On July 08 2012 05:41 Grimmyman123 wrote: And people call me Naive etc etc.
There is a difference between simply drawing attention to ones self needlessly for the sake of showing off, and enforcing ones rights to life and society.
Mon dieu.
Enforcing ones rights, meaning what? ANd opposed to what? Letting people step all over you because you don't care about your rights? ...Put me in a gas-chamber, I don't care.. That what you wanna hear? ..
So you are saying that you support the KKK marches, that you support Anti-gay marches, that you support anti-semitic marches etc etc. Fair is fair. If one can march, so should the other.
And that means, that we get a whole lot of people clashing on ideas, and that creates conflict.
Mmmm. So if jews in your country were getting gassed, would you prefer no one spoke up?
Im not going to sit here and explain my post again and again, but JUST for you, I will do it one last time.
There is a difference between marching for the sake of drawing attention to ones self, than taking a stand to enforce the rights of a people.
And you go on to talk about the Nazis. Hell, Norway practically raced the nazi's to its own capital, losing less than 1400 soldiers in the process, and in turn let its own allies lose nearly 250% as many soldiers as its own.
On July 08 2012 05:41 Grimmyman123 wrote: And people call me Naive etc etc.
There is a difference between simply drawing attention to ones self needlessly for the sake of showing off, and enforcing ones rights to life and society.
Mon dieu.
Enforcing ones rights, meaning what? ANd opposed to what? Letting people step all over you because you don't care about your rights? ...Put me in a gas-chamber, I don't care.. That what you wanna hear? ..
So you are saying that you support the KKK marches, that you support Anti-gay marches, that you support anti-semitic marches etc etc. Fair is fair. If one can march, so should the other.
And that means, that we get a whole lot of people clashing on ideas, and that creates conflict.
Yes I do. Ever heard of Freedom of Speech? It applies to everyone. That's why the ACLU defends them.
Conflict is GOOD. We live in a democracy. We want to constantly be arguing and bickering about things. That is the only way you can sort of truth from indoctrination and other such things. Clashing on ideas is the whole fucking point of America!
On July 08 2012 02:31 Mogget wrote: If you think the bible needs amending, then you once again seem to not understand the point of the bible, too many atheists make this mistake. The bible cannot be amended. How exactly, does one improve on the word of God? You cant, therefore if Christians were to amend the bible, they would be saying that it was in-fact NOT the word of god at all, and rather than amend it, might as well just throw the whole damn thing away.
(I am legitimately confused; I'm not challenging you for the sake of my ego) But, if the word of God is so sacred, then wouldn't that mean to not be an extreme fundamentalist is to be not Christian? I can't think of a single person that I know who actually follows every command of the bible to the letter. But, under the logic that the bible is literally the word of God and is therefore the most supreme thing there is in our existence, slavery, child abuse, and mass murder are 100% justified in the circumstances spoken of in it simply because it said so. So, basically what i'm trying to say is, are non-extremist Christians heathens in the eyes of the bible because they substitute its unamendable word with their own beliefs? And, if that is correct, what's the stance of the highest authority of Christianity on priests who teach against these words?
When I read "Christian therapy" I started to laughing histerically. how can people still be soo stinfist this way for that gross lie that is religion, be what ever makes you happy and dont live in fear, period.
On July 08 2012 05:41 Grimmyman123 wrote: And people call me Naive etc etc.
There is a difference between simply drawing attention to ones self needlessly for the sake of showing off, and enforcing ones rights to life and society.
Mon dieu.
Enforcing ones rights, meaning what? ANd opposed to what? Letting people step all over you because you don't care about your rights? ...Put me in a gas-chamber, I don't care.. That what you wanna hear? ..
So you are saying that you support the KKK marches, that you support Anti-gay marches, that you support anti-semitic marches etc etc. Fair is fair. If one can march, so should the other.
And that means, that we get a whole lot of people clashing on ideas, and that creates conflict.
Yes I do. That's Freedom of Speech, dude. It applies to everyone. That's why the ACLU defends them.
