Demonizing people

I'm saying that is what marriage represents, but now the word ''marriage'' no longer defines such a representation.
It now means people getting married because they just want to, or because they can.
IOW ''marriage'' is just a word, not a representation.

jan.

Ok, so you lied again.
 
Times change.

Erm, they do. But in this case we are not dealing with some abstract change; we are dealing with a propaganda onslaught by a privileged minority. It hardly matters what the minority is; such behaviour is not compatible with liberty or democracy. Why vote, if the critical issues of the age are decided by the back door and no dissent permitted.

I wonder how long before we get real fascism again, nationalistic but socialist? Not long, I would say, if I read the trends aright. When that happens, you will regret establishing the principle that the people don't matter, and that dissent may be silenced without a qualm. Times change, you know; and change very quickly.

It is now accepted that people are people, whether straight or gay, and have the same rights, which includes marriage.

It may be "accepted" that a man may go through a mock ceremony of marriage with another man, an animal, or his wrist. But if you mean YOU accept it, more fool you. And I don't accept it. And most people don't. Which is why the activists didn't try to put it to a vote. :)

These kinds of argument are not different in kind those of a Nazi yelling at someone who objects to persecuting the Jews. The tone, the arguments ... all are identical. (And, in our wretched society, we are now not even allowed to make this simile without some gullible fool mouthing "Godwin's law" - ask yourself just why the establishment would create a meme to silence that comparison, and tremble)

But of course to those who merely worship convenience, and care nothing for logic, reason, science, morality or anything else, except as it is useful... words are merely a tool to beat people with. :)

Think for yourselves. Do you imagine that the establishment has chosen to make us all kowtow to a vile vice, out of any motive other than spite? Or that YOU are the intended beneficiaries?

And the treatment of Jan Ardena in here is not markedly different to that which a negro showing up at a club in the pre-war deep south might have received. Shame on all those trying this lynch-mob treatment.
 
I'm saying that is what marriage represents, but now the word ''marriage'' no longer defines such a representation.
It now means people getting married because they just want to, or because they can.
IOW ''marriage'' is just a word, not a representation.

jan.

"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."

Notice, Jan, that the definition of marriage has always meant people can get married because they want to and because they can, whether they are of the same sex or not. Marriage is a representation of the rights and obligations of the "spouses", always has been and will continue to be. Your bigotry and homophobia are irrelevant to the definition of marriage.
 
Quite to the contrary, as more and more "wrong" behavior is considered "mental illness" or "disease". Neither of which typically condemn the individual, at least as anything much more than a victim of genetics, upbringing, trauma, etc.. And just as with any other behavior, condemnation that may adhere to the individual will vary quite a bit. Even if someone believes that a person has a choice in the behavior, they could still consider it compulsive, thus alleviating some degree of intent or willfulness that typically weighs heavier on moral culpability.

Yes, we can find mountains of peer reviewed papers linking religious beliefs with mental illness, with schizophrenia and bipolar being two of the leading disorders that are found with most fundamentalists or those who take the inerrant word of God over reality.
 
Erm, they do. But in this case we are not dealing with some abstract change; we are dealing with a propaganda onslaught by a privileged minority.
Who is the privileged minority? Are you saying gays are the privileged minority?

Because they are being given equal rights?

My, this is the very same argument I've heard whites spout when blacks were given rights.


It hardly matters what the minority is; such behaviour is not compatible with liberty or democracy. Why vote, if the critical issues of the age are decided by the back door and no dissent permitted.
The majority want to allow homosexual marriage.

So what's your problem with that?

A Pew Research Center poll released in March 2014 researched support for same-sex marriage among Republican leaning voters in the United States. 61% of Republican leaning voters aged 18-29 support allowing same-sex couples to marry, while only 27% of Republican leaning voters over 50 years of age are supportive.

And that's just amongst Conservative voters in the US. You still think your bigoted side would win that vote?

I wonder how long before we get real fascism again, nationalistic but socialist? Not long, I would say, if I read the trends aright.
Why? Because the majority support gay marriage?

What rights are you losing when homosexuals are allowed to marry? What privilege are you losing?

When that happens, you will regret establishing the principle that the people don't matter, and that dissent may be silenced without a qualm. Times change, you know; and change very quickly.
Are you channeling Glenn Beck?

