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

Is it true house rules say you can't use the term "father", "son", "mother", "daughter"?


Why? I mean, I'm supportive of inclusiveness and diversity, and being sensitive to other people, but the fact is most of us identify as a binary. I totally call my "baba" my father, and wouldn't be comfortable doing anything else.

I don't do this to make one who identifes as non binary uncomfortable. That's simply who I am. I identify as man, use gended pronouns in my family, I'm comfortable with that, and have no desire to change this.

So again, why? Why does everyone else need to adopt a language that is ultimately forcing them into a behavior they likely aren't comfortable with?

Because they want to control speech.

They're authoritarian.

Originally posted by cdtm
Is it true house rules say you can't use the term "father", "son", "mother", "daughter"?


Why? I mean, I'm supportive of inclusiveness and diversity, and being sensitive to other people, but the fact is most of us identify as a binary. I totally call my "baba" my father, and wouldn't be comfortable doing anything else.

I don't do this to make one who identifes as non binary uncomfortable. That's simply who I am. I identify as man, use gended pronouns in my family, I'm comfortable with that, and have no desire to change this.

So again, why? Why does everyone else need to adopt a language that is ultimately forcing them into a behavior they likely aren't comfortable with?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you don't call your own father a father. Usually inclusive language is used when addressing a group of people of which you don't know the specific circumstances. The level of that with which you are comfortable with you have to decide for yourself (or in a professional setting the rules may be decided for you), but tbh everyone is doing that already anyways to differing levels. Like if your friend Timmy's dad has died and you are addressing your friend groups you probably won't say "lets all go with our fathers to the BBQ", because you know that's a dick move to Timmy.

Gender inclusive language is basically this kind of thoughtfulness on a larger level where you don't know the specifics of the situation.

Does this have some strange relationship with the LGBT Community?

If so, it is likely wrong.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
Does this have some strange relationship with the LGBT Community?

If so, it is likely wrong.

What's your problem with LGBT people?

Personally, my religion speaks strongly against, so I do as well.

From a scientific point of view, it simply defies nature.

The Bible also speaks against a lot of other stuff you probably don't have problems with. Like shellfish. Surely you have more specific reasons for what you see wrong with LGBT people besides there being a few mentions in the Old Testament (which Jesus Christ said believe in him supersedes anyways).

Scientifically we know that homosexuality occurs all throughout nature, and there's nothing to suggest it is unnatural. And with gender being a human construct, not a natural one it seems irrelevant whether it is natural or not.

Originally posted by Artol
The Bible also speaks against a lot of other stuff you probably don't have problems with. Like shellfish. Surely you have more specific reasons for what you see wrong with LGBT people besides there being a few mentions in the Old Testament (which Jesus Christ said believe in him supersedes anyways). I understand your point of view, but the Bible states that all homosexuals are reprobates (people that will never turn to God). This is stated in the New Testament and after Jesus died.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-Chapter-1/

If they do turn to God, then they were never actually homosexual. Instead, they were confused.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
I understand your point of view, but the Bible states that all homosexuals are reprobates (people that will never turn to God). This is stated in the New Testament and after Jesus died.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Romans-Chapter-1/

If they do turn to God, then they were never actually homosexual. Instead, they were confused.

I have a book that says Christians are retards. Now what?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have a book that says Christians are retards. Now what? I didn't know Satan was giving out books?

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
I didn't know Satan was giving out books? how's your grandfather and Lumin?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
how's your grandfather and Lumin? You remember that?

I was 12/13 years old when I made that shit up for a Star Wars debate.

Though, I do not see how that has anything to do with the now.

Originally posted by cdtm
Is it true house rules say you can't use the term "father", "son", "mother", "daughter"?

Why? I mean, I'm supportive of inclusiveness and diversity, and being sensitive to other people, but the fact is most of us identify as a binary. I totally call my "baba" my father, and wouldn't be comfortable doing anything else.

I don't do this to make one who identifes as non binary uncomfortable. That's simply who I am. I identify as man, use gended pronouns in my family, I'm comfortable with that, and have no desire to change this.

So again, why? Why does everyone else need to adopt a language that is ultimately forcing them into a behavior they likely aren't comfortable with?
That is not what gender inclusive language means. You're overthinking it.