Conflict is GOOD. We live in a democracy. We want to constantly be arguing and bickering about things. That is the only way you can sort of truth from indoctrination and other such things. Clashing on ideas is the whole fucking point of America, dude!
Democracy means debate, via our elected officials, in the proper place for the proper purpose.
You can't pick and choose which side you are on if you support a Total freedom of speech. That means both sides to any number of subjects have the right to take action for their cause, Good or Bad. Whether you support their cause or not.
The world would just be a better place if these needless marches never took place in the first place.
To those of you who are talking about mariage, the Bible, while defining marriage as between a man and a woman, doesn't say that either the church or the state need to be involved in marriage. Marriage is primarily about the oaths taken between a man and woman, and preferably with witnesses. (That is, Biblical mariage). It isn't necessary for the church to be involved, (although it is nice if the church is involved as they are usually a big part of a Christian couple's community), nor is it necessary for the state to be involved.
If I and a woman took oaths together to be married, without witnesses or state recognition, outside a church, then we would still be married.
I have no idea whether homosexuality is a choice or not, but i don't think "curing" it is possible, and if it is, i'm pretty sure prayers won't do anything.
On July 08 2012 05:41 Grimmyman123 wrote: And people call me Naive etc etc.
There is a difference between simply drawing attention to ones self needlessly for the sake of showing off, and enforcing ones rights to life and society.
Mon dieu.
Enforcing ones rights, meaning what? ANd opposed to what? Letting people step all over you because you don't care about your rights? ...Put me in a gas-chamber, I don't care.. That what you wanna hear? ..
So you are saying that you support the KKK marches, that you support Anti-gay marches, that you support anti-semitic marches etc etc. Fair is fair. If one can march, so should the other.
And that means, that we get a whole lot of people clashing on ideas, and that creates conflict.
Yes I do. That's Freedom of Speech, dude. It applies to everyone. That's why the ACLU defends them.
Conflict is GOOD. We live in a democracy. We want to constantly be arguing and bickering about things. That is the only way you can sort of truth from indoctrination and other such things. Clashing on ideas is the whole fucking point of America, dude!
Democracy means debate, via our elected officials, in the proper place for the proper purpose.
You can't pick and choose which side you are on if you support a Total freedom of speech. That means both sides to any number of subjects have the right to take action for their cause, Good or Bad. Whether you support their cause or not.
The world would just be a better place if these needless marches never took place in the first place.
...only elected officials should have a say? No, everyone has freedom of speech.
Of course you can pick and choose which side you are on. I don't support what you say but I support your right to say it. Sure, let the KKK and Nazis have their marches and gatherings. They have had plenty in America, look it up. And no, they are not allowed to take whatever action they want. But they are allowed to discuss and talk about it, which by definition draws attention to themselves.
No, marches bring awareness to issues we are having. Maybe you don't quite get that ignoring issues in society is not a way to solve anything.
Freedom of speech is pretty serious stuff in America. And it includes hate speech.
Christopher Hitchens actually had a great speech on this:
On July 08 2012 02:31 Mogget wrote: If you think the bible needs amending, then you once again seem to not understand the point of the bible, too many atheists make this mistake. The bible cannot be amended. How exactly, does one improve on the word of God? You cant, therefore if Christians were to amend the bible, they would be saying that it was in-fact NOT the word of god at all, and rather than amend it, might as well just throw the whole damn thing away.
(I am legitimately confused; I'm not challenging you for the sake of my ego) But, if the word of God is so sacred, then wouldn't that mean to not be an extreme fundamentalist is to be not Christian? I can't think of a single person that I know who actually follows every command of the bible to the letter. But, under the logic that the bible is literally the word of God and is therefore the most supreme thing there is in our existence, slavery, child abuse, and mass murder are 100% justified in the circumstances spoken of in it simply because it said so. So, basically what i'm trying to say is, are non-extremist Christians heathens in the eyes of the bible because they substitute its unamendable word with their own beliefs? And, if that is correct, what's the stance of the highest authority of Christianity on priests who teach against these words?
