The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Lightsnake3,287 pages

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
[B]I rest my case

This case isn't just 'rested,' DS. It's in a coma.

Are you shitting me? That's precisely what our legal system works on.

...What? No, that's not how it works. You don't consider if, say legalizing abortions will lead to murder in the streets in a century or interracial marriage because it might lead to prepubescent marriage.
You deal with the issues on their own.

No clue. We have issues they haven't gone through and they have issues we haven't gone through.

Unfortunately this hurts your point. You claim it'll set dangerous precedents to allow things...but in the countries where it's allowed, including Sweden, Spain, Canada...nothing's happened to support your argument.

Translation: I don't understand this point nor will I attempt to counter it.

You didn't MAKE a point to counter

Still in denial LS? Judging by your posts, you know nothing about it. You don't have much of an argument other than "Well Judaism says X, should say Y, and people still deserve to be happy". Not much of an argument LS.

What Judaism says is irrelevant because our country does not operate on Jewish law. When looking at law, we look at the Constitution, the principles of the country, precedent and the like

Waiting, sweetheart.

Equal Protection clause in the Constitution coupled with the right of marriage established in Loving v. Virginia

Nope, but doesn't mean we should welcome all changes.

Fight away, fight away. Of course. there's no reason that this change shouldn't be welcomed.

So you've basically proven you know nothing about Judaism.
No LS, there's having a liberal (skewed) view of it, and not understanding it altogether. You fall in the latter category.

I like how I've hardly spoken a word on Judaism and somehow I don't understand that.
I suppose with DS, it's easier for him to believe I don't get it than he could question his own views.

Translation: I don't know anything about Judaism, so I'm going to claim DS has a preference of law, despite him trying to explain to me the difference between the various kinds of laws in Judaism.
Your assertion about me being a hypocrite would be correct if you knew what you were talking about. As usual, you debate on issues you know nothing about.

I see the points went over your head. The fact is, even if you 'try' to follow the Torah as much as you can? You don't follow it to a T, you don't seem to be making any effort to correct that. Sorry, DS, but that IS hypocrisy

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
This case isn't just 'rested,' DS. It's in a coma.

Good one
...What? No, that's not how it works. You don't consider if, say legalizing abortions will lead to murder in the streets in a century or interracial marriage because it might lead to prepubescent marriage.
You deal with the issues on their own.

Jesus lightsnake. In the judicial system, judges give rulings not only on the case in question, but on the precedents the case provides.
Unfortunately this hurts your point. You claim it'll set dangerous precedents to allow things...but in the countries where it's allowed, including Sweden, Spain, Canada...nothing's happened to support your argument.

This doesn't hurt my point. Other countries and societies operate independent from us. Other countries have a single religion that dominates them. Ours has two. We are a more "progressive" country than others on this planet. Btw, you are still going to have to prove your argument since I have the government on my side. The assertion that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, is just that; an assertion.
What Judaism says is irrelevant because our country does not operate on Jewish law. When looking at law, we look at the Constitution, the principles of the country, precedent and the like

You're right, and our country (or the majority) say no to same sex marriages. Thanks for proving your point LS. Btw, if Judaism doesn't matter, don't use it as part of your argument.
Equal Protection clause in the Constitution coupled with the right of marriage established in Loving v. Virginia

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
Sorry LS, not seeing it. I know you're desperately trying to tie this to same sex marriages, but it doesn't work for what COULD be.
Some activists believe that the Loving ruling will eventually aid the marriage equality movement for same-sex partnerships, if courts allow the Equal Protection Clause to be used. F.C. Decoste states, "If the only arguments against same sex marriage are sectarian, then opposing the legalization of same sex marriage is invidious in a fashion no different from supporting anti miscegenation laws". These activists maintain that miscegenation laws are to interracial marriage, as sodomy laws are to homosexual rights and that sodomy laws were enacted in order to maintain traditional sex roles that have become part of American society. Opponents point out that the United States Supreme Court in the case of Baker v. Nelson, decided just a few years after the Loving decision, summarily affirmed that traditional marriage laws do not violate the Constitution of the United States.
You're still not understanding that I'm arguing from my religious standpoint, and the government's. You're arguing from an entirely different perspective, or trying to.
Fight away, fight away. Of course. there's no reason that this change shouldn't be welcomed.

Yet again, there's no reason ANY change shouldn't be welcomed right? There's no reason this change should be welcomed either LS.
I like how I've hardly spoken a word on Judaism and somehow I don't understand that.
I suppose with DS, it's easier for him to believe I don't get it than he could question his own views.

Really? Because you've said a lot about YOUR knowledge on Judaism. Typical LS, doesn't recall what he wrote. My assertion that you don't understand it is based on facts that you can't seem to understand either.

I see the points went over your head. The fact is, even if you 'try' to follow the Torah as much as you can? You don't follow it to a T, you don't seem to be making any effort to correct that. Sorry, DS, but that IS hypocrisy

SO I tell you that my points flew over your head, and you repeat that to me. Ok well since you've shown a consistent failure to conform to the rules of reading comprehension, i'll dumb it down for you.