If your dad identifies as a male, and is okay being called "father", then call him that.

Gender inclusive language is, generally, used when you don't know someone's gender, are addressing mixed groups, or addressing non-binary individuals.
Originally posted by victreebelvictr
Personally, my religion speaks strongly against, so I do as well.

From a scientific point of view, it simply defies nature.
You are trying really hard to replace Star, eh?

He shan't go down without a fight sir.

The 2 Greatest Threats to Freedom. Health Nazis and Fake Grammar Nazis.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
You remember that?

I was 12/13 years old when I made that shit up for a Star Wars debate.

Though, I do not see how that has anything to do with the now. So you are 15 now?

Originally posted by StyleTime
That is not what gender inclusive language means. You're overthinking it.

If your dad identifies as a male, and is okay being called "father", then call him that.

Gender inclusive language is, generally, used when you don't know someone's gender, are addressing mixed groups, or addressing non-binary individuals.




And that would be fine. But reading through the house rules, it looks like they're saying to replace binary descriptors in all cases, regardless. Which doesn't make much sense to me.


Unless there's an a narrow way these rules get applied that I'm not seeing.



Incidentally and slightly off topic, have you read the rules? I was going down the list, and some of them were raising flags.. The one where you can't table talks of declaring war, for example. That sounds unnecessary and potentially harmful..

Originally posted by StyleTime
You are trying really hard to replace Star, eh?

He shan't go down without a fight sir. Who is that?


16.

Originally posted by cdtm
Is it true house rules say you can't use the term "father", "son", "mother", "daughter"?


Why? I mean, I'm supportive of inclusiveness and diversity, and being sensitive to other people, but the fact is most of us identify as a binary. I totally call my "baba" my father, and wouldn't be comfortable doing anything else.

I don't do this to make one who identifes as non binary uncomfortable. That's simply who I am. I identify as man, use gended pronouns in my family, I'm comfortable with that, and have no desire to change this.

So again, why? Why does everyone else need to adopt a language that is ultimately forcing them into a behavior they likely aren't comfortable with?

Feel free to use "father", "son", "mother", "daughter", "him", "her" etc. as you have been.

If someone request you refer to them as a "she" and "her" and they were born male, but they're transgender, it's just a polite thing to do and it cost you nothing. Just like if some guy born with the name "Alexander", but they prefer to go by "Noah" for whatever reason, it cost you nothing to call them Noah.

Don't let the extreme minority, who has the loudest voices most times dictate things for everyone.

Originally posted by Robtard
Feel free to use "father", "son", "mother", "daughter", "him", "her" etc. as you have been.

If someone request you refer to them as a "she" and "her" and they were born male, but they're transgender, it's just a polite thing to do and it cost you nothing. Just like if some guy born with the name "Alexander", but they prefer to go by "Noah" for whatever reason, it cost you nothing to call them Noah.

Don't let the extreme minority, who has the loudest voices most times dictate things for everyone.

Agree with that, too.


If the house rules thing is only about drafting official documents in an inclusive language, that's fine. To hear people talk about it, one would get the impression a senator can't use the term daughter for his own kid.


I'm thinking thaf isn't the cass.

Originally posted by cdtm
Agree with that, too.


If the house rules thing is only about drafting official documents in an inclusive language, that's fine. To hear people talk about it, one would get the impression a senator can't use the term daughter for his own kid.


I'm thinking thaf isn't the cass.


Doesn't seem to be the case, probably just fearmongering from one side:

"If approved by vote, the rules package would not prevent the use of gendered language, but would rename certain official language. Included in the changes, the Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman would become the Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds." -snip


Seems like it's renaming certain things, but in regards to government. Like "manhole" to "service entrance" or similar.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
I didn't know Satan was giving out books?

God does not give out books either. That is why Christians are retards for believing it.

Originally posted by cdtm
Agree with that, too.


If the house rules thing is only about drafting official documents in an inclusive language, that's fine. To hear people talk about it, one would get the impression a senator can't use the term daughter for his own kid.


I'm thinking thaf isn't the cass.

Inclusive language is for groups. Exclusive language is for individuals.

It is perfectly fine to use an exclusive term to refer to an individual, because it excludes the other terms that do not apply to him.

