moral by trying to stop the murder of unborn children. Or as the case may be advocating the right for a gay person to have equal rights, including marriage as opposed to those organisations that consider it morally wrong and advocate the boycott of organisations that say differently.



Ok, I searched on that and apparently their stance isn't the support of child pornography (as in pornography that involves children) but the right for people (First Amendment or something) to create virtual material without children being involed.

Unless you are saying that pornography involving children is the same as say, pornography involving someone of a legal age being portrayed as a child (via digital manipulation they seem to be saying).

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Looking at their website I don't see them claiming to be defenders of what is moral right, they speak about rights extensively though - protecting rights, making sure peoples rights are protected, preserving rights. Somehow I don't their usage of the word is the same as your usage of it in "morally right".
Statement: They would claim they are doing is morally right.

Statement: They defend rights not as the U.S. Bill of Rights defines them but as how they want the U.S. Bill of Rights to be.

Statement: Yet again, the ACLU makes things that are not "rights" into "rights."

Statement: The amicus brief says that the ACLU were defending the rights of an individual for selling material depicting underage boys masturbating.

Statement: While the virtual child pornography and actual child pornography are not the same thing, FeceMan still believes them both to be morally wrong.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
Insults.....I guess being wrong brings out your best. I said that I have faith, not proof. I asked Kali if he had proof since he seemed so certain. Please take a breath and read my statements so you can understand. Bashing me doesn't prove your point. doped


http://hooked-on-phonics.com/
http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: They would claim they are doing is morally right.

No, I am fairly sure from what I have read they would claim what they are doing is defending a person's rights as laid out by the Bill of Rights, Amendments and human rights as defined by UN type bodies. It is a "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" situation (their personal feelings/morality on a matter being secondary to another person's right to etc.)

Thus it is not hypocritical - It would be hypocritical for a body advocating equal rights to be caught attacking rights.

It would be hypocritical for a pastor who attacks homosexuality to be caught paying a guy for sex.

It would be hypocritical for an anti-racism lobbyist to display racist behaviour.

What you can say is you question their morality due to some of the rights they defend, not so much they are raging hypocrites because you question their morality due to some of the rights they defend.

I mean are they hypocrites because they defend a women right to choose abortion - something many people are against morally?



Or how they perceive them. After all, it seems they can put together very convincing arguments for their cases drawn from the law.

If they couldn't they wouldn't be getting to the highest stage of court proceedings. So clearly they have sufficient grounds to make a prima facie cases that rights are being infringed upon as defined by B.O.R etc.



Such as? From the reading I have done (as inspired by your bringing it up) most of what they do all goes back to the Bill of Rights and UN declarations on human rights. Then they say "The B.O.R (or whatever) guaranteed the right of privacy, thus the CIA tapping phones is an invasion of that right" or "Such and such says not to discriminate based on sexuality, so it is an against basic rights to deny gays marriage."

Interpretation of legal documents perhaps, but not out and out "making a right out of something that isn't".



While I don't agree with it I can understand what they are arguing (though it would make more sense today then back then). And as an aside - I can't help but notice that case was back in 1982 - its older then me. Isn't this a bit like saying "America is a nation of slavers - here is the proof, financial documents from back before the Civil War."

It shows they have black marks on their record (well, 20+ years ago) but not hypocrisy since they were doing what their charter says - defending rights as they perceive them under the laws of the US.



And the ACLU is not making moral judgements but saying that people have a right to produce virtual material. And to be honest I don't like the idea of it, but I am happier for people with such tastes to get their jollies with something virtually made that doesn't involve real children then going after actual kids.

Originally posted by Badabing
The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the person who seems to have absolute Faith in the non-existance of God. All I asked if you could prove it or is this just your Belief? It's ironic how your Faith and Beliefs in no God are just as unprovable as my Faith and Beliefs in God. I do know Jesus, the Apostles and Moses existed.



I don't have "Faith" in the non-existance of God. I simply don't beleive the Christian god exists, and not only is there no evidense to convince me, there are many reasons to negate his existance in my eyes.


You argue that I cannot prove God's non existance.

You can't prove Santa Clause's non existance either.

You can't prove Zeus' non-existance either.


