|
Post by Kliquid on May 17, 2012 12:45:24 GMT -5
OKay. I'm just asking questions. You don't seem to grasp the ramifications of how your stance on this one issue can be used to take rights from every single person in this country in some way. I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't feel that way. I know it's a FACT. There's really no arguing against what I said, which is why you don't try.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 17, 2012 12:45:52 GMT -5
But the questions that religion answers are questions that there is no proof period. What happens after death? Is there a higher power? If so, how do we relate to that higher power? How does that power relate to us? Does that power relate to us? How did we get here? Is it all just random chance? Science has no answers for these questions. These questions fall out of the scope of science. Religion answers all of them albeit imperfectly. i believe we are meant to wonder, not be comforted with convenient lies. There's absolutely no evidence that the belief that there is life after death is a lie. Or that the existence of a higher power is a lie. Or various religious teachings on how we relate to that higher power are lies. Or any answers to any of the questions I listed are lies. I have no idea where you're getting that from. Personally, when I look at the stars at night, I like to believe that the vast universe I'm in was created by a higher power and if he/she/it had the power to do that and is concerned about my life, I find that comforting. I'd rather not look at the universe and feel that I'm just a tiny, insignificant speck in the universe and that things were fine for bajillions of years before I got here and will continue to be fine for bajillions of years after I'm gone and that I will have no appreciable impact on anything. I confess I often feel both though.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on May 17, 2012 12:47:03 GMT -5
Religion = bigger conspiracy theory than anything I've ever said Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on May 17, 2012 12:49:02 GMT -5
Yes they are. They are trying to take a word like marriage and turn it into something it is not. Marriage is a union of a MAN and a WOMAN. Not two men, not two women. In YOUR religion, yes. But understand that there is no "official religion" in this country. In fact, the First Amendment very clearly states... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Under the FIRST AMENDMENT, there is no stopping me from creating my own religion. Within that, I can claim WHATEVER I WANT to be my morals. The government has no right, under the First Amendment, to prevent my religion from saying that two gay people should be allowed to be married in the eyes of MY "God." So whether or not you personally agree with it or not, those are the facts. The Constitution is VERY CLEAR on this issue. Obviously you didnt read my last post. Who mentioned ANYTHING about religion? Look up marriage in a dictionary, what does it say? No, dont read that new liberal dictionary. Calling it a union of two spouses is a half truth. The truth is a marriage is a Man and Woman. Why do people need to bash religion to get there point across?
|
|
|
Post by k5 on May 17, 2012 12:53:14 GMT -5
i believe we are meant to wonder, not be comforted with convenient lies. There's absolutely no evidence that the belief that there is life after death is a lie. Or that the existence of a higher power is a lie. Or various religious teachings on how we relate to that higher power are lies. Or any answers to any of the questions I listed are lies. I have no idea where you're getting that from. there is nothing to support life after death, so people supporting it and labeling it as absolute fact as religion attempts to do is blatantly lying. 'teachings' in itself suggests that there is truth and knowledge to be found through it, which of course given there is no concrete answers, yet they are saying them as if they are, they are LYING. i find it absolutely hilarious that you call yourself wf's skeptic yet you keep to these obviously fraudulent belief systems. whatever worthiness of being a skeptic you had is quickly ground into the dirt by you believing the biggest fantasy that exists. yes, lying to ourselves about troubling concepts is a comforting way to avoid the truth of the situation. it makes everything a bit nicer, however, you'll find that when you take the rose-tinted glasses off the questions still remain.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on May 17, 2012 12:53:44 GMT -5
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't feel that way. I know it's a FACT. There's really no arguing against what I said, which is why you don't try. Nope, I tried and you weren't able to grasp what I was saying. I've been trying for what, 10 pages now and it's futile. So I'm finished with it. Get over yourself and your opinions enough to leave it alone bro. I'm done. Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on May 17, 2012 12:55:52 GMT -5
Honestly guys, the only time we'll learn the truth is when we die and see it for ourselves. None of us know for sure that what we choose to accept as truth is indeed just that. None of us can fully prove so either. The only real truth is that we'll know it when we die.