But when you use an exclusive term to refer to a mixed group, it excludes everyone to which that term does not apply.

Refer to an individual member of law enforcement as a policeman, but refer to members of law enforcement in aggregate as police officers.

It is really not that hard, and some people are making it out to be way more than it actually is.

Originally posted by cdtm
Is it true house rules say you can't use the term "father", "son", "mother", "daughter"?


Why? I mean, I'm supportive of inclusiveness and diversity, and being sensitive to other people, but the fact is most of us identify as a binary. I totally call my "baba" my father, and wouldn't be comfortable doing anything else.

I don't do this to make one who identifes as non binary uncomfortable. That's simply who I am. I identify as man, use gended pronouns in my family, I'm comfortable with that, and have no desire to change this.

So again, why? Why does everyone else need to adopt a language that is ultimately forcing them into a behavior they likely aren't comfortable with? Can you give a real world example of what you're talking about?

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
Alright. I understand you flat out lie to protect pedos.

Originally posted by cdtm
And that would be fine. But reading through the house rules, it looks like they're saying to replace binary descriptors in all cases, regardless. Which doesn't make much sense to me.

Unless there's an a narrow way these rules get applied that I'm not seeing.

Incidentally and slightly off topic, have you read the rules? I was going down the list, and some of them were raising flags.. The one where you can't table talks of declaring war, for example. That sounds unnecessary and potentially harmful..
I didn't realize until later you meant the House of Representatives when you said "house rules." I thought you meant that in the colloquial sense. Robtard summed up my thoughts there though.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is really not that hard, and some people are making it out to be way more than it actually is.
Yep. I think there are some well-meaning people who just overthink things.

Some deliberately misrepresent the issue just to stir up shit though. They're fully aware they can call their cisgendered, female sibling "sister", but pretend like people are asking otherwise. They're the types that recoil at anything that even remotely resembles compassion or inclusivity because of the SJW stigma.

I mean, maybe someone on Twitter said you can't call your dad "father" anymore I guess. They're either morons or don't understand the topic though.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I didn't realize until later you meant the House of Representatives when you said "house rules." I thought you meant that in the colloquial sense. Robtard summed up my thoughts there though.

Yep. I think there are some well-meaning people who just overthink things.

Some deliberately misrepresent the issue just to stir up shit though. They're fully aware they can call their cisgendered, female sibling "sister", but pretend like people are asking otherwise. They're the types that recoil at anything that even remotely resembles compassion or inclusivity because of the SJW stigma.

I mean, maybe someone on Twitter said you can't call your dad "father" anymore I guess. They're either morons or don't understand the topic though.


Tbh, I have a very narrow concern about politics.


Mainly, that rules aren't being made to keep "the money" happy. I mean, I absolutely want to see inclusion of the sort we're talking about. I just don't want it to take the form of "Hey, such and such group donated a lot of bank to our campaign. We gotta throw them a bone.".


Because that means if you got a wealthy group of kitten kickers, why not make a law redefining kittens as a football?


I mean, whats even the point having these political discussions, if it will always come down to money or connections? Our opinion literally does not matter, in that case.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Inclusive language is for groups. Exclusive language is for individuals.

It is perfectly fine to use an exclusive term to refer to an individual, because it excludes the other terms that do not apply to him.

But when you use an exclusive term to refer to a mixed group, it excludes everyone to which that term does not apply.

Refer to an individual member of law enforcement as a policeman, but refer to members of law enforcement in aggregate as police officers.

It is really not that hard, and some people are making it out to be way more than it actually is.

Sounds retarded.

^

I think a lot of this shit is weird but I don't really care and call people whatever they want to be called. Acting like this is some fringe thing though isn't being entirely honest, it's growing and could get out of control at some point.

There are prominent twitter accounts calling pregnant women "birthing people" now so as to include people that aren't women who give birth, etc. It's a little ridiculous, let's be honest here. "Amen and awomen" lmao. "Latinx". We're a little crazy.

It is all a bunch of imaginary made up bullshit.

Originally posted by cdtm
Tbh, I have a very narrow concern about politics.

Mainly, that rules aren't being made to keep "the money" happy. I mean, I absolutely want to see inclusion of the sort we're talking about. I just don't want it to take the form of "Hey, such and such group donated a lot of bank to our campaign. We gotta throw them a bone.".