What is there to regret in giving everyone equal human rights?

It may be "accepted" that a man may go through a mock ceremony of marriage with another man, an animal, or his wrist.
This is the last time you are going to be told to cease and desist with the homophobia. If you persist, I will moderate you.

But if you mean YOU accept it, more fool you.
Your side lost.

Deal with it. Homosexuals also have equal human rights now.


And I don't accept it.
And the world cares about what you want because....?

And most people don't. Which is why the activists didn't try to put it to a vote. :)
Get with the times. Polls have been showing that the majority support gay marriage for years. If it went to a vote, your side would lose.

These kinds of argument are not different in kind those of a Nazi yelling at someone who objects to persecuting the Jews. The tone, the arguments ... all are identical. (And, in our wretched society, we are now not even allowed to make this simile without some gullible fool mouthing "Godwin's law" - ask yourself just why the establishment would create a meme to silence that comparison, and tremble)
You are comparing a fight for civil rights for gays to this? Right..

But of course to those who merely worship convenience, and care nothing for logic, reason, science, morality or anything else, except as it is useful... words are merely a tool to beat people with. :)
Lets see. Science, reason and logic, not to mention morality and everything else point to the fact that homosexuality is something one is born with, cannot control and is natural (ie exists in nature).. Not to mention that logic, morality, justice and science also deem that all humans, regardless of their sexuality, have human rights and equal rights should also apply to homosexuals. You obviously have a problem with this and you think using words to defeat homophobia like yours is a bad thing. Perhaps you should move to Russia or Uganda. I hear the climate for gay bashing and gay murder's there is ripe. You'd feel right at home. No words needed.
Think for yourselves. Do you imagine that the establishment has chosen to make us all kowtow to a vile vice, out of any motive other than spite? Or that YOU are the intended beneficiaries?
What vile vice?

Two consenting adults having sex or being in a relationship is a vile vice?

Do you think giving homosexuals equal and their intrinsic human rights is done out of spite? Oh poor you.. People you deem to be beneath you are now deemed equal and have the exact same rights as you..

What do you lose by homosexuals being allowed to marry?

And the treatment of Jan Ardena in here is not markedly different to that which a negro showing up at a club in the pre-war deep south might have received. Shame on all those trying this lynch-mob treatment.
As a person of colour who has faced that kind of bigotry, I find you to be a bigoted simpleton. What's the matter? You don't like the fact that we don't welcome homophobes here? Poor you.

Move to Uganda. They welcome lynching gays there.

Although I'd suggest you don't give sneering description of a "negro" like you just did there. Your homophobia won't even save you from that.
 
Erm, they do. But in this case we are not dealing with some abstract change; we are dealing with a propaganda onslaught by a privileged minority. It hardly matters what the minority is; such behaviour is not compatible with liberty or democracy. Why vote, if the critical issues of the age are decided by the back door and no dissent permitted.

I wonder how long before we get real fascism again, nationalistic but socialist? Not long, I would say, if I read the trends aright. When that happens, you will regret establishing the principle that the people don't matter, and that dissent may be silenced without a qualm. Times change, you know; and change very quickly.



It may be "accepted" that a man may go through a mock ceremony of marriage with another man, an animal, or his wrist. But if you mean YOU accept it, more fool you. And I don't accept it. And most people don't. Which is why the activists didn't try to put it to a vote. :)

These kinds of argument are not different in kind those of a Nazi yelling at someone who objects to persecuting the Jews. The tone, the arguments ... all are identical. (And, in our wretched society, we are now not even allowed to make this simile without some gullible fool mouthing "Godwin's law" - ask yourself just why the establishment would create a meme to silence that comparison, and tremble)

But of course to those who merely worship convenience, and care nothing for logic, reason, science, morality or anything else, except as it is useful... words are merely a tool to beat people with. :)

Think for yourselves. Do you imagine that the establishment has chosen to make us all kowtow to a vile vice, out of any motive other than spite? Or that YOU are the intended beneficiaries?

And the treatment of Jan Ardena in here is not markedly different to that which a negro showing up at a club in the pre-war deep south might have received. Shame on all those trying this lynch-mob treatment.