1. I stated that the right path is following the Torah to a T, meaning what is interpreted by the Sages. I doubt you even know what "torah to the T" means seeing as how your limited knowledge comes from a reform background, so it's no wonder why you'd make such a blanket statement.
2. I have on MANY occasions stated that Judaism is all about getting closer to G-d, and becoming a better human being to your fellow man. I also stated that while I don't follow the Torah to the T, I am making significant progress and that's where it starts. FURTHERMORE, I stated that I KNOW that me not following the Torah to the T is wrong, and that I'm trying and progressing. So your assertion that I'm not making effort to correct that is basically trumped by my own repeated admissions. You should learn to read next time LS, but this has always been difficult for you.

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Good one
Jesus lightsnake. In the judicial system, judges give rulings not only on the case in question, but on the precedents the case provides.

My point was the eventual ramifications are generally not intended for consideration. I'm well aware of precedent in case law

This doesn't hurt my point. Other countries and societies operate independent from us.

So, we're lagging behind them?

Other countries have a single religion that dominates them. Ours has two.

Religion does not 'dominate' the US. and you can't just say 'Christianity.' Whose Christianity, exactly? James Dobson's brand? Evangelical Christianity? Catholicism?
Last I checked, btw, Spain is predominantly Catholic and doesn't have much an issue with gay marriage. This, again, hurts your argument is leads inevitably to danger

We are a more "progressive" country than others on this planet.

I'll raise you Sweden. In an actual progressive country, the Republican party would be laughed out of the room.

Btw, you are still going to have to prove your argument since I have the government on my side. The assertion that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, is just that; an assertion.

"I have the LAW on my side! Obey me!"
That's what you're boiling the argument down to. I also don't really see the government arguing homosexuality is harmful. And for me to provide how it doesn't hurt anyone, let's see you first provide me something to counter

You're right, and our country (or the majority) say no to same sex marriages. Thanks for proving your point LS. Btw, if Judaism doesn't matter, don't use it as part of your argument.

I used it to point out that a good deal of reform Jews voted for same sex marriage. Ignoring that?
Oh, and look...putting us in the hands of the majority now? What the majority says= public policy and **** the Constitution or minority rights, right?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
Sorry LS, not seeing it. I know you're desperately trying to tie this to same sex marriages, but it doesn't work for what COULD be.

Let me quote the court: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."
That's where we can draw it from. Discrimination on race was declared illegal. why can gender not be the same? Frankly, so many of your arguments can be applied to the interracial marriage argument as well

Some activists believe that the Loving ruling will eventually aid the marriage equality movement for same-sex partnerships, if courts allow the Equal Protection Clause to be used. F.C. Decoste states, "If the only arguments against same sex marriage are sectarian, then opposing the legalization of same sex marriage is invidious in a fashion no different from supporting anti miscegenation laws". These activists maintain that miscegenation laws are to interracial marriage, as sodomy laws are to homosexual rights and that sodomy laws were enacted in order to maintain traditional sex roles that have become part of American society. Opponents point out that the United States Supreme Court in the case of Baker v. Nelson, decided just a few years after the Loving decision, summarily affirmed that traditional marriage laws do not violate the Constitution of the United States.
You're still not understanding that I'm arguing from my religious standpoint, and the government's. You're arguing from an entirely different perspective, or trying to.

The government doesn't have a 'religious standpoint,' or at least it's not supposed to.
I'm arguing from a perspective of logic, morality and a legal perspective as well. If you're arguing from a religious standpoint, you're casting aside.
again, by this 'religious' standpoint, can we ban:
Shrimp, Vegetable gardens, polyester, pigs....and hey, gotta be fair to the Muslims, so there goes alcohol. And our Hindu minority, so let's junk beef.
Why don't we, while we're at it, make divorce illegal? Catholicism strictly forbids it and we have a large Catholic population.
Where does it end, exactly?

Yet again, there's no reason ANY change shouldn't be welcomed right? There's no reason this change should be welcomed either LS.

No reason at all we can't stop treating a minority as second class citizens and denying them basic civil rights, right?

Really? Because you've said a lot about YOUR knowledge on Judaism. Typical LS, doesn't recall what he wrote. My assertion that you don't understand it is based on facts that you can't seem to understand either.

My assertion is that you're dicking about here, based on little evidence, to distract from the weakness of your core argument.

SO I tell you that my points flew over your head, and you repeat that to me. Ok well since you've shown a consistent failure to conform to the rules of reading comprehension, i'll dumb it down for you.

Newsflash, DS: Me thinking you make bad points doesn't mean I miss them.

1. I stated that the right path is following the Torah to a T, meaning what is interpreted by the Sages. I doubt you even know what "torah to the T" means seeing as how your limited knowledge comes from a reform background, so it's no wonder why you'd make such a blanket statement.

'Reform background?' This has nothing to do with knowledge period. One can still read it cover to cover.
Do you follow it completely. Yes or no? Keep in mind that by not executing football players for touching that filthy pig's flesh, you are a bad, bad boy and God hates you.

2. I have on MANY occasions stated that Judaism is all about getting closer to G-d, and becoming a better human being to your fellow man.

Unless they're gay by no fault of their own. At which point, feel free to deny them rights.

I also stated that while I don't follow the Torah to the T, I am making significant progress and that's where it starts.