Non-fundementalist Christians (well, at least in my church :p ) focus more on the message that is being conveyed through the bible (with a much bigger focus on new testament), and not so much on the exact wording. It is widely admitted that the bible was written by humans, and thus is not "litteraly" the word of God. Interpreting the Bible and trying how the messages it conveys apply to the everyday life is basically what christianism is about.
Most of us focus on the message of love and acceptance, however there is always someone to be picky and find 5 lines taken out of context to justify discrimination
In my opinion being gay is not neccisarily a sin, and even if it is recognizing it as such is the way to go about it. Some people are more violent than others, some are more prone to lie or steal, everyone has a stronger sinful tendancy than others in certain areas; it's whether or not you act on those urges that determines whether or not you sin.
I think as long as you don't live a homosexual lifestyle and that you recognize your homosexual urges as wrong then you can still be Christian. The same way as someone who has rage issues is expected to have self control, a person who has "homoexual issues" should as well have self control. It's only because society has made homosexuality as such a "normal" and "okay" thing that people immediately get defensive if you talk about homosexuality as being a sickness, or if you think there's anything wrong with it you're automatically labeled a homophobe. I think sexual interaction of the same sex is wrong, it doesn't mean I hate gay people; I have family members and friends that are gay, I still think their lifestyle is wrong and sinful.
Society tells us that homosexuality is okay but at the same time we condemn pedophiles for having the same feelings. I think both are sicknesses and should be treated as such. If someone told you that a person was having sexual desires about your child you would be freaked out and want to hurt that person, but if someone told you that someone of the same sex had those same desires for you , society says, there's nothing wrong with that person; why? Obviously you can say that it's because "gay people don't hurt people but pedophiles might hurt the kids", I agree but what is the difference in those people? Both have perverted sicknesses in my opinion,
On July 08 2012 05:41 Grimmyman123 wrote: And people call me Naive etc etc.
There is a difference between simply drawing attention to ones self needlessly for the sake of showing off, and enforcing ones rights to life and society.
Mon dieu.
Enforcing ones rights, meaning what? ANd opposed to what? Letting people step all over you because you don't care about your rights? ...Put me in a gas-chamber, I don't care.. That what you wanna hear? ..
So you are saying that you support the KKK marches, that you support Anti-gay marches, that you support anti-semitic marches etc etc. Fair is fair. If one can march, so should the other.
And that means, that we get a whole lot of people clashing on ideas, and that creates conflict.
Mmmm. So if jews in your country were getting gassed, would you prefer no one spoke up?
Im not going to sit here and explain my post again and again, but JUST for you, I will do it one last time.
There is a difference between marching for the sake of drawing attention to ones self, than taking a stand to enforce the rights of a people.
And you go on to talk about the Nazis. Hell, Norway practically raced the nazi's to its own capital, losing less than 1400 soldiers in the process, and in turn let its own allies lose nearly 250% as many soldiers as its own.
See I still don't get why you think wanting to get legally married is just for show, and not about rights. Or am I missing something?
I haven't said others don't have the right to march, like the KKK. I tend not to care about them.
And I'm pretty sure "allies" lost more than 250% of 1400 people, I don't even get what you are trying to say by this. Maybe that norway did as you would, and accepted the role as a "minority" and didn't put any attention onto themselves.. ? Whatever. I don't get it :p
On July 08 2012 06:16 shinyA wrote: In my opinion being gay is not neccisarily a sin, and even if it is recognizing it as such is the way to go about it. Some people are more violent than others, some are more prone to lie or steal, everyone has a stronger sinful tendancy than others in certain areas; it's whether or not you act on those urges that determines whether or not you sin.
I think as long as you don't live a homosexual lifestyle and that you recognize your homosexual urges as wrong then you can still be Christian. The same way as someone who has rage issues is expected to have self control, a person who has "homoexual issues" should as well have self control. It's only because society has made homosexuality as such a "normal" and "okay" thing that people immediately get defensive if you talk about homosexuality as being a sickness, or if you think there's anything wrong with it you're automatically labeled a homophobe. I think sexual interaction of the same sex is wrong, it doesn't mean I hate gay people; I have family members and friends that are gay, I still think their lifestyle is wrong and sinful.