If I claim that Zeus or Santa Clause do exist, and I push that on you, wouldn't you want me to atleast provide some kind of evidense for what I say ?

Likewise, I am not convinced of God's existance. Therefore, I don't beleive. There is nothing I have to prove.


The Burden of Proof is on you. It is reasonable to conclude that God doesn't exist due to lack of evidense, Biblical contradictions to itself and science, as well as other reasons.


To make a bold claim such as God exists, is one thing. But to then try and convince others that you are right, you need to provide evidense.





Originally posted by Badabing
I never said choices were free, I said we have the Free Will to make our own choices.


Free Will is not entirely free.




Originally posted by Badabing
I never said Free Will was "evidence" of God, I said it was one of His gifts.



This is another claim you are making, which you are trying to convince me of, but provide no evidense for.

Bad evil people. Get a bar of soap, carve it to look like Jesus and cram it down their throuts......

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
It is reasonable to conclude that God doesn't exist due to lack of evidense Not really. Unless what is logical and what is reasonable are two different thing.

It is illogical to assume that something doesn't exist simply because you have no evidence of it existing.

As an example I will mention electrons. Before we had any evidence of their existence, they did indeed exist. They did not suddenly come into existence when we gained evidence of them existing.

Originally posted by Badabing
Insults.....I guess being wrong brings out your best. I said that I have faith, not proof. I asked Kali if he had proof since he seemed so certain. Please take a breath and read my statements so you can understand. Bashing me doesn't prove your point. doped


http://hooked-on-phonics.com/
http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm



lol. trying to put on a brave face when youve been played like a little kitten{being nice here}. i proved you wrong by your own STATEMENT. you were asking for negetive proof and LYING about not asking, please, for your own sake, if you wanna be taken seriously on these forums. do not stoop to idiotic debating tactics of JIA's/marchello's and galactic storm's class.

your inability to REPLY shows in your posts as stubborn restating of what was said earlier and inability to reply {at ALL} to the points made.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lmao. smiley's can not hide idiocincricy and stupid intentions, {that IS what you were hoping on wasnt it. since the CONTENT of your message is lacking in all areas where brain and logic is required}

first off the lack of brains is clear from your inability to understand what "MODEL" of god mean. for the less idiotic, it mean SUBSET of the universal set defined as GOD. it is limiting god to a certain model based on DEFINITION{e.g. trinity, creater, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolant, omnipresent, angry, selfish. singular/multiple}

and yes, the JUDEO/CHRISIAN "model" of god has been utterly disproven as a fallacious self contradicting construct which is incmopatible with itself and the world. it doesnt EXIST. although your too full of yourself to probe that deeply or sensibly and ill forgive you for that.

lol at point 5. your LYING, now and before. JUST now you referred to the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN god. youve defined it and it was apparent from that beginning what you were referring to. too bad, that has been disproven.

6. yes you have, it is obvious to every1 here not playing games or deluding themselves that you were trying to establish the judeo/christian god's existance by rebutting on kali to counter your argument merely by producing NEGETIVE proof. and here is the evidence.{which i posted before too}










LMAO. your very sentence reads, PROOF OF "NON" EXISTANCE. textbook definition of negetive proof. please play your games with people of your own mental level. your inability to understand the argument isnt the problem of other members.

9. your lying because your claims have been proven to be untrue and were all assuming your atleast smarter than a nursery kid who could figure that out. im well aware what faith mean. yet that has nuthing to do with the argument.

thank you for elaborating your mental state

please address these points adequately. especially the last one where it is shown that u were indeed asking for negetive proof, despite your denial later.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not really. Unless what is logical and what is reasonable are two different thing.

It is illogical to assume that something doesn't exist simply because you have no evidence of it existing.

As an example I will mention electrons. Before we had any evidence of their existence, they did indeed exist. They did not suddenly come into existence when we gained evidence of them existing.



Lack of evidense alone does not make it reasonable to conclude there is no God.


The concept of the Christian Judeo God causes too many logical paradoxes, which have been mentioned repeatedly.


The Bible contradicts itself and science, massively. A Loving God cannot allow Hell, and Heaven cannot be a place of eternal happiness and sincere truth and joy, when people will burn in Hell as well.