'making' progress? So you're continuing to follow it more? hen can we expect complete and utter perfection in this following?

FURTHERMORE, I stated that I KNOW that me not following the Torah to the T is wrong, and that I'm trying and progressing. So your assertion that I'm not making effort to correct that is basically trumped by my own repeated admissions. You should learn to read next time LS, but this has always been difficult for you.

Unless you follow it completely, you'll continue to be wrong, so I'm afraid this puts you in the same boat as any gay-supporting liberal. In fact, it makes you worse since you're doing wrong and knowing it.

I expect your profound apologies for shaving, FYI. Those razors make baby Moses cry.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
My point was the eventual ramifications are generally not intended for consideration. I'm well aware of precedent in case law

But eventual ramifications ARE intended for consideration when issuing a decision.
So, we're lagging behind them?

Nope, we also have more rights than other countries.
Religion does not 'dominate' the US. and you can't just say 'Christianity.' Whose Christianity, exactly? James Dobson's brand? Evangelical Christianity? Catholicism?
Last I checked, btw, Spain is predominantly Catholic and doesn't have much an issue with gay marriage. This, again, hurts your argument is leads inevitably to danger

Except the government has a ban on same sex marriages in all by 2 states, so it helps my argument. You shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, the Sabbath for the Jews (saturday), the sabbath for Christians (Sunday). There's a pattern here LS.
I'll raise you Sweden. In an actual progressive country, the Republican party would be laughed out of the room.

We're talking about a progressive country with at least an iota of intelligence LS. In a rational country, the liberals would be laughed out of the room.
"I have the LAW on my side! Obey me!"
That's what you're boiling the argument down to. I also don't really see the government arguing homosexuality is harmful. And for me to provide how it doesn't hurt anyone, let's see you first provide me something to counter

Why do I need to provide something better? The government states that marriage is between one man and one woman. Holy shit, sounds like Judeo-Christian principles to me!
I used it to point out that a good deal of reform Jews voted for same sex marriage. Ignoring that?
Oh, and look...putting us in the hands of the majority now? What the majority says= public policy and **** the Constitution or minority rights, right?

Seeing as how, again, the ban is based on religious moral principles, we're not contradicting the Constitution. Welcome to our Judeo-Christian country lightsnake. Don't like it? Find some liberally dominated hell hole and crawl into it.
Let me quote the court: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."
That's where we can draw it from. Discrimination on race was declared illegal. why can gender not be the same? Frankly, so many of your arguments can be applied to the interracial marriage argument as well

I didn't know you were a Justice ls. My arguments are yet again based on the assumption that many, or most of our laws come from fundamental religious principles. Interracial marriages isn't one of them.
The government doesn't have a 'religious standpoint,' or at least it's not supposed to.
I'm arguing from a perspective of logic, morality and a legal perspective as well. If you're arguing from a religious standpoint, you're casting aside.

You shouldn't tell me what the government should and shouldn't do. You're living in the freeist country in the history of civilization. You're living in a Judeo-Christian society that is like any other. You're NOT arguing from morality, and your logic is from your perspective, nothing more.
again, by this 'religious' standpoint, can we ban:
Shrimp, Vegetable gardens, polyester, pigs....and hey, gotta be fair to the Muslims, so there goes alcohol. And our Hindu minority, so let's junk beef.
Why don't we, while we're at it, make divorce illegal? Catholicism strictly forbids it and we have a large Catholic population.
Where does it end, exactly?

See, you're making my argument for me because you're using my line of thought. If we allow one thing, where will it end. You're saying, if we ban one thing, we should ban the others and when will it end? We are at an impasse.
No reason at all we can't stop treating a minority as second class citizens and denying them basic civil rights, right?

You calling it basic civil rights doesn't make it so. Basic civil rights allow 1 man and 1 woman to wed. No violation here.
My assertion is that you're dicking about here, based on little evidence, to distract from the weakness of your core argument.

An assertion you have yet to prove.
]quote]'Reform background?' This has nothing to do with knowledge period. One can still read it cover to cover.
Do you follow it completely. Yes or no? Keep in mind that by not executing football players for touching that filthy pig's flesh, you are a bad, bad boy and God hates you.[/quote]
Show me what bible you're reading. Has anyone told you that reform Judaism is nothing but a watered down version of Judaism? So I don't know what "cover" you've been reading. Do I follow it completely? Nope, but you don't exactly have a point.
Unless they're gay by no fault of their own. At which point, feel free to deny them rights.

Oh goodie, you've taken a step back to the discussion of nature vs. nurture in terms of the cause of homosexuality.
'making' progress? So you're continuing to follow it more? hen can we expect complete and utter perfection in this following?

Nope, man was created with flaws and human nature. We could never be perfect but we can get damn close to it. If we were perfect, we would be G-d. I'm sure you'll come up with some nonsense about this in your rebuttal, so my explanation will be ready.
Unless you follow it completely, you'll continue to be wrong, so I'm afraid this puts you in the same boat as any gay-supporting liberal. In fact, it makes you worse since you're doing wrong and knowing it.