|
|
|
Post by DontHassleTheHoff on May 17, 2012 12:57:25 GMT -5
In YOUR religion, yes. But understand that there is no "official religion" in this country. In fact, the First Amendment very clearly states... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Under the FIRST AMENDMENT, there is no stopping me from creating my own religion. Within that, I can claim WHATEVER I WANT to be my morals. The government has no right, under the First Amendment, to prevent my religion from saying that two gay people should be allowed to be married in the eyes of MY "God." So whether or not you personally agree with it or not, those are the facts. The Constitution is VERY CLEAR on this issue. Obviously you didnt read my last post. Who mentioned ANYTHING about religion? Look up marriage in a dictionary, what does it say? No, dont read that new liberal dictionary. Calling it a union of two spouses is a half truth. The truth is a marriage is a Man and Woman. Why do people need to bash religion to get there point across? Because religious nuts are the main opposition to homosexual marriage. There's pretty much no other reason to object to it. The arguement that it is somehow "Against nature" is easy to be argue against (The fact it happens within the animal kingdom as well as the evolutionary explanation that it helps reduce over population), so if it isn't offending your god, then there are zero reasons to have a damn thing against it. And even if it does offend the god you believe in, you should be respectful that they diserve to marry in their own belief system. Most traditional dictionaries were written in days where homosexuality was widely condemed, of course it is going to read this. But times change, these "new liberal definitions" are far more valid to our times.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on May 17, 2012 13:01:29 GMT -5
Obviously you didnt read my last post. Who mentioned ANYTHING about religion? Look up marriage in a dictionary, what does it say? No, dont read that new liberal dictionary. Calling it a union of two spouses is a half truth. The truth is a marriage is a Man and Woman. Why do people need to bash religion to get there point across? Because religious nuts are the main opposition to homosexual marriage. There's pretty much no other reason to object to it. The arguement that it is somehow "Against nature" is easy to be argue against (The fact it happens within the animal kingdom as well as the evolutionary explanation that it helps reduce over population), so if it isn't offending your god, then there are zero reasons to have a damn thing against it. And even if it does offend the god you believe in, you should be respectful that they diserve to marry in their own belief system. Most traditional dictionaries were written in days where homosexuality was widely condemed, of course it is going to read this. But times change, these "new liberal definitions" are far more valid to our times. Doesn't really matter to me what's in the animal kingdom. If two men were meant to be able to have sexual intercourse, why aren't some or all gay men born with vaginas? Why aren't women who are 'born gay' have penises? And I'm not even using the procreation argument. I'm talking about for pleasure. Pardon the crudeness here, but the anus surely wasn't made for penetration. And I know that love is more than sex, but sex is apart of love AND marriage. If it were natural for them to be together and marry, then surely they'd be equipped right?