Because that means if you got a wealthy group of kitten kickers, why not make a law redefining kittens as a football?

I mean, whats even the point having these political discussions, if it will always come down to money or connections? Our opinion literally does not matter, in that case.
I think most would agree, in the broad sense. I, and others, have posted about say, arms manufacturers donating to congress to support a cycle of atrocities overseas.

It's more that I see a disproportionate response from the "but the SJW's!!" crowd. Anyone could look up their state governments and find more egregious transgressions from elected officials. From human rights abuses and sexual assault to stealing COVID relief money to line their own pockets when it was intended for small business to stay afloat.

Instead of looking at stuff like that, people lose their minds because they were asked to be less dick-ish to LGBT people?

Is this really a worthwhile issue?
Originally posted by Trocity
I think a lot of this shit is weird but I don't really care and call people whatever they want to be called. Acting like this is some fringe thing though isn't being entirely honest, it's growing and could get out of control at some point.

There are prominent twitter accounts calling pregnant women "birthing people" now so as to include people that aren't women who give birth, etc. It's a little ridiculous, let's be honest here. "Amen and awomen" lmao. "Latinx". We're a little crazy.
The scenario cdtm presented originally, where we're not allowed to called our fathers by the name "father", would definitely be a fringe viewpoint(if it even exists).

Latinx and such are perfectly reasonable though. As we said, they're referring to mixed groups where you don't know specifics. "Birthing people" sounds clumsy as hell, but even cisgendered woman aren't necessarily able to give birth. It's actually a more accurate statement, but it sounds weird because you didn't grow up with it.

The "Amen and awomen" struck me as ridiculous for other reasons though. It was well intentioned, as the prayer was made to all gods but....

Why exactly are we holding public prayer in Congress at all? Religion should have phuck all to do with policy making, aside from protecting freedom to practice. It again feels like people are upset he tried not to be a dick, as if showing any compassion or sensitivity is losing to the PC boogeyman....instead of pointing out Congress shouldn't even be doing this. Pray on your personal time.

What about "XX men"? Or "Y chromosome women"?

^ Possibly. I think we'll just come up with a new name. Labels like "Uterus-bearers", "Birthing people", and "people who have a uterus" just sound unpleasant tbh. "Creator" sounds too clinical.

We as a society only just started thinking about this issue in relation to child birth, so I expect a lot a new terms to appear and die off. We'll settle on something eventually, possibly an acronym. POC stuck for people of color, so maybe we'll see CBP(child-bearing person), UOP(uterus owning person) or something.

Maybe repurpose a word no one uses much anymore. I'm just spitballin' ideas here.

Originally posted by cdtm
What about "XX men"? Or "Y chromosome women"?

Problem is that almost no one knows their chromosomes. We only assume based on phenotype.

Originally posted by Artol
Problem is that almost no one knows their chromosomes. We only assume based on phenotype.

Nowadays, true. Didn't they run studies back in the day though?

Amen is Latin for so be it. It such a stupid moment. Kind of encapsulates the woke movement perfectly for me tbh.

"Amen" is from Classical Hebrew.

He was also making a joke, using the pun in reference to the record number of women serving in Congress this term.

Originally posted by Neon1234
Sounds retarded.

Well, you are retarded, so you would know.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
Personally, my religion speaks strongly against, so I do as well.

From a scientific point of view, it simply defies nature.
Always found this argument fascinating. Often used by conservatives in Russia to justify homophobic policies. Meanwhile, it's absolutely common in nature among animals including humans. Unless you define nature as "producing as many babies as possible by any means necessary even sacrificing individual freedoms/preferences". At that point might as well force women to be baby factories because it's "natural" and contributes to our survival. Doesn't lead to a healthy society.

Originally posted by SamZED
Always found this argument fascinating. Often used by conservatives in Russia to justify homophobic policies. Meanwhile, it's absolutely common in nature among animals including humans. Unless you define nature as "producing as many babies as possible by any means necessary even sacrificing individual freedoms/preferences". At that point might as well force women to be baby factories because it's "natural" and contributes to our survival. Doesn't lead to a healthy society. I have had a few dogs myself. They are animals. Do us humans, in that case, also live like animals? No, we are obviously above them.