Except you have no idea what I'm violating in terms of G-d's law, rabbinical law, oral/written law. The fact that I do it makes me wrong, but I do it less and less. The fact that homosexuals continue to do it, DENYING that it is wrong because they need some kind of justification for themselves, makes it a lot worse for them.

I expect your profound apologies for shaving, FYI. Those razors make baby Moses cry.

And you've proven my case how much (or how very little) you know about the Bible. As usual, don't use it in your argument, as it really hurts it, and makes you seem extremely unknowledgable.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

DS, what are your thoughts on the creation of the universe? Do you follow a literal interpretation of whatever the Jewish version of Genesis is? (I'm trying to allow for differences in translation, where most of the errors would be in the English format.) You've said 'created' quite a bit... are you a Jewish Creationist? (Does such a thing exist?)

Lightsnake Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
But eventual ramifications ARE intended for consideration when issuing a decision.

Direct ramifications in that issue. They don't consider if interracial marriage would lead to 12 year olds married
Nope, we also have more rights than other countries.

Than Sweden or Switzerland? If anything, they've got even more civil rights

Except the government has a ban on same sex marriages in all by 2 states, so it helps my argument. You shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, the Sabbath for the Jews (saturday), the sabbath for Christians (Sunday). There's a pattern here LS.

You're aware that Saturdays and Sundays are off a work week to accommodate people and not because it's religion, right?
Moreover, murder, perjury, stealing...all those predate Christianity as laws/ You know that right?
I also love your "But the GOVERNMENT SAYS SO" policy in regards to homosexuality.

We're talking about a progressive country with at least an iota of intelligence LS. In a rational country, the liberals would be laughed out of the room.

Yeah, so am I. In Europe the Republican party is considered a joke. And how would the liberals be 'laughed out' in 'progressive' countries? What do you think progressive MEANS?

Why do I need to provide something better? The government states that marriage is between one man and one woman. Holy shit, sounds like Judeo-Christian principles to me!

Or a Zorosatrian one.
Btw, last I checked, 'one man one woman' predates Christianity or Judaism. Hell, look at the Romans. In Ancient Judaism, look at all the polygamy.

Seeing as how, again, the ban is based on religious moral principles, we're not contradicting the Constitution. Welcome to our Judeo-Christian country lightsnake. Don't like it? Find some liberally dominated hell hole and crawl into it.

I was unaware Sweden, Switzerland and the like are 'hellholes.' Wanna provide an example of a liberal dominated hellhole? Venezuela? No, that's Socialist, there's a difference. Cuba? No, that's communist...I'm waiting for the examples of how liberals are the sources of all evil. I mean, it's not like the liberals were the one fighting for women's suffrage, abolition of slavery and the like
And again...care to point out these Judeo-Christian concepts and not simply 'in society throughout history, predating Judaism and Christianity?' you keep ignoring that.
Fun how, again, the Founders firmly reject the notion of this country founded on Christianity?

I didn't know you were a Justice ls. My arguments are yet again based on the assumption that many, or most of our laws come from fundamental religious principles. Interracial marriages isn't one of them.

You haven't read many of the arguments against interracial marriage, have you? They justified slavery based on such 'religious principles.' Just read the book 'Defending Slavery' and read all the essays from slavery's defenders

You shouldn't tell me what the government should and shouldn't do. You're living in the freeist country in the history of civilization.

Oh, how cute, the dogma they force down your throat. I fail to see how we're freer than a place like the Netherlands or Switzerland.

You're living in a Judeo-Christian society that is like any other. You're NOT arguing from morality, and your logic is from your perspective, nothing more.

Do you even know what it is you keep saying? Because I keep asking for evidence of things you say. I get none. Quote from a Founder, please? Care to contradict the Treaty of Tripoli?

See, you're making my argument for me because you're using my line of thought. If we allow one thing, where will it end. You're saying, if we ban one thing, we should ban the others and when will it end? We are at an impasse.

No, I'm saying your point's a bit dumb because you're saying "Enforce this, but not that."

You calling it basic civil rights doesn't make it so. Basic civil rights allow 1 man and 1 woman to wed. No violation here.

Basic civil rights is marriage. Why do consenting adults who have a different orientation not get to share in this right?
You also overlooked how married couples get tons of benefits.
An assertion you have yet to prove.

Everyone reading your posts can see it.
Show me what bible you're reading. Has anyone told you that reform Judaism is nothing but a watered down version of Judaism?

'Adapted' version, you mean

So I don't know what "cover" you've been reading. Do I follow it completely? Nope, but you don't exactly have a point.

....did this make sense to anyone else?

Oh goodie, you've taken a step back to the discussion of nature vs. nurture in terms of the cause of homosexuality.

Sorry if I go where the evidence takes us. If homosexuality is immortal in God's eyes, that deity's a sociopath for making them that way.

Nope, man was created with flaws and human nature. We could never be perfect but we can get damn close to it.

so, the perfect creator created us imperfectly to hate us when we're imperfect.

If we were perfect, we would be G-d. I'm sure you'll come up with some nonsense about this in your rebuttal, so my explanation will be ready.

I eagerly await

Except you have no idea what I'm violating in terms of G-d's law, rabbinical law, oral/written law.

Do you shave? Yes. Or no?