Think about it for a second:



Many of the people who end up in Hell will have relatives in Heaven. How do you imagine anyone can truly be happy in Heaven knowing that thier mother, sister, brother, father, lover, son, daughter, uncle, aunt, best freind, etc. is suffering greatly elsewhere?


It doesn't work. They cannot be happy if they truly loved thier loved ones who now suffer in Hell.


If God makes them forget, then he is hiding the Truth from them.





There are too many logical problems posed by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.



Therefore, I repeat, that it is REASONABLE to conclude that there is no Christian Judeo or Muslim God in existance.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Lack of evidense alone does not make it reasonable to conclude there is no God.


The concept of the Christian Judeo God causes too many logical paradoxes, which have been mentioned repeatedly.


The Bible contradicts itself and science, massively. A Loving God cannot allow Hell, and Heaven cannot be a place of eternal happiness and sincere truth and joy, when people will burn in Hell as well.


Think about it for a second:



Many of the people who end up in Hell will have relatives in Heaven. How do you imagine anyone can truly be happy in Heaven knowing that thier mother, sister, brother, father, lover, son, daughter, uncle, aunt, best freind, etc. is suffering greatly elsewhere?


It doesn't work. They cannot be happy if they truly loved thier loved ones who now suffer in Hell.


If God makes them forget, then he is hiding the Truth from them.





There are too many logical problems posed by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.



Therefore, I repeat, that it is REASONABLE to conclude that there is no Christian Judeo or Muslim God in existance.

Ontological argument.

1) I define God to be X.
2) Since I can't conceive of X, X must not exist.
3) Therefore, God doesn't exist.


Not very creative to define the way you perceived the definitions to be. Not even getting int other whole concept of the logical paradoxes not proving anything more than the language's limitation. Yes, I've encountered these "logical paradoxes". There was a thread not to long ago that discussed the paradox of omnipotence.

However simply because something is beyond your understanding does not mean that it does not exist. It might not exist, however it might exist differently than the way that you perceive it to be defined.

At any rate a "proof" is not evidence. If you'd like me to attempt to address each of your points individually you'll have to keep an open mind. There is nothing to be gained here. We have no evidence to his/her existence or nonexistence to assume either stance is illogical.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Ontological argument.

1) I define God to be X.
2) Since I can't conceive of X, X must not exist.
3) Therefore, God doesn't exist.


Not very creative to define the way you perceived the definitions to be. Not even getting int other whole concept of the logical paradoxes not proving anything more than the language's limitation. Yes, I've encountered these "logical paradoxes". There was a thread not to long ago that discussed the paradox of omnipotence.

However simply because something is beyond your understanding does not mean that it does not exist. It might not exist, however it might exist differently than the way that you perceive it to be defined.

At any rate a "proof" is not evidence. If you'd like me to attempt to address each of your points individually you'll have to keep an open mind. There is nothing to be gained here. We have no evidence to his/her existence or nonexistence to assume either stance is illogical.

a serious flaw in your argument. it is true that A god{a model of god having no self contradicting characteristics, unlike the traditional abrahamic god} CAN exist. that is there is nuthing logical STOPPING such a concept from existing. but heres the thing, how PROBABLE is it that such a model of god exists????????

ill give you an example{u seem to be misusing the ontological argument}. i there ANYTHING, LOGICALLY making it impossible for aliens to exist on the earth?{seeing as we have not been to every place and much of the surface remains unexplored as we have not turned over every rock} NO. hence i can not COMPLETELY rule out the POSSIBLE existance of such a thing.

however, what is the PROBABILITY of the existance oif such aliens{going by evidence every where else}????? almost NON EXISTANCE. for ALL practical purposes it is logical to think they do not exist{if you say no, then you have to believe that an infinite number of phenomenon exist simply on the fact that THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVED. u have to use the ontological argument with others like argument for negetive proof etc}.

this is obviously not true. you should NEVER beleive{in the logical sense} in anything unless you have logical EVIDENCE which makes you believe. for god, there is none.

look up russel's teapot and evidence from negetive proof. it is illogical to think that there is as much reason to believe in the existance of god as there is to NOT believe in the existance of god based on just the lack of NEGETIVE evidence. its a fallacious stance to take. if u take it than you also have to believe in the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible purple unicorn.