|
|
|
Post by DontHassleTheHoff on May 17, 2012 13:04:47 GMT -5
Because religious nuts are the main opposition to homosexual marriage. There's pretty much no other reason to object to it. The arguement that it is somehow "Against nature" is easy to be argue against (The fact it happens within the animal kingdom as well as the evolutionary explanation that it helps reduce over population), so if it isn't offending your god, then there are zero reasons to have a damn thing against it. And even if it does offend the god you believe in, you should be respectful that they diserve to marry in their own belief system. Most traditional dictionaries were written in days where homosexuality was widely condemed, of course it is going to read this. But times change, these "new liberal definitions" are far more valid to our times. Doesn't really matter to me what's in the animal kingdom. If two men were meant to be able to have sexual intercourse, why aren't some or all gay men born with vaginas? Why aren't women who are 'born gay' have penises? Really? ....Really? Just. Wow. Physical and mental development is a very different thing. And the subject that every penis needs a vagina. That argument is just obsurd in every sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on May 17, 2012 13:06:37 GMT -5
Because religious nuts are the main opposition to homosexual marriage. There's pretty much no other reason to object to it. The arguement that it is somehow "Against nature" is easy to be argue against (The fact it happens within the animal kingdom as well as the evolutionary explanation that it helps reduce over population), so if it isn't offending your god, then there are zero reasons to have a damn thing against it. And even if it does offend the god you believe in, you should be respectful that they diserve to marry in their own belief system. Most traditional dictionaries were written in days where homosexuality was widely condemed, of course it is going to read this. But times change, these "new liberal definitions" are far more valid to our times. Doesn't really matter to me what's in the animal kingdom. If two men were meant to be able to have sexual intercourse, why aren't some or all gay men born with vaginas? Why aren't women who are 'born gay' have penises? And I'm not even using the procreation argument. I'm talking about for pleasure. Pardon the crudeness here, but the anus surely wasn't made for penetration. And I know that love is more than sex, but sex is apart of love AND marriage. If it were natural for them to be together and marry, then surely they'd be equipped right? i love butt sex with women. and people have been engaging in it for 1000s of years, gay or not. it's completely within human nature.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on May 17, 2012 13:07:55 GMT -5
Doesn't really matter to me what's in the animal kingdom. If two men were meant to be able to have sexual intercourse, why aren't some or all gay men born with vaginas? Why aren't women who are 'born gay' have penises? Really? ....Really? Just. Wow. Physical and mental development is a very different thing. And the subject that every penis needs a vagina. That argument is just obsurd in every sense of the word. And I'm not even using the procreation argument. I'm talking about for pleasure. Pardon the crudeness here, but the anus surely wasn't made for penetration. And I know that love is more than sex, but sex is apart of love AND marriage. If it were natural for them to be together and marry, then surely they'd be equipped right? If it were natural, then why weren't they naturally equipped as physically as they were mentally?
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on May 17, 2012 13:08:45 GMT -5
Doesn't really matter to me what's in the animal kingdom. If two men were meant to be able to have sexual intercourse, why aren't some or all gay men born with vaginas? Why aren't women who are 'born gay' have penises? And I'm not even using the procreation argument. I'm talking about for pleasure. Pardon the crudeness here, but the anus surely wasn't made for penetration. And I know that love is more than sex, but sex is apart of love AND marriage. If it were natural for them to be together and marry, then surely they'd be equipped right? i love butt sex with women. and people have been engaging in it for 1000s of years, gay or not. it's completely within human nature. It's within human nature because people have been doing it for a long time?
|
|
|
Post by k5 on May 17, 2012 13:12:41 GMT -5
i love butt sex with women. and people have been engaging in it for 1000s of years, gay or not. it's completely within human nature. It's within human nature because people have been doing it for a long time? uhhh noo....my point being that humans have indulged in that behavor of their own volition naturally for thousands of years. people NATURALLY feel compelled to. just as i think many straight males NATURALLY feel compelled to stay away from all things gay, out of fear and self protection.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on May 17, 2012 13:14:37 GMT -5