I have had one of my dogs try to hump the other many times. Though yes, it can be done for pleasure, it is also done to show dominance. Same gender animals do not mate for life, or, really, at all.

What does sperm do? Why, it feeds and fertilizes the egg of a female. Okay, what does it do for men of the same gender? Absolutely nothing but sicknesses. Men are not equipped to have sex with each other at all, and debating that they are is simply illogical.

And yes, if sacrificing evil freedoms/preferences was possible, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I don't see women as baby factories. I see them as a compatible mate that God has made beautiful for men to live with and be blessed by. If I found out that my wife was infertile, it isn't like I would kick her to the curb or something. That is ridiculous.

I literally see zero benefits for homosexuality being legal at all.

Therefore, Russia and I gladly wear the Homophobe Sticker.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
I have had a few dogs myself. They are animals. Do us humans, in that case, also live like animals? No, we are obviously above them.

I have had one of my dogs try to hump the other many times. Though yes, it can be done for pleasure, it is also done to show dominance. Same gender animals do not mate for life, or, really, at all.

What does sperm do? Why, it feeds and fertilizes the egg of a female. Okay, what does it do for men of the same gender? Absolutely nothing but sicknesses. Men are not equipped to have sex with each other at all, and debating that they are is simply illogical.

And yes, if sacrificing evil freedoms/preferences was possible, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I don't see women as baby factories. I see them as a compatible mate that God has made beautiful for men to live with and be blessed by. If I found out that my wife was infertile, it isn't like I would kick her to the curb or something. That is ridiculous.

I literally see zero benefits for homosexuality being legal at all.

Therefore, Russia and I gladly wear the Homophobe Sticker.
It happens in nature so its natural from a scientific point of view. It's just "natural" has nothing to do with whether humans should engage in that or not. To your point of behaving like animals.. killing is also natural. Doesn't mean we should do it. And we know it because we're smart enough to see the direct harm it causes. And i've yet to see a compelling argument from anybody that allowing same sex relations would cause any real harm to society. There are plenty arguments to the contrary. While most of the arguments against it come from religeous bias or personal disgust. Which is fine until it is turned into a policy.

Point is, if you want to limit personal freedoms there better be good (REALLY GOOD) reasons for it. Otherwise you're settinng a precedent for banning basic rights for no good reason. I've seen what it did to human rights in my country and how quickly it changed things.

Honestly, the fact that you find yourself in the same camp as the Russian government in terms of human rights should serve as an alarm bell of sorts.

Anyway, good talk. That's already more text than i've posted in the past two years. So I'll be heading out. Consider it my 2 cents and mayby as some food for thought.

For animals it might be, but not for humans. Nothing about gay sex is natural at all, and saying that "since animals do it" is a terrible case. You know what else is natural? Eating one's young. As you say, something being natural doesn't make it right or wrong, but I have a weird feeling this is going to warp somewhere...

Depends on the situation of course. Killing out of the anger and evil of one's own heart is wrong, but certain crimes deserve capital penalty.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/53/suppl_3/S79/312189


Many people consider religion policy, and I definitely do.

So, by this logic, is murder a personal freedom? What if someone believes that? Many do I am sure. I believe that homosexuality is just as bad.

I agree with some of their philosophies, and some I do not. Homosexuality restriction is something this country really needs.

Thanks for taking the time to talk, and I appreciate it.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
For animals it might be, but not for humans. Nothing about gay sex is natural at all, and saying that "since animals do it" is a terrible case. You know what else is natural? Eating one's young. As you say, something being natural doesn't make it right or wrong, but I have a weird feeling this is going to warp somewhere...

Depends on the situation of course. Killing out of the anger and evil of one's own heart is wrong, but certain crimes deserve capital penalty.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/53/suppl_3/S79/312189


Many people consider religion policy, and I definitely do.

So, by this logic, is murder a personal freedom? What if someone believes that? Many do I am sure. I believe that homosexuality is just as bad.

I agree with some of their philosophies, and some I do not. Homosexuality restriction is something this country really needs.

Thanks for taking the time to talk, and I appreciate it.

Iran agrees with you.

