Author Topic: Heil Intolerance (Read 11772 times)

Gunthr · « **Reply #225 on:** August 03, 2003, 08:44:12 AM »

Quote

should pedophiles be allowed to marry children? incest, should brother and sister be allowed to wed? how about the necros, should they be allowed to marry a corpse if they find one they truly love? - Capt. Apathy

I don't see any problem with male necrophiliacs being allowed to marry female cadavers that were over the age of 18 at the time of death. And while performing cunilingus or analingus on a cadaver may seem filthy to you, remember that what goes on in the marital bed is none of our business.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #226 on:** August 03, 2003, 09:10:15 AM »

yeah we mentioned the Sparta thing a couple times above. most societies have found it immoral though and even the Greeks didn't allow marriage. the Spartans did encourage gay sex (as a means to control soldiers), but when they married they married women.

the point I was making is that the idea of gay sex acts being immoral predates the birth of Christ. which would make the argument that this is a religious issue ridiculous

Curval · « **Reply #227 on:** August 03, 2003, 10:06:17 AM »

Rude,

By your definition God will judge all of us and in that judgement we will either go to heaven or hell.

So, lets take a murderer who has raped and mutilated a number of his victims. He gets caught and goes to jail. In jail he finds Christ.

Judgement day comes.

My friend, who has devoted his life to helping people and who has saved thousands of children from abusive parents goes to hell because during his life he committed acts of sexual pleasure with another man.

But, the murderer who found Christ at the last second goes to heaven.

If THAT is what your version of God is like I will not buy into it.

Apathy...Sabre tried that silliness with pedophilia etc. already. He has been responded to adequately already, there is nothing more I can add to the points already made.

Fishu · « **Reply #228 on:** August 03, 2003, 10:11:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fatty
Fishu, health, insurance and other benifits extend to spouse and kids. That's the 'magic'.

bums.

Fatty · « **Reply #229 on:** August 03, 2003, 11:11:48 AM »

Homophobia predates christianity, of course. Predates theology that a religion as young as christianity is based upon? Hardly.

Toad · « **Reply #230 on:** August 03, 2003, 11:18:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AVRO1
But you dont have the right to tell others that something is wrong because your religion says it is.

Sure you do!

That's what this "free speech" thingie is all about.

Now, you personally can tell them anything you want.

Trying to personally FORCE them to do or not do something is a different matter.

As for laws... those are laws. The representatives of all the people pass them and everyone is expected to obey them.

Obviously, expectations are often unrealistic; take speed limit laws for instance.

While one may or may not agree with the law, the law remains the law until the representatives of all the people make changes.

Again, this thread seems much more about approval than tolerance.

In our everyday lives, all of us tolerate some thing or things we don't really "approve".

Mini D · « **Reply #231 on:** August 03, 2003, 11:50:38 AM »

BEST O'CLUB THREAD EVER! SOB, YOU RULE!

Curval · « **Reply #232 on:** August 03, 2003, 01:06:31 PM »

...didn't want to edit my last post, just wanted to add that I am not "offended" by your stance at all, Rude. We all have our opinions and beliefs and I don't hold it against you at all.

I would only comment that I am disappointed that being "born again" seems to mean that you are born again into the same old rhetoric and antiquated mode of thought as it relates to this issue.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #233 on:** August 03, 2003, 01:19:50 PM »

Quote

Apathy...Sabre tried that silliness with pedophilia etc. already. He has been responded to adequately already, there is nothing more I can add to the points already made.

actually it's not silliness at all. it was ignored before and it's being ignored again.

all I'm asking is for you or avro1 or one of the others who is so outspoken on that point of veiw, to just go down that list of other perversions and say if they think we should consider these behaviors immoral in our society or not.

the responce so far has been mostly to the fact that you don't see it as relivant. I do, so go ahead, take a minute and just answer the questions. surely your position is well thought out enough that you can answer a couple direct questions with direct answers without it all falling apart?

Curval · « **Reply #234 on:** August 03, 2003, 01:26:27 PM »

You are trying to put my friend in the same category as a pedophile (which he has spent his lfe fighting), an adulterer (which he isn't..he has lived with the same guy for about 30-40 years), a person who commits incest, bestiality or a necrophiliac.

I won't dignify it with a response.

Frogm4n · « **Reply #235 on:** August 03, 2003, 01:48:31 PM »

what this thread needs is a lueftwhine.

hey htc the Ta-152 is obviously undermodeled. I tried to make a vtol takeoff the other day and your porked flight model laughed at me!!!