Obviously you didnt read my last post. Who mentioned ANYTHING about religion? Look up marriage in a dictionary, what does it say? No, dont read that new liberal dictionary. Calling it a union of two spouses is a half truth. The truth is a marriage is a Man and Woman. Why do people need to bash religion to get there point across? Because religious nuts are the main opposition to homosexual marriage. There's pretty much no other reason to object to it. The arguement that it is somehow "Against nature" is easy to be argue against (The fact it happens within the animal kingdom as well as the evolutionary explanation that it helps reduce over population), so if it isn't offending your god, then there are zero reasons to have a damn thing against it. And even if it does offend the god you believe in, you should be respectful that they diserve to marry in their own belief system. Most traditional dictionaries were written in days where homosexuality was widely condemed, of course it is going to read this. But times change, these "new liberal definitions" are far more valid to our times. I never once mentioned religion. My main point in being against "gay marriage" is that its not marriage. Look up marriage in the dictionary. It sure doesnt say union between two men or women does it? I feel its like if I go to your house and "borrow" your things. Isnt that really called stealing? But I want to cover the truth so I call it borrowing to make myself feel better. What two men do together is not the same as what me and my wife do so please dont try and call what you do marriage. Now if you are happy, that is fine. If you are in love that is fine as well. Im not against any of that. Just dont say it's the same. And to what you say........ So acording to you, I am a nut because I beleive in god? But the guy with poop on his privates from having backdoor relations is not a nut? The woman putting on a plastic phallus to pretend she has male genetalia is fine, but me going to church is nuts? Wow, you got some kind of special way of thinking there guy.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on May 17, 2012 13:17:02 GMT -5
And to what you say........ So acording to you, I am a nut because I beleive in god? But the guy with poop on his privates from having backdoor relations is not a nut? The woman putting on a plastic phallus to pretend she has male genetalia is fine, but me going to church is nuts? yes, you going to a building to chant ancient proverbs and celebrate a zombie born of a virgin is far weirder than two lovers wanting to do the dirty and sexually satisfy one another.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on May 17, 2012 13:17:35 GMT -5
It's within human nature because people have been doing it for a long time? uhhh noo....my point being that humans have indulged in that behavor of their own volition naturally for thousands of years. people NATURALLY feel compelled to other people's butts. it's the plain out truth. an alien or devil didn't fill my head and make me do it. i wanted to, without ever been told of it or thinking it is evil or good. and guess what...most guys want to do it to girls. those that don't seem to usually be tied up in religious or social etiquette. First of all, one doesn't have to be tied up in religious beliefs to think it's unnatural. So the alien or devil comment wasn't needed. I've had this stance before I even decided to live my life as a Christian. And just because people have been doing it for a long time under their own volition doesn't meant that it's what it was meant for. That's all I'm trying to say. What something's been used for for any amount of time doesn't justify it's initial purpose. For the record, I don't do anal because I think it's gross. Religion and social beliefs aside.
|
|
|
Post by DontHassleTheHoff on May 17, 2012 13:18:44 GMT -5
Really? ....Really? Just. Wow. Physical and mental development is a very different thing. And the subject that every penis needs a vagina. That argument is just obsurd in every sense of the word. And I'm not even using the procreation argument. I'm talking about for pleasure. Pardon the crudeness here, but the anus surely wasn't made for penetration. And I know that love is more than sex, but sex is apart of love AND marriage. If it were natural for them to be together and marry, then surely they'd be equipped right? If it were natural, then why weren't they naturally equipped as physically as they were mentally? Marriage is an invention of man. Not nature. From my knowledge some dudes actualy get off from stimulation of the anus. And that is the assumption that the pleasure is coming from that, rather from the same principals as masturbation- Which is a sexualy gratifying act without the opposites sex organs present. One evolutionary theory I've read recently, is that homosexuality occurs to prevent over population- which means organs are not needed as their evolutionary design so to speak is to not pro-create. (That being said, I am of course still in favour of gay couples having children through other means should they choose)
|
|
|
Post by k5 on May 17, 2012 13:19:17 GMT -5
I never once mentioned religion. My main point in being against "gay marriage" is that its not marriage. Look up marriage in the dictionary. It sure doesnt say union between two men or women does it? I feel its like if I go to your house and "borrow" your things. Isnt that really called stealing? But I want to cover the truth so I call it borrowing to make myself feel better. What two men do together is not the same as what me and my wife do so please dont try and call what you do marriage if you look up what the word gay means in an old dictionary, you won't get today's definition either, but you seem to have no issue using it in that manner. so your argument is null and void, the times have changed, and it's time for the customs to change with it.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on May 17, 2012 13:21:20 GMT -5
Interesting. The one's who are against religion are the ones hurling the insults. Go figure. Guess it's time to lock this thread up.
|
|