You're a homophobe, spewing your poison here, which makes just about the lowest of the low, and on a par with racism. You should clear off.
 
Apparently you never trapsed through them a first time either...

Are you finally ready to admit that attempting to take the bible literally verbatim is a bad idea because it is both self contradictory and horribly outdated?



Ordinary people huh? So, are Pastors/Ministers/Priests somehow "free of sin" now? So... does that mean the priests who have been caught molesting young boys are "without sin" and should kill those who accuse them?

You DO see the all too evident failure in that argument, right?

Kittermaru, are you a Christian?

jan.
 
But of course to those who merely worship convenience, and care nothing for logic, reason, science, morality or anything else, except as it is useful... words are merely a tool to beat people with.

That would be those who are against gay marriage. They care nothing for the logic, reason, science and morality of gay marriage. Their words are merely a tool to beat people with. Well said, sir.

And the treatment of Jan Ardena in here is not markedly different to that which a negro showing up at a club in the pre-war deep south might have received.

True, Jan would be the one leading that negro to the nearest tree with a rope in hand.
 
(Q),



Notice, Jan, that the definition of marriage has always meant people can get married because they want to and because they can, whether they are of the same sex or not. Marriage is a representation of the rights and obligations of the "spouses", always has been and will continue to be.

Why does the government have to force legislation for same sex marriage if it was always the way you say?

Your bigotry and homophobia are irrelevant to the definition of marriage.

I'm neither a bigot or homophobic.

jan.
 
Last edited:
(Q),

Why does the government have to for legislation for same sex marriage if it was always the way you say?

Because of homophobic bigots like you who are lobbying the government.


I'm neither a bigot or homophobic.

jan.

Odd, your words here would show contrary to that.
 
So to go out and stone an adulterer, or prostitute , is not the business of anyone, only to those that are properly ordained and situated in the right spiritual position. This why Jesus said ''let him WITHOUT sin cast the first stone.
So only those who are properly ordained and situated in the right spiritual position should be the ones allowed to stone adulterers and prostitutes?
 
Kittermaru, are you a Christian?

jan.

I am a modified Christian; I believe that the sacrifice of Christ was meant as a new beginning, a new sacrament in which we join upon consecration and baptism and that we renew with communion. We are still called to be His followers and spread His good works, but it is known that we are imperfect and sinful beings who cannot enter Heaven but for the love of Christ, His death upon the Cross, and subsequent conquering of Death by rising from the grave. We are called to "love thy neighbor"... full stop. It is not "love thy neighbor so long as he believes in your beliefs and follows your traditions and worships your God"... it is love thy neighbor, period.
 
Yes.

jan.

So you really do mean that adulterers and prostitutes should be stoned?

I think that makes you a disgusting person who doesn't belong in a civilised country. You should go to Iran or Saudi, you'd fit in really well - if you converted to Islam, that is, otherwise they'd persecute you in the same way that you persecute gay people.
 
Kittamaru,

Apparently you never trapsed through them a first time either...

???

Are you finally ready to admit that attempting to take the bible literally verbatim is a bad idea because it is both self contradictory and horribly outdated?

What do you mean by outdated?
What is it that you're talking about?

Ordinary people huh? So, are Pastors/Ministers/Priests somehow "free of sin" now?

What makes you think Pastors and the like are anything more than ordinary?

So... does that mean the priests who have been caught molesting young boys are "without sin" and should kill those who accuse them?

No, as it is a transgression (check the corrinthinans text).
Are the priests who molest young boys homosexuals (in your eyes)?

You DO see the all too evident failure in that argument, right?

I see the failure in your comprehension of the purpose of religion.

jan.
 
So you really do mean that adulterers and prostitutes should be stoned?

I think that makes you a disgusting person who doesn't belong in a civilised country. You should go to Iran or Saudi, you'd fit in really well - if you converted to Islam, that is, otherwise they'd persecute you in the same way that you persecute gay people.

It's not about what you or I think.

Where hav i persecuted gay people?
You really are a angry person aren't you?

jan.
 
Thank you for illustrating my point.

I'm not even a reductionist yet I know morally condemning a behavior is condemning the person who performs the behavior. So what point exactly did I illustrate?
 
Back
Top