The fact that I do it makes me wrong, but I do it less and less. The fact that homosexuals continue to do it, DENYING that it is wrong because they need some kind of justification for themselves, makes it a lot worse for them.

Oh, wow. They deny it's wrong, AND? Who does it hurt, exactly? HOW is it wrong? It's, again, not something that is chosen but determined by chemistry, genetics and occasionally background.
Oh, and maybe they don't share your belief system.

And you've proven my case how much (or how very little) you know about the Bible. As usual, don't use it in your argument, as it really hurts it, and makes you seem extremely unknowledgable.

Anyone reading this, do chime in which of us is seeming unknowledgable.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lightsnake
[B]Direct ramifications in that issue. They don't consider if interracial marriage would lead to 12 year olds married

Really? Because you initially wrote "My point was the eventual ramifications are generally not intended for consideration. I'm well aware of precedent in case law "
Which one is it? Do you even know where you are?

Than Sweden or Switzerland? If anything, they've got even more civil rights

Please share

You're aware that Saturdays and Sundays are off a work week to accommodate people and not because it's religion, right?
Moreover, murder, perjury, stealing...all those predate Christianity as laws/ You know that right?
I also love your "But the GOVERNMENT SAYS SO" policy in regards to homosexuality.

They predate Christianity? Really? So all of the ancient civilizations before the emergence of monotheism didn't murder? I'm going to NOT ridicule you with ancient history, but the whole "you shall not murder thing" started with monotheism. And you are aware that your weekend logic is wrong, correct? Why don't we have Monday-Tuesday off? Or any of the other days of the week? It just so happens that it's Saturday Sunday so it's looking more like Judeo-Christian. Sorry LS.

Yeah, so am I. In Europe the Republican party is considered a joke. And how would the liberals be 'laughed out' in 'progressive' countries? What do you think progressive MEANS?

Republican Party is considered a joke? Last I checked, the liberals were the butt of most political jokes. I know what progressive means, you're talking about stereotypes. You're in the wrong country though LS. The gullible tree hugging hippies no longer reside here.

Or a Zorosatrian one.
Btw, last I checked, 'one man one woman' predates Christianity or Judaism. Hell, look at the Romans. In Ancient Judaism, look at all the polygamy.

Last time I checked, marriage between a man and a woman. While polygamy did exist, places such as ancient greece and rome practiced one man and one woman. And polygamy was more of the exception than the rule even before Judaism/Christianity.

I was unaware Sweden, Switzerland and the like are 'hellholes.' Wanna provide an example of a liberal dominated hellhole? Venezuela? No, that's Socialist, there's a difference. Cuba? No, that's communist...I'm waiting for the examples of how liberals are the sources of all evil. I mean, it's not like the liberals were the one fighting for women's suffrage, abolition of slavery and the like

Yea rofl. The liberals were also fighting to abolish the death penalty, getting rid of guns, pro life, affirmative action, and any other hilarious concepts. I didn't say there were liberal hellholes, I just said you should find one. While I am against the extreme right wing such as Nazi Germany, the extreme left has been more of a burden on society than any other group.

And again...care to point out these Judeo-Christian concepts and not simply 'in society throughout history, predating Judaism and Christianity?' you keep ignoring that.
Fun how, again, the Founders firmly reject the notion of this country founded on Christianity?

Show me where they reject this notion. The only thing that is rejected is the idea that religion is explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Btw, who came here before the founding fathers? Puritans, Catholics. I wonder what religion they were. And I mentioend the Judeo-Christian principles above.

You haven't read many of the arguments against interracial marriage, have you? They justified slavery based on such 'religious principles.' Just read the book 'Defending Slavery' and read all the essays from slavery's defenders

Sure lightsnake, I'll tell you what. I'll read the books you want me to read, if you listen to some lectures by Dennis Prager. Deal? Ok.

Oh, how cute, the dogma they force down your throat. I fail to see how we're freer than a place like the Netherlands or Switzerland.

Yes, dogma. Let me guess lightsnake, you think that if you think differently, you're unique? Well lets see. We have the right to bear arms, the Netherlands don't. Our citizens are protected against illegal searches, not seeing that in the Netherlands constitution. I'll find you some more don't worry. Oh, and again we're the only Judeo-Christian country on the planet. Why don't you show me what Netherlands has on us?

Do you even know what it is you keep saying? Because I keep asking for evidence of things you say. I get none. Quote from a Founder, please? Care to contradict the Treaty of Tripoli?

Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States.[citation needed]
Article 11

Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Advocates of the separation of church and state claim[17] that this text constitutes evidence that the United States Government was not founded on the Christian religion. The Senate's ratification was only the third recorded unanimous vote of 339 taken. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent.

Advocates of the Christian foundation of the US Government counter that the purpose of the treaty was to deal with issues of piracy, not to govern the relationship between church and state. They argue that since Article 11 was collateral to the treaty's purpose, one cannot presume those who voted to ratify the treaty necessarily agreed with Article 11

^Read that. You know what I love about you LS? You have the ability to come up with some proof as if it was definitive, without even considering the context.

No, I'm saying your point's a bit dumb because you're saying "Enforce this, but not that."

Some things are not enforceable LS. Someone missed the lessons of Prohibition.