unless you have evidence to believe in sumthing, dont believe in it just due to the lack of negetive evidence.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
a serious flaw in your argument. it is true that A god{a model of god having no self contradicting characteristics, unlike the traditional abrahamic god} CAN exist. that is there is nuthing logical STOPPING such a concept from existing. but heres the thing, how PROBABLE is it that such a model of god exists???????? About as much as it not existing. It either it does or it doesn't.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ill give you an example{u seem to be misusing the ontological argument}. i there ANYTHING, LOGICALLY making it impossible for aliens to exist on the earth?{seeing as we have not been to every place and much of the surface remains unexplored as we have not turned over every rock} NO. hence i can not COMPLETELY rule out the POSSIBLE existance of such a thing.Okay?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
however, what is the PROBABILITY of the existance oif such aliens{going by evidence every where else}????? almost NON EXISTANCE. A lack of evidence is not proof positive of a lack of existence. We may simply not have the technology required to detect them. They may change and move nd they may be hidden among us.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
for ALL practical purposes it is logical to think they do not exist{if you say no, then you have to believe that an infinite number of phenomenon exist simply on the fact that THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVED. WRONG. That would be as erroneous as thinking that they don't exist because there is no evidence for them.

We have no evidence either way.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
u have to use the ontological argument with others like argument for negetive proof etc}.Could you brush up on your English grammar? Even I'm having a hard time understanding you, that or you're not understanding what I'm saying. In either case your poor grammar makes it a strain to try and keep up communication with you.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this is obviously not true. you should NEVER beleive{in the logical sense} in anything unless you have logical EVIDENCE which makes you believe. for god, there is none. That would be the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy. It is not more logical.

I refer you to atoms and other particles of small size that we didn't have concrete evidence for their existence before they were discovered. They existed even without the proof.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
look up russel's teapot and evidence from negetive proof. it is illogical to think that there is as much reason to believe in the existance of god as there is to NOT believe in the existance of god based on just the lack of NEGETIVE evidence.Wrong, its highly illogical to take either stance when there is no evidence one way or the other.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its a fallacious stance to take. if u take it than you also have to believe in the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible purple unicorn. Strawman argument. Next time try reading what I'm saying. Believing in things because there is no evidence against it is just as illogical as not beleiving something is not because there is no evidence for it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
unless you have evidence to believe in sumthing, dont believe in it just due to the lack of negetive evidence. I never said I beleived in any of the things you mentioned. to say I did would be highly illogical.

Now again, I urge you to go and brush up on your grammar. It's quite taxing to try and read what you're trying to say.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Rhetorical Query: Where was this merciful God as six million Jews, His chosen, were slaughtered in the Holocaust? Where was this vengeful God as six million Jews, His chosen, cried out for respite in the death camps? Where was this merciful God as six million Jews, His chosen, were starved and worked to death in the name of human evolution?

Statement: God was where He has always been--on high, grieved by the actions of His creations, and giving the murderers and torturers chance to repent, a chance to turn from their evil and to good.

Or he didn't exist. As always.

Should consider both possibilities, shouldn't we?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Or he didn't exist. As always.

Should consider both possibilities, shouldn't we? Yes.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes. Damn you, I was going to reply to more. Oh well.


Originally posted by FeceMan
Query: Why is Urizen angry at God's generosity and His justice?

Assertation: FeceMan has explained this to Urizen on other occasions.

I think it is because Urizen's definition of generosity (as well as the definition in Merriam Webster) is very different from the one God uses.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I see, being openly homophobic is bad, but being secretly homophobic is perfectly fine.
I agree, why is being homophobic bad anyways?

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Gotta stop feeling awkward about it. But it can be hard when you were a freaking figurehead of the young adult church community for years.

Are you an atheist now? Should have spoken out, maybe you'd have converted a few.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali




"Just because I vote against Gay Marriage doesn't mean I dislike Gays or want them to be unhappy. I just don't think they should have the same rights that I do"
Gay people have the same rights.Originally posted by Creshosk
My problem with gay parades is there are no heterosexual parades... Where are the people flaunting their heterosexuality in the form of a parade?