Originally posted by SamZED

Anyway, good talk. That's already more text than i've posted in the past two years. So I'll be heading out. Consider it my 2 cents and mayby as some food for thought.

You really don't have to be so polite and considerate to KMC's resident village idiot my man, just call him a retard and perhaps tell him to kill himself.

Originally posted by truejedi
Iran agrees with you. Good for Iran.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You really don't have to be so polite and considerate to KMC's resident village idiot my man, just call him a retard and perhaps tell him to kill himself. Someone's a bit cranky.

You're a homophobe.

These rightists have all manner of prejudices. He's not just a homophobe.

I think it is the most obviously damning and strips away any weight his words might otherwise carry on any other subjects.

Originally posted by truejedi
I think it is the most obviously damning and strips away any weight his words might otherwise carry on any other subjects. Yup, his words are tainted. To be honest the rights words and actions over the last decade, have shown they are driven by prejudice and hate. Rather than tolerance and discourse.

Originally posted by truejedi
You're a homophobe.

He is homophobic, because he is attracted to transgender women with penises. He is afraid that attraction means he is gay, so he hates on gay people, because of it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He is homophobic, because he is attracted to transgender women with penises. He is afraid that attraction means he is gay, so he hates on gay people, because of it.

Originally posted by truejedi
You're a homophobe.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
he is attracted to transgender women with penises. Same tbh.

I think victreebell is still the same old smoothbrain retard with a whore for a mother he always was tho

Originally posted by NemeBro
Same tbh.

I think victreebell is still the same old smoothbrain retard with a whore for a mother he always was tho You are very good at losing your cool to 16 year old boys. Congrats.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
You are very good at bullying 16 year old retards. Congrats. Fixed that for you.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Yes sir, I am sorry. That's what I thought you Phag Friendly.

Know your place.

Oh geez I hurt the little retard's feelings.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Same tbh.

I think victreebell is still the same old smoothbrain retard with a whore for a mother he always was tho You couldn't hold it together first buddy.

Question: do you think homophobes deserve to live?

Originally posted by truejedi
Question: do you think homophobes deserve to live? I thought we talked about this before? I don't know, maybe I just can't remember.

Leviticus 20:13 states that murder is on the same level of evil as murder and shall be punished via death. So yes. And I take pride in my belief in this as well.

If God gave me permission to press a button that eliminated every sodomite on the planet, I would.

I would press it till the button breaks. I would press it till my finger breaks.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
For animals it might be, but not for humans. Nothing about gay sex is natural at all, and saying that "since animals do it" is a terrible case. You know what else is natural? Eating one's young. As you say, something being natural doesn't make it right or wrong, but I have a weird feeling this is going to warp somewhere...
I agree that it's irrelevant whether something is natural or not, but homosexuality is in fact natural. Not sure why you're still arguing that point exactly.

Although, you were the one who brought it up. Just seems strange if you also think it's irrelevant.
Originally posted by victreebelvictr
I literally see zero benefits for homosexuality being legal at all.
It doesn't needlessly prevent consenting adults from pursuing something that makes them happy. There's one.

I can't tell if you're trolling or not. This is a topic for 2005 KMC.

Yeah, my bad. When I brought up "natural" I was mostly pointing to the fact that none of men's sex organs are meant to perform sex on the same gender. Apologies.

I am most definitely not trolling. My religion states it, so I believe it to the fullest. I think many things make people happy such as watching tv or spending time with family, but evil things bring joy as well such as murder and stealing (depends on the person). Since I consider homosexuality a capital crime, I don't see how it resides outside of that.

I like your sig by the way.

is that the reason your mind is troubled by gay men 24/7/365? because god told you to be an obvious self-loathing closet homosexual? how sad for you, ethneostarflyofbrooklyn

If you think you can change your Gender/Sex/Race/Species with the

POWER OF

https://media.giphy.com/media/QIiqoufLNmWo8/giphy.gif

I suggest you try THESE instead.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Scissors_Animation.gif

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
is that the reason your mind is troubled by gay men 24/7/365? because god told you to be an obvious self-loathing closet homosexual? how sad for you, ethneostarflyofbrooklyn That's Vicethneostarflyofbrooklyn to you soldier.

You left out a Few.