Basic civil rights is marriage. Why do consenting adults who have a different orientation not get to share in this right?
You also overlooked how married couples get tons of benefits.

Except marriage in this sense is defined as an agreement between one man and one woman, so you're taking a step back once again.

Everyone reading your posts can see it.
'Adapted' version, you mean
....did this make sense to anyone else?

Speak for yourself LS, nobody is helping you. And no, reform
Judaism is the watered down version. I grew up in a reform Temple before I upgraded myself, so I know this better than most. Seeing as how you don't know anything past reform Judaism, I would characterize your views or opinions on the subject, as ignorant.

Sorry if I go where the evidence takes us. If homosexuality is immortal in God's eyes, that deity's a sociopath for making them that way.

Totally. I was waiting for you to place the blame on somebody. I was expecting it to be the government, society, or Regan. My mistake.

so, the perfect creator created us imperfectly to hate us when we're imperfect.

Nope, the creator created us with challenges of being human. Our goal is to transcend beyond or animalistic habits.

Do you shave? Yes. Or no?

Show me where it says you cannot shave in the bible, and I will give you a rabbinical interpretation. You're repeatedly showing your ignorance by making blanket statements.

Oh, wow. They deny it's wrong, AND? Who does it hurt, exactly? HOW is it wrong? It's, again, not something that is chosen but determined by chemistry, genetics and occasionally background.
Oh, and maybe they don't share your belief system.

They have no choice. To share by belief system would to admit what they're doing is wrong. People hate a guilty conscience so they would either blame somebody else, or claim it's not wrong. I claim that it's wrong for the same reason looking at child pornography is wrong. Whether they can help it or not is debatable, but I find the concept less than satisfying. My problem doesn't lie with homosexuals in general. I've met a few and have had laughs with them because generally they are cool. I've also met ones that are so flamboyant that they think they're somehow unique because of their sexual preference. My problem is with changing to law to suit a minority that otherwise doesn't hurt society as a whole if we don't change it. My problem is if we change the law for homosexuals, someone else will come around and claim we should change the law to fit their preferences because we did so with homosexuals.

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
DS, what are your thoughts on the creation of the universe? Do you follow a literal interpretation of whatever the Jewish version of Genesis is? (I'm trying to allow for differences in translation, where most of the errors would be in the English format.) You've said 'created' quite a bit... are you a Jewish Creationist? (Does such a thing exist?)

There's these really good lectures that explain how the Jewish calender and the earth's age are the exact same. It all depends on what view you hold. Some Rabbis hold that Genesis is to be taken literally, while others such as the Rambam claim that Genesis was to be viewed in a way that complements science. I believe in the Big Bang Theory but I also believe in the creation in the Bible. Explain to me why they have to be necessarily different, or even mutually exclusive?

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
DS, just give a straight answer to this question: how does homosexuality harm society? And I'm not referring to all of the claims of how homosexuality is against 'god's will', or 'unnatural', or 'abnormal', or 'disgusting'- I mean what negative effects does homosexuality actually have?

He'll never see this, once you get these two going...

SIDIOUS 66 Senior Member

Originally posted by Publius II
Yeah, I'm sure you have legions of adopted kids running around singing your praise and glory. Don't kid yourself, and don't try to fool me.
You said that gays shouldn't be allowed to to adopt because they would make bad parents (a completely unsubstantiated and inane claim). I said that 80% of children who need to be adopted aren't adopted, and that if gay couples are willing to adopt they should be allowed to.
Got it?
S66: ummmm no that isnt what adopt means
I don't even know why I waste my time with you.
S66: lol i dont even no why i waste my time with u!
If you define "normal" as the way the majority of people function, then again, geniuses and savants shouldn't have the right to get married either. They're freaks whose brains work differently from ours, after all.
Wrong. You're probably one of those people who buys into the myth that humans only use ten percent of their brains.
The brains of geniuses work differently from the vast majority of people, which means they are abnormal, which means, by your definition of "normal," that they are "mixed up." So yes, it is a perfect comparison, although I highly doubt you're actually capable of grasping that.
Pretend I give a shit what you think.
S66: pretend i give a poop what you think
Hands weren't made for punching. People punch with their hands. Therefore, punching is unnatural and we should never ever do it. Also, we shouldn't play volleyball, because we aren't supposed to slap things with our hands because they weren't made to slap things. Nor should we kick things, or prop ourselves up on our elbows, or bend down and kneel on our knees, or kiss, because it's all "unnatural" because our bodies weren't "made" to be used like that.
You should also stop typing, although that has less to do with how "natural" it is and more to do with the fact that you're polluting cyberspace (also "unnatural"😉 with your idiocy, which is unnatural as well; the human brain was made to make you act stupid.
The comparison wasn't about the actual surgery, idiot. It was about your claim that a sex-change was "unnatural" and therefore shouldn't happen. Heart transplants are "unnatural," too.
Sure.
That's unnatural. God never intended for you type, because
First good move you've made since this started.

Faunus, i am not going to continue this with you any further. You keep making retarded comparisons. You keep comparing being human(black people) to a mental state. You keep comparing heart transplants to a sex change. When having a sex change actually saves somenones life, then we will talk.