Well, why don't you make one?

Does a gay individual have a right to adopt?

Originally posted by backdoorman
Does a gay individual have a right to adopt? Hmm, I am not sure. I suppose that (in Germany at least) single gay guys are allowed to adopt must like single hetero people.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Does a gay individual have a right to adopt?

Depends where exactly you are talking about - some countries being more liberal then others, or at least politically in insuring equal rights.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I am not sure. I suppose that (in Germany at least) single gay guys are allowed to adopt must like single hetero people.
Your "gay people have the same rights." claim was in response to goddess kali, who was speaking of American law, and I am quite sure adoption by gay people is banned in a few states of the US.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Your "gay people have the same rights." claim was in response to goddess kali, who was speaking of American law, and I am quite sure adoption by gay people is banned in a few states of the US. My response was also to gay marriage, wasn't it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
My response was also to gay marriage, wasn't it?
Did you even read the quote? It encompasses all "gay rights".

Originally posted by backdoorman
Did you even read the quote? It encompasses all "gay rights". Well, then take my post, now that I tell you, as just referring to marriage.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, then take my post, now that I tell you, as just referring to marriage.
I would but I don't think it did.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I would but I don't think it did. It was, I thought about adding it, but didn't feel like it. If you still don't believe it just take it as meaning that now.

I don't see how me taking it as that meaning now would change anything seeing as I was arguing about what you actually said, not meant. Nice talking to you though.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I don't see how me taking it as that meaning now would change anything seeing as I was arguing about what you actually said, not meant. Nice talking to you though. It does clarify what I said and should make you reply to that specific part. And yes, always a blast to talk to you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It does clarify what I said and should make you reply to that specific part. And yes, always a blast to talk to you.
I am bored now, you were wrong. I > you and all that shit.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I am bored now, you were wrong. I > you and all that shit. Aha, so, do homosexuals have the same marriage rights or not?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Aha, so, do homosexuals have the same marriage rights or not?
Irrelevant, the sole intent of my posting in this thread was to point out your mistake. You may spin the issue to your favor if you wish but I'm done.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Irrelevant, the sole intent of my posting in this thread was to point out your mistake. You may spin the issue to your favor if you wish but I'm done. I think I already did.

So, do homosexuals have the same marriage rights as heteros?

Heeere we go again.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Heeere we go again. You can never shut up, can you? Always being stupid, always not understanding a thing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You can never shut up, can you? Always being stupid, always not understanding a thing.

O **** off.

Originally posted by Alfheim
O **** off. Or you should stop cheerleading.

Im not going to stop anything. Seems like your being an ass again. Why is it your always getting into arguments with people?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Im not going to stop anything. Seems like your being an ass again. OK so what didnt I understand....why is it your always getting into arguments with people? H-he is my best friend.

He was just giving me shit for giggles.

Originally posted by Bardock42
H-he is my best friend.

He was just giving me shit for giggles.

Y-yeah so? Considering your always getting into agruments its not an illogical thing to think. Im telepathic so I would know you're best friends?

Originally posted by Bardock42
H-he is my best friend.

He was just giving me shit for giggles. Explains quite a few things...

Originally posted by Alfheim
Y-yeah so? Considering your always getting into agruments its not an illogical thing to think. Im telepathic so I would know you're best friends? No, you just always cheer for stuff you don't understand. Hence why I pointed that out.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Explains quite a few things...

I agree...

I assume you mean my lack of calling him a moron and such?

We do that in private.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Ontological argument.

1) I define God to be X.
2) Since I can't conceive of X, X must not exist.
3) Therefore, God doesn't exist.


Not very creative to define the way you perceived the definitions to be. Not even getting int other whole concept of the logical paradoxes not proving anything more than the language's limitation. Yes, I've encountered these "logical paradoxes". There was a thread not to long ago that discussed the paradox of omnipotence.

However simply because something is beyond your understanding does not mean that it does not exist. It might not exist, however it might exist differently than the way that you perceive it to be defined.

At any rate a "proof" is not evidence. If you'd like me to attempt to address each of your points individually you'll have to keep an open mind. There is nothing to be gained here. We have no evidence to his/her existence or nonexistence to assume either stance is illogical.



