Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My "tit-for-tat" attacking of your religion is exactly as I said it was going to be - a mirror copy of what you are doing when you attack religions you don't like.
So... If you don't like it, perhaps you and your atheists friends need to grow up and shut up with your stupid little anti-religion digs. You are even more religious than most of the religious folks you are always mocking.
So you either can shut up with your constant anti-religion comments, or expect to keep receiving flagrant mockery of the religion of atheism. Fair enough?
When religious people(bible, GOD, Jesus) stop trying to use their beliefs in all their arguments and trying to impose unjust laws that fit to them only, I will then and only then leave religious (die hard) people alone.
Also, it is not the religion I dont like, it is a select many of its followers who take things way to far when it comes to their religion. We all know who they are, we have all met them, and they drive most logical people nuts.
When religious people(bible, GOD, Jesus) stop trying to use their beliefs in all their arguments and trying to impose unjust laws that fit to them only, I will then and only then leave religious (die hard) people alone.
Also, it is not the religion I dont like, it is a select many of its followers who take things way to far when it comes to their religion. We all know who they are, we have all met them, and they drive most logical people nuts.
This assumes things that aren't really so. In most countries, certainly the US, there was no age of same-sex-marriage which the Religious Right squashed. In fact I think it's difficult to come up with much in the US that religious people have successfully restricted. (There's alcohol prohibition, but that didn't last)
Compare the US today to even 1979, the year the "Moral Majority" was founded, and social restrictions are in many ways less strong. In 1980 the "General Social Survey" indicated 31.6% of American "liberals" believed homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to teach. In 2006 just 27.2% of conservatives felt that way. Support for school prayer or Bible readings has declined a bit since the early 1980s.
The only thing "The Christian Right" has managed to restrict is funding to certain programs. It hasn't led to the re-illegalization of homosexuality or Unitarian churches getting raided for having same-sex-marriage or anything like that. At times I wonder if the fear of its power is partly just a scare tactic to get wealthy socially liberal people to vote Democratic. Just like the fear of "death panels" or churches having to host gay-pride is partly just a way to get poor whites to vote Republican. (I'm not saying the social issues are not important, but I get the sense that to the politicians they are generally not important to do much about. The main fights on this seem to be minimal restrictions and issues of what the government will fund. Not whether we'll ban abortion, homosexuality, anti-homosexual speech, or home schooling)
What's pathetic is for you to continue to LIE, claiming I have made all manner of anti-homosexual comments, and you cannot find ONE SINGLE ONE.
Now junior, here's a lesson in logic and comprehension... Go back to the post where you pulled that quote I wrote. Tell me about the CONTEXT.
Also, that's ONE out-of-context quote. You claim there are MANY! So are you going to quote them, or are you going to just go ahead and admit that you were lying. Again...
Good lord, you're making this just TOO EASY!
8-21 10:17 am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickeldude
If you want to debate whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, I will gladly enlighten you on that subject as well if you start a thread about it.
Oh please do enlighten me, O Great One. I sit at your feet in eager anticipation!
8-21 at 9:10 am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickeldude
Ummm... There are cases of animals in nature having homosexual tendencies... So there goes your whole thread!
Well... I've seen animals of the same species kill and eat each other too - but I don't put much stock in that regarding what people should or shouldn't do.
I don't have all day to go through all of your posts, but I'm sure you've got more in there.
You have a typical politicians ploy on arguments. You don't like our argument, so you try and turn it on us by saying we are bigots.
Answer the question
Do you believe homosexuality is right? Do you believe its genetic?
homosexuality is not a moral issue at all, its a biological one. like multiple sclerosis or premature birth or mongoloidism no one chooses to be gay they are just born that way.
8-21 10:17 am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickeldude
If you want to debate whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, I will gladly enlighten you on that subject as well if you start a thread about it.
Oh please do enlighten me, O Great One. I sit at your feet in eager anticipation!
8-21 at 9:10 am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickeldude
Ummm... There are cases of animals in nature having homosexual tendencies... So there goes your whole thread!
Well... I've seen animals of the same species kill and eat each other too - but I don't put much stock in that regarding what people should or shouldn't do.
I don't have all day to go through all of your posts, but I'm sure you've got more in there.
You have a typical politicians ploy on arguments. You don't like our argument, so you try and turn it on us by saying we are bigots.
Answer the question
Do you believe homosexuality is right? Do you believe its genetic?
You still haven't answered this.
This is HILARIOUS!
So I return an insult to a childish member, and that's bashing homosexuals?
I make it very clear that "something animals do" is no basis of proof for anything humans should do, and that's bashing homosexuals?
homosexuality is not a moral issue at all, its a biological one. like multiple sclerosis or premature birth or mongoloidism no one chooses to be gay they are just born that way.
Just to clarify...
Why somebody is gay is irrelevant. That's their business.
But let's admit the truth. They have never found a biological cause.
This assumes things that aren't really so. In most countries, certainly the US, there was no age of same-sex-marriage which the Religious Right squashed. In fact I think it's difficult to come up with much in the US that religious people have successfully restricted. (There's alcohol prohibition, but that didn't last)
Compare the US today to even 1979, the year the "Moral Majority" was founded, and social restrictions are in many ways less strong. In 1980 the "General Social Survey" indicated 31.6% of American "liberals" believed homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to teach. In 2006 just 27.2% of conservatives felt that way. Support for school prayer or Bible readings has declined a bit since the early 1980s.
The only thing "The Christian Right" has managed to restrict is funding to certain programs. It hasn't led to the re-illegalization of homosexuality or Unitarian churches getting raided for having same-sex-marriage or anything like that. At times I wonder if the fear of its power is partly just a scare tactic to get wealthy socially liberal people to vote Democratic. Just like the fear of "death panels" or churches having to host gay-pride is partly just a way to get poor whites to vote Republican. (I'm not saying the social issues are not important, but I get the sense that to the politicians they are generally not important to do much about. The main fights on this seem to be minimal restrictions and issues of what the government will fund. Not whether we'll ban abortion, homosexuality, anti-homosexual speech, or home schooling)
I beg to differ, the Religious Right (sic, as they are neither) HAS been quashing SSM. Prop 8 is a perfect example. They are also still quite active, and have representatives in both the Republican and Democratic parties.
theocracywatch.org would prove quite enlightening for you.
Example? Most of Bush43 replacement appointees to the Judicial graduated from Robertson's Regents Law School. Pat is, of course, a student of the deceased Rushdooney, and forwards the Christian Reconstructionist's theodemocratic agenda.
Keeping that in mind, take a peek at Regents' stated goals.
Again, sir, and without malice or insult, you labor under misconceptions stemming from the plain fact that you cannot bring yourself to consider that people of your own religion are out to systematically dismantle this Nation's Principles, and that they have slowly crept into positions of power, from Mayors to Congressmen.
They are indeed quite sneaky, as it is a concerted effort, however one can still see hiccups in their facade, such as the recent, and now largely dead, effort to pass legislation calling for the death penalty for child rapists.
Just like a gentle stream will erode away bedrock over time, so to these people are a danger to the US.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