By your logic everything is perfectly normal. Having sexual fantasies about a 3 year old is perfectly normal, as long as they don't act on those fantasies. I am in love with my buick regal(car) outside, so i want to have the right to marry it. That is just how i am i can't help it. I am mentally normal.

Being a psychopath is normal, because hey they were born that way. There are even some psychopaths that run big businesses, and haven't harmed anyone. Yeah they are normal, and you can easily compare their mental state with being Chinese.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He'll never see this, once you get these two going...

Me? 😖hifty:

DS, sorry I didn't respond. I found This game at school today and couldn't stop playing it. When I got home I had to beat my high score of 220,960. I did:
240,860

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
There's these really good lectures that explain how the Jewish calender and the earth's age are the exact same.

The Jewish calendar suggests that the age of the earth is approximately 4.5 Billion years old?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
It all depends on what view you hold. Some Rabbis hold that Genesis is to be taken literally, while others such as the Rambam claim that Genesis was to be viewed in a way that complements science.

Again we run into the problem of interpretation: why is your (or anyone's, for that matter) interpretation of the Torah (or Bible or Koran or Baghavad Gita or what have you...) any more accurate than any one else's? I don't know how canon is handled in the Jewish faith, but I know that very issue is (part) of the Pope's function in Catholicism. Do you have a papal equivalent?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I believe in the Big Bang Theory but I also believe in the creation in the Bible. Explain to me why they have to be necessarily different, or even mutually exclusive?

Well, for starters, the Bible (King James version) has the creation process taking no more than 7 'days.' For a while I attempted to reconcile this with the idea that the 'days' were not directly equivalent to the modern period of 24 hours. This explanation no longer holds water for me because during those days, events which we know to be far removed chronologically are placed together or within the span of a single 'day'. The timelines simply don't mesh.

Another problem I have with the God hypothesis is that he/she/it simply isn't necessary. The Big Bang, while still sketchy in some areas (due to our lack of a unified theory) is plausible and supported by observable evidence. God isn't necessary to create the universe because it could happen without him. (At least, evidence suggests that it happened, and no evidence suggests that he intervened.)

First Cause
This always gets me: The Big Bang couldn't have occurred without an exterior cause, therefore God exists.

Objection: What caused god? If everything (Theists' words, not mine) needs a cause, what about God?
Objection: Causality and even time didn't exist before the big bang- even if it was impossibly improbable (rather than simply impossible) it was bound to happen, because it had eternity in which to occur. I think you got that, but if I need to elaborate I will.

I guess that those are the big two, but it will keep. My 'beef' with yahwe (and all gods) is that there isn't anything to suggest their existence in the first place, except for a fear of death. We understand so many natural phenomena (that used to be ascribed to the divine) that there simply isn't any room for a god in the sense that you use it. That feeling is intensified when theists attempt to use a 'god of the gaps' style of argument. Science has dibs on those gaps. You can't have them.

...

That said, I no longer have a problem with religion. I did for quite a while (relatively speaking) but I don't really feel that way anymore. I recognize that by living a theistic life some members of society are able to contribute more or lead a more disciplined life. More importantly, some people are simply happier believing in God. I am personally happier with (what I believe to be) the truth, but others' beliefs don't harm me. Except for when they do. That is why I am so against any sort of religious rationale for any government action: It is OK for them to believe without evidence, but it is NOT OK for them to force their beliefs on me or others. Religion's inspirational influence (sponsoring great art for hundreds of years... Michelangelo, anyone?) is enough, for me, to make the occasional battle against extremist views worthwhile.

PRE POST EDIT: SRSLY. PLAY THE GAME IN THE LINK. IT ROX.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

Sids, you are on my ignore list but I think that Faunus needs to not deal with your shit anymore. He gets the night off.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Faunus, i am not going to continue this with you any further. You keep making retarded comparisons.

I don't think that you of all people are in a position to use the word 'retarded' in a derogatory sense. Before you start bashing (and failing) other members I suggest that you get your own bases covered.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66

You keep comparing being human(black people) to a mental state.

Well, one has no more control over their sexual orientation than one does over their nationality. No one chose to be gay, and no one chose to be black.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
You keep comparing heart transplants to a sex change. When having a sex change actually saves someone[b]'s life, then we will talk.[/b]

Well, I see two major problems here:
1). The analogy between 'sex change operation' and 'heart transplant' is not so much about the actual effects of the surgery so much the nature of said operations. A heart transplant is not 'natural' and by your initial logic, it is therefore bad. Faunus took you to task about the ridiculousness of that statement and you've been struggling to understand his analogy ever since:

[quote]Originally posted by Sidious
Surgical sex change is also accepted nowadays. Are you also going to say that this is perfectly natural? Sorry but it is not.

Originally posted by Faunus
Heart transplants are accepted nowadays. Guess they're taboo, too.