Society tells us that homosexuality is okay but at the same time we condemn pedophiles for having the same feelings. I think both are sicknesses and should be treated as such. If someone told you that a person was having sexual desires about your child you would be freaked out and want to hurt that person, but if someone told you that someone of the same sex had those same desires for you , society says, there's nothing wrong with that person; why? Obviously you can say that it's because "gay people don't hurt people but pedophiles might hurt the kids", I agree but what is the difference in those people? Both have perverted sicknesses in my opinion,
how are both sicknesses? What negative effects does homosexual sex have?
On July 08 2012 06:16 shinyA wrote: In my opinion being gay is not neccisarily a sin, and even if it is recognizing it as such is the way to go about it. Some people are more violent than others, some are more prone to lie or steal, everyone has a stronger sinful tendancy than others in certain areas; it's whether or not you act on those urges that determines whether or not you sin.
I think as long as you don't live a homosexual lifestyle and that you recognize your homosexual urges as wrong then you can still be Christian. The same way as someone who has rage issues is expected to have self control, a person who has "homoexual issues" should as well have self control. It's only because society has made homosexuality as such a "normal" and "okay" thing that people immediately get defensive if you talk about homosexuality as being a sickness, or if you think there's anything wrong with it you're automatically labeled a homophobe. I think sexual interaction of the same sex is wrong, it doesn't mean I hate gay people; I have family members and friends that are gay, I still think their lifestyle is wrong and sinful.
Society tells us that homosexuality is okay but at the same time we condemn pedophiles for having the same feelings. I think both are sicknesses and should be treated as such. If someone told you that a person was having sexual desires about your child you would be freaked out and want to hurt that person, but if someone told you that someone of the same sex had those same desires for you , society says, there's nothing wrong with that person; why? Obviously you can say that it's because "gay people don't hurt people but pedophiles might hurt the kids", I agree but what is the difference in those people? Both have perverted sicknesses in my opinion,
At the risk of saying something incredibly obvious, pedophilia is a problem because of the power relations between the two people involved. One party cannot give consent due to mental immaturity and is very often not physically powerful enough to fight against any sort of coercion. The relationship is, in short, not a relationship between equals and can never be one by definition.
In general, cross-generational sexual relationships are also "squicky" for a lot of people, which is why you have more kneejerk reactions to pedophilia. Add to that the power differential between the two parties (honestly, this is why professor-student relationships often meet with a lot of resistance -- even when both are consenting adults! -- compared to the "oh, there're two minors having sex, well, that's nothing to raise an eyebrow at, just frown at them and express disapproval" reaction when you catch two kids going at it), and you can see why pedophilia is viewed in a much more negative light than homosexuality.
On July 08 2012 05:41 Grimmyman123 wrote: And people call me Naive etc etc.
There is a difference between simply drawing attention to ones self needlessly for the sake of showing off, and enforcing ones rights to life and society.
Mon dieu.
Enforcing ones rights, meaning what? ANd opposed to what? Letting people step all over you because you don't care about your rights? ...Put me in a gas-chamber, I don't care.. That what you wanna hear? ..
So you are saying that you support the KKK marches, that you support Anti-gay marches, that you support anti-semitic marches etc etc. Fair is fair. If one can march, so should the other.
And that means, that we get a whole lot of people clashing on ideas, and that creates conflict.
Yes I do. That's Freedom of Speech, dude. It applies to everyone. That's why the ACLU defends them.
Conflict is GOOD. We live in a democracy. We want to constantly be arguing and bickering about things. That is the only way you can sort of truth from indoctrination and other such things. Clashing on ideas is the whole fucking point of America, dude!
Democracy means debate, via our elected officials, in the proper place for the proper purpose.
You can't pick and choose which side you are on if you support a Total freedom of speech. That means both sides to any number of subjects have the right to take action for their cause, Good or Bad. Whether you support their cause or not.
The world would just be a better place if these needless marches never took place in the first place.
how, as a minority, do you make your cause seen, when the majority vote counts more towards who is put in offisce?