Oh no! Who have I left out? Forgive me comrades.

Well lets just say you are all KMC Posters. Past/Present/Future..


Future.. HAHAHAHAH!

Funny

Fly, you are a comedy god.

Yeah. I was tempted to go dig up that "If You Think I am a Sock/Then Prove It Thread"
But If I do that.. .IT AHGIN DERR ROOOOES!!!!!


KMC Mods are True Cucks.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
Yeah, my bad. When I brought up "natural" I was mostly pointing to the fact that none of men's sex organs are meant to perform sex on the same gender. Apologies.

I am most definitely not trolling. My religion states it, so I believe it to the fullest. I think many things make people happy such as watching tv or spending time with family, but evil things bring joy as well such as murder and stealing (depends on the person). Since I consider homosexuality a capital crime, I don't see how it resides outside of that.
Keep in mind, I said "needlessly" preventing their happiness. I am atheist, so I think the rules of society can be established purely through reason. We have pretty strong cause to ban murder and theft.

Murder and stealing are acts a predator perpetrates on a victim. The victim is robbed of agency and has their rights infringed upon. Our society would have a difficult time even functioning if those things were legal, so we legislate against those actions. A consensual, same-sex relationship or encounter is different. No one is violated is any way.

Your religion forbids it, but you can satisfy your religious beliefs simply by not engaging in it yourself. You don't have to keep others from doing it, no?
Originally posted by victreebelvictr
I like your sig by the way.
Thanks.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
is that the reason your mind is troubled by gay men 24/7/365? because god told you to be an obvious self-loathing closet homosexual? how sad for you, ethneostarflyofbrooklyn lol

I don't think that mankind is ever "fit" to create their own laws. Our ideas of what is right and wrong is very different than the idea of others. Adolf Hitler legitimately believed that he was doing the world a service by eliminating 6.5 million Jews. We must rely on a source above our own understanding and making because mankind is simply corrupted and narrow-minded.

Well, history has shown over and over again that homosexuality brings corruption and evil to whatever nation indulges in it. Ever since gay marriage has been made legal, the quality of our nation has gotten worse and worse. And, at some point, will cause this establishment to break.

The Bible places homosexuality on the same level of evil as murder. This is such a strong claim in comparison to the philosophy of this world. I just think that history has proven this idea again and again, and though it seems harmless to the human eye, there is a much darker force behind it. And it isn't crazy to think that. Men and women are like puzzle pieces, as they are sexually compatible with each other. Men are just not compatible for other men, and biology proves that. If there is a God, you can see why He is so highly against this due to the way He set up this world, you know?

I am not forcing anyone to believe what I believe, and I appreciate your response.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
I don't think that mankind is ever "fit" to create their own laws. Our ideas of what is right and wrong is very different than the idea of others. Adolf Hitler legitimately believed that he was doing the world a service by eliminating 6.5 million Jews. We must rely on a source above our own understanding and making because mankind is simply corrupted and narrow-minded.

Well, history has shown over and over again that homosexuality brings corruption and evil to whatever nation indulges in it. Ever since gay marriage has been made legal, the quality of our nation has gotten worse and worse. And, at some point, will cause this establishment to break.

The Bible places homosexuality on the same level of evil as murder. This is such a strong claim in comparison to the philosophy of this world. I just think that history has proven this idea again and again, and though it seems harmless to the human eye, there is a much darker force behind it. And it isn't crazy to think that. Men and women are like puzzle pieces, as they are sexually compatible with each other. Men are just not compatible for other men, and biology proves that. If there is a God, you can see why He is so highly against this due to the way He set up this world, you know?

I am not forcing anyone to believe what I believe, and I appreciate your response.
Hitler's genocide goes back to what I said though: people's rights, among other things, were being violated there. I think we can condemn his actions, which were deplorable, with purely rational thought. I'm increasingly, not totally, unsure if "right" and "wrong" are even necessary. At least not in the cosmic sense, wherein some transcendent good eternally battles some transcendent evil. We can, and should, work to maximize well-being for humanity, and genocide actively hinders that.

As for the homosexuality thing, okay. I disagree obviously, but your religious beliefs are what they are. As long as you're not imposing them on others through legislation or violence and such, you can think whatever you want.