You seem to associate "natural" with good and "unnatural" with bad. It's a stupid line of thought, especially when your idea of what is natural is so poorly defined. [/quote]
In this passage we can see your association between 'unnatural' (sex change) and bad (is it considered normal? No? therefore it must be bad). Faunus pointed out that something else 'unnatural' (Heart transplant) is considered very good. He was pointing out the failure of the internal consistency of your worldview.
2). Sex change operations can save lives. I would have to do a horrendous amount of crawling through meta-analysis to prove it, but the suicide rate of transgendered people is notably higher than that of convetional heterosexual individuals- sex change operations alleviate the cognitive dissonance inherent in a situation where the brain believes itself to be a female with a male body. This release of pressure can alleviate the symptoms of depression and thereby avert a suicide (attempt).

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66

By your logic everything is perfectly normal. Having sexual fantasies about a 3 year old is perfectly normal, as long as they don't act on those fantasies. I am in love with my buick regal(car) outside, so i want to have the right to marry it. That is just how i am i can't help it. I am mentally normal.

You are confusing the terms 'normal' and 'good' to be synonyms. (Guys, don't jump on my sentence structure. It has been a long day.) A genius (to borrow Faunus's analogy) is considered mentally 'abnormal.' That does not make geniuses (genii?) bad, it just makes them different.

Sexual fantasies about a 3 year old is fundamentally different from homosexuality because children are more vulnerable (by definition) than other rational adults. Child sexual abuse causes long term psychological damage that a homosexual relationship does not. The two are very different.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66

Being a psychopath is normal, because hey they were born that way. There are even some psychopaths that run big businesses, and haven't harmed anyone. Yeah they are normal, and you can easily compare their mental state with being Chinese.

This is a weak almost-paragraph. A psychopath is, by definition, abnormal, as is a genius. I would love to see what 'psychopaths' are running 'big businesses'. I don't believe it for a second. While I'm sure that people with mental disorders (bipolar, for example) can lead companies I would be shocked is someone with a socially crippling disorder (severe schizophrenia is one that comes to mind) would ever be put in charge of anything. If it is hidden it is one thing, but really?

Gays don't hurt anyone with their differences any more than geniuses do. Psychopaths by definition are not able to function in society. Do you see how they are different?

Master Crimzon Baby Killer

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He'll never see this, once you get these two going...

That's sad. Oh well, I doubt he would have had a straight answer anyhow (considering that none exists).

Darth Sexy Restricted

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He'll never see this, once you get these two going...

What effects does child pornography have if it's not affecting anyone, if the child doesn't know about it, and the viewer keeps it confined to his own house? Basically nothing. Should we allow it? It's illegal because of where it could lead. Same with homosexuality. You're asking for the negative aspects of it but you're cutting off most of the correct answers because you're wanting some specific answer, or specifically no answer, so it's not exactly a debate.

So how exactly does homosexuality help society?

MadMel Heh

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
That does not make geniuses (genii?) bad, it just makes them different.

it is indeed "genii" 😛

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
What effects does child pornography have if it's not affecting anyone, if the child doesn't know about it, and the viewer keeps it confined to his own house? Basically nothing. Should we allow it? It's illegal because of where it could lead. Same with homosexuality. You're asking for the negative aspects of it but you're cutting off most of the correct answers because you're wanting some specific answer, or specifically no answer, so it's not exactly a debate.
So how exactly does homosexuality help society?

There are countless things which don't help society, but how does homosexuality detract from society? Just answer it straight (pun intended) for once. Give us... three, three clear and definitive examples of how homosexuality harms society. No moral bullshit about parentage, no religious bullshit about God. And please don't say AIDS, the 80's stole that one a long time ago. Three.

MadMel Heh

cant the aids problem be solved, or at least reduced the same way most STI's are solved these days, a condom?
isnt it kinda redundant that some people blame gay people for aids when unsafe sex with anyone of any sexuality can cause an infection of some kind?

Master Crimzon Baby Killer

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
What effects does child pornography have if it's not affecting anyone, if the child doesn't know about it, and the viewer keeps it confined to his own house? Basically nothing. Should we allow it? It's illegal because of where it could lead. Same with homosexuality. You're asking for the negative aspects of it but you're cutting off most of the correct answers because you're wanting some specific answer, or specifically no answer, so it's not exactly a debate.
So how exactly does homosexuality help society?

You're comparing child pornography to homosexuality now? Now, understand this: any form of sexuality can lead to potentially negative effects. Also, child pornography is often without the consent of the child, and in any case, a child's consent can't be taken in the same light as an adult due to intellectual inferiority and lack of mental/management skills. This is a violation of the child's rights- the rights to self-control and freedom, without being exploited for other people's gain.

Homosexuality doesn't harm anybody. It's a union between two consenting adults with logical rationalization, self-control, and the same love you might have with a female. Yes, it can lead to negative things- but so can heterosexuality. Rape, pedophilia, etc are all potential effects of any form of sexuality.

Darth Exodus The Gr8est!!!!!!!!

Holy shit I hate Darth Sexy.

EDIT: And Sidious 66 after some reading.

Publius II Boss

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Me? 😖hifty:
DS, sorry I didn't respond. I found This game at school today and couldn't stop playing it. When I got home I had to beat my high score of 220,960. I did:
240,860

ROFL

I love you. This game is... addictive. I started bobbing right when the bananas popped up, and kept going all the way until that dancing tree came out of nowhere and made me die. I've hit 103,990 as of my third try.

Also, people, beware the multicolored whales swimming up the mountain. They're distracting.