You didn't read my entire post, did you?



I was not arguing on lack of evidense alone. Lack of evidense is not proof of the negative, and I did not argue that.


Christianity, its mythos, its concepts, its teachings, and its idea of God pose to many logical paradoxes and problems.


Way too many.




You have not answered my question btw. How can one be happy in Heaven knowing that someone they love is suffering in Hell ? How do Heaven and Hell work ?

Creshock, please respond to my point addressed to yourself and other Christians/Muslims on this forum.









Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Think about it for a second:



Many of the people who end up in Hell will have relatives in Heaven. How do you imagine anyone can truly be happy in Heaven knowing that thier mother, sister, brother, father, lover, son, daughter, uncle, aunt, best freind, etc. is suffering greatly elsewhere?


It doesn't work. They cannot be happy if they truly loved thier loved ones who now suffer in Hell.


If God makes them forget, then he is hiding the Truth from them.





There are too many logical problems posed by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.



Therefore, I repeat, that it is REASONABLE to conclude that there is no Christian Judeo or Muslim God in existance.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Gay people have the same rights.


No they don't. In United States, heterosexuals have the right to marry who they wish, as long as the partner agrees.


Homosexuals, in most US states, do not have the right to marry who they want. They can only marry someone of the opposite sex.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You didn't read my entire post, did you? Yes, I did.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I was not arguing on lack of evidense alone. Lack of evidense is not proof of the negative, and I did not argue that.


Christianity, its mythos, its concepts, its teachings, and its idea of God pose to many logical paradoxes and problems. Shall I explain the ontological argument? They way you percieve these things to be doesn't make them that way.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Way too many.




You have not answered my question btw. How can one be happy in Heaven knowing that someone they love is suffering in Hell ? How do Heaven and Hell work ? Not a clue.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Creshock, please respond to my point addressed to yourself and other Christians/Muslims on this forum. I'm confused, why is this "And other Christians/Muslims" attached? Where did I ever claim to be a Christian or a Muslim?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes, I did.

Shall I explain the ontological argument? They way you percieve these things to be doesn't make them that way.


Not a clue.
I'm confused, why is this "And other Christians/Muslims" attached? Where did I ever claim to be a Christian or a Muslim?





I thought you were arguing on defense of God's existance. I was mistaken, so I apologize.





The ontological argument applies to both Theism and Atheism, but I am sure you understand that already.



However, there is no need to prove a negative. I deny the existance of a Christian-Judeo-Muslim God due to:


1) Lack of evidense
2) contradiction to science
3) contradict of texts
4) logical paradoxes and problems posed



Therefore, I have every right to conclude that there is no Biblical or Quran God, because it is highly inprobable.

And I am not forcing my opinion/beleif on others. I am explaining why I beleive what I beleive. Whatever you beleive is up to you, but back up what you beleive.

Do not tell me a fairy tale (such as God, Santa Clause, tooth fairy), and then expect me to beleive you, without proving me evidense.













And btw...Creshock..you cannot prove Zeus doesn't exist either. Is it right to say Zeus doesn't exist ?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I thought you were arguing on defense of God's existance. I was mistaken, so I apologize.





The ontological argument applies to both Theism and Atheism, but I am sure you understand that already.



However, there is no need to prove a negative. I deny the existance of a Christian-Judeo-Muslim God due to:


1) Lack of evidense
2) contradiction to science
3) contradict of texts
4) logical paradoxes and problems posed



Therefore, I have every right to conclude that there is no Biblical or Quran God, because it is highly inprobable.

And I am not forcing my opinion/beleif on others. I am explaining why I beleive what I beleive. Whatever you beleive is up to you, but back up what you beleive.

Do not tell me a fairy tale (such as God, Santa Clause, tooth fairy), and then expect me to beleive you, without proving me evidense.













And btw...Creshock..you cannot prove Zeus doesn't exist either. Is it right to say Zeus doesn't exist ? Oh Zeus exists... in various fictional mediums otherwise he's pretty much in the same boat as the Judaeo-Islamic-Christian God.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Oh Zeus exists... in various fictional mediums otherwise he's pretty much in the same boat as the Judaeo-Islamic-Christian God.


obviously

Zeus is way cooler than god. He liked to spread his seed.