On July 08 2012 06:16 shinyA wrote: In my opinion being gay is not neccisarily a sin, and even if it is recognizing it as such is the way to go about it. Some people are more violent than others, some are more prone to lie or steal, everyone has a stronger sinful tendancy than others in certain areas; it's whether or not you act on those urges that determines whether or not you sin.
One "problem" I have with this is that homosexuality is about love; and you can't make such comparisons to love.. Atleast I can't. So we will never be "on the same page", not as long as you talk about love this way.
On July 08 2012 06:16 shinyA wrote:
Society tells us that homosexuality is okay but at the same time we condemn pedophiles for having the same feelings. I think both are sicknesses and should be treated as such. If someone told you that a person was having sexual desires about your child you would be freaked out and want to hurt that person, but if someone told you that someone of the same sex had those same desires for you , society says, there's nothing wrong with that person; why? Obviously you can say that it's because "gay people don't hurt people but pedophiles might hurt the kids", I agree but what is the difference in those people? Both have perverted sicknesses in my opinion,
Again... You have religious glasses on that don't apply to alot of people here. We simply don't understand how you can suddenly talk about pedophiles. The two are totally unrelated.
"society tells us homosexuality is ok, at the same time hetero people have the same feelings. I think neither are sicknesses" is my reply to you... Homosexuals have the very same feelings heterosexual people have. If gays are sick then so is everyone else.
How you got to have such a view on love is beyond me. I suspect it has to do with the bible, at which point you could educate yourself about the bible, and what you are actually reading; IF you wanted to...
On July 08 2012 05:46 NoDDiE wrote: Gay starcraft players thread is perfect example of what Grimmyman123. do we need "married people starcraft thread" "one leg people starcraft thread" "pedophile starcraft thread" ??!!
Haha? ..I don't even..
How is this thread starcraft related?
he's saying that there is a "gay starcraft players" thread, which is drawing attention to themselves, and there are not other "group" threads such as that. Your scoff was quite unnecessary.
On July 08 2012 05:41 Grimmyman123 wrote: And people call me Naive etc etc.
There is a difference between simply drawing attention to ones self needlessly for the sake of showing off, and enforcing ones rights to life and society.
Mon dieu.
Enforcing ones rights, meaning what? ANd opposed to what? Letting people step all over you because you don't care about your rights? ...Put me in a gas-chamber, I don't care.. That what you wanna hear? ..
So you are saying that you support the KKK marches, that you support Anti-gay marches, that you support anti-semitic marches etc etc. Fair is fair. If one can march, so should the other.
And that means, that we get a whole lot of people clashing on ideas, and that creates conflict.
Mmmm. So if jews in your country were getting gassed, would you prefer no one spoke up?
Im not going to sit here and explain my post again and again, but JUST for you, I will do it one last time.
There is a difference between marching for the sake of drawing attention to ones self, than taking a stand to enforce the rights of a people.
And you go on to talk about the Nazis. Hell, Norway practically raced the nazi's to its own capital, losing less than 1400 soldiers in the process, and in turn let its own allies lose nearly 250% as many soldiers as its own.
See I still don't get why you think wanting to get legally married is just for show, and not about rights. Or am I missing something?
I haven't said others don't have the right to march, like the KKK. I tend not to care about them.
And I'm pretty sure "allies" lost more than 250% of 1400 people, I don't even get what you are trying to say by this. Maybe that norway did as you would, and accepted the role as a "minority" and didn't put any attention onto themselves.. ? Whatever. I don't get it :p
no, I did not say that at all. Would you like an example, so it is clearer? Here is your take on people marching for equal rights and the right to marry. I see it as a needless exercise to draw attention to a sexual preference.
On the flip side, the Westboro Baptist Church (which I think are a bunch of twits, btw) do their bit, and in turn, they get a reaction:
But, by your standards, both have the equal right to speak in their own way, in their viewpoint. Why is it that there is conflict in the second video? Clearly, because WBC are protesting an unfavourable viewpoint.
Simply: There would be NO CONFLICT whatsoever if neither took public action, which causes unfavourable response from the opposite side.