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
Zeus is way cooler than god. He liked to spread his seed.


Oh trust me, I know that from personal experience droolio

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Oh trust me, I know that from personal experience droolio

Goddess Kali!!! What would Jesus think?

Or are you and him in an open relationship?

Jesus: G.K., you know, if you ever see another divine figure you're really attracted to I give you permission to spread the love. If you know what I mean.

Goddess Kali: Score!

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
No they don't. In United States, heterosexuals have the right to marry who they wish, as long as the partner agrees.


Homosexuals, in most US states, do not have the right to marry who they want. They can only marry someone of the opposite sex.

H-heterosexuals can marry people of the same sex?

Originally posted by Bardock42
H-heterosexuals can marry people of the same sex?

Oh so many conflicting thoughts about this... I will give you props cause tht made me laugh.

Originally posted by Bardock42
H-heterosexuals can marry people of the same sex?



You love to argue semantics.


You knew what I meant. Heterosexuals can marry who they love. A Heterosexual will only marry a partner of the opposite sex. Homosexuals can't marry who they love. They have to marry someone they don't love.


The rights are not the same, they are not equal.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You love to argue semantics.


You knew what I meant. Heterosexuals can marry who they love. A Heterosexual will only marry a partner of the opposite sex. Homosexuals can't marry who they love. They have to marry someone they don't love.


The rights are not the same, they are not equal. They are the same, that's what I was saying. You know I support further rights for gays. Gay marriage, adoption, etc.

Just the thing is...I, just as much as you, are prevented from marrying someone of my own sex, even though, admittedly, I don't want that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are the same, that's what I was saying. You know I support further rights for gays. Gay marriage, adoption, etc.

Just the thing is...I, just as much as you, are prevented from marrying someone of my own sex, even though, admittedly, I don't want that.


Right. What that means is that you can marry someone you love, and I can't. So no, the rights are not the same.



It's like arguing "You are all free to be Christian. Take freedom to beleive in God, without persecution for it.". An argument, which you know, many Christians will interpret from "Freedom of Religion".


So we are only free to be Christian, but not Atheist, Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist or Hindu ? That's not equality, that is not the same rights for everyone.


Saying that everyone has the right to be Christian, but not the right to be of all other Faiths is not equal, because obviously, people are going to want to belong to other Faiths, or no Faiths at all, without being persecuted for it.


Likewise, if one argues that all American Citizens have the right to marry, as long as they are in a woman and man union, then that is not equal. Because obviously, not every man wants to marry a woman, and vise versa.



I know you are for Gay Rights, and I appreciate that, but Gay Marriage will have just as many problems as "Straight" Marriage.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I know you are for Gay Rights, and I appreciate that, but Gay Marriage will have just as many problems as "Straight" Marriage.

Yeah, I am against state marriage. I think it should be private all the way.


Oh, and having the same rights (regardless of whether you want that right) is having the same rights. And it is equal. It might not be fair. But we should at least admit that in that issue we all got the same rights.

provide me a link to a source giving a reliable figure of what the current balance of the Roman Catholic Church is
then give me a link that has a reliable figure tallying up the collective debt of every 3rd world country on Earth



give me a link to a source stating a Protestant Church is funding a war in Africa



eh ?
Israel is funded by the US government for militaristic and geopolitical purposes
they don't need some Protestant Church to help
and don't even try to make this political
Palestine is in every way as guilty of crimes as Israel
neither one is innocent or right in any shape or form



i would like you to give me a link to info on such facilities in this modern day

well known and quoted fact in most crticisms of the catholic church. deniability is not an impressive trait. also, are you a christian. because it is becoming increasinly common for christians to come up with such debating tactics.




no, that is mostly the catholic church funding christian sides against muslim sides. plus right wing american lobyists doing business with tyrants in afrika but giving a bandaid's worht of aid in return.



protestant churches and organisations are sending tens of billions of dollar per year in aid to israel.



these are generally knowns and stated facts just like the estimated percentage of hiv infections in africa etc. however, ill try and find links to convince you.