AVRO1 · « **Reply #236 on:** August 03, 2003, 01:51:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Sure you do!

That's what this "free speech" thingie is all about.

Now, you personally can tell them anything you want.

Trying to personally FORCE them to do or not do something is a different matter.

As for laws... those are laws. The representatives of all the people pass them and everyone is expected to obey them.

Obviously, expectations are often unrealistic; take speed limit laws for instance.

While one may or may not agree with the law, the law remains the law until the representatives of all the people make changes.

Again, this thread seems much more about approval than tolerance.

In our everyday lives, all of us tolerate some thing or things we don't really "approve".

The problem is that Bush is trying to push this law because of is personnal beliefs.
He as no right to decide what is right and what is wrong just because he thinks its wrong.
That would be imposing is morality on others.
Which limits there religious rights.
Which is why freedom of religion is in the constitution.
It is unconstitutionnal to impose religion on others therefore Bush cannot impose is morality on others.
How much more explaining do you need?

People use to believe that the earth was flat.
Last I checked it never was.

Toad · « **Reply #237 on:** August 03, 2003, 02:18:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AVRO1
The problem is that Bush is trying to push this law because of is personnal beliefs.

Jeez, Avro.. I DO hate to be the one to break this to you...

but "special interest groups" try to push laws because of their personal beliefs" all the time. Probably in every country in the world. Some of these groups push liberal causes, some push conservative causes, some push middle of the road causes.

I mean, here you are in this thread, pushing YOUR personal belief, eh?

Pretty comon thing.

Quote

Originally posted by AVRO1
He as no right to decide what is right and what is wrong just because he thinks its wrong.

Sure he does! It's HIS opinion. He made a comment, not a law. See... just like YOU do here, he gets to make comments that reflect HIS personal beliefs. Now, what he says gets more attention than this thread but that's the way it goes with Presidents and National Leaders.

You're not going to dispute that he has a right to his own opinion, just like you have a right to yours?

Quote

Originally posted by AVRO1
That would be imposing is morality on others.

Horse poop. It's expressing his personal views, just like you just did.

Quote

Originally posted by AVRO1
Which limits there religious rights.
Which is why freedom of religion is in the constitution.
It is unconstitutionnal to impose religion on others therefore Bush cannot impose is morality on others.

Take a deep breath. Try not to hyperventilate.

He didn't limit anyone's rights. He VOICED HIS PERSONAL OPINION.

He limited no one's rights.

The Constitution remains unchanged. It's exactly the same now as it was before he spoke.

He imposed no morality on anyone. He merely said what he personally believed.

Here, once again, is the huge gap between perception and reality. Some of those taking the "liberal" view in this debate will not allow others the freedom to hold a different opinion. I must admit, it does make me smile.

Bush has every right to believe differently than you do... and to express those views.

Like I said, it's that "freedom of speech" thingie...... there's so many that love it, unless someone is saying something they don't agree with.

Obviously, there's a huge number of folks that have no clue that it means the "other side" gets to speak as well.

Quote

Originally posted by AVRO1
How much more explaining do you need?

None. I didn't need any to begin with. You see, I'm not the one that has trouble distinguishing the difference between a President explaining his personal beliefs and the Congress passing a law.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #238 on:** August 03, 2003, 02:19:30 PM »

Quote

I won't dignify it with a response

I think you wont answer because you are smart enough to know that the only difference between the all these acts is that you aren't offended (except for that one post where it kinda slipped out that maybe you aren't as ok with the whole gay thing as you like to tell yourself) by the gay issue but you find the others offensive and/or immoral.

so go ahead and avoid answering again, I'm fairly sure what your answers would be so I'll go on ahead to my follow-up question.

assuming that your position is (and from other posts I'm fairly confident I can guess reasonably accurately, and I'll completely avoid the what is legal what should be legal issue) that
1. homosexual acts & marriage is ok
2. pedophilia and adults marrying children is immoral
3. adultery, and adulterers being allowed to have the rights of married people in their 'on the side' relationship is immoral
4. incest and incestuous marriage is immoral
5. bestiality and people marrying animals is immoral
6. necrophilia and marrying corpses is immoral

did I estimate correctly? if I was wrong on any of the above 6 please correct me.

so on to the next point. what is the difference between #1 and #2-6? the only consistent difference I see is that you find #1 ok and the rest are immoral in your opinion (again please correct me if I'm wrong)

so my question is how do you decide which is on the ok side of the line and which is on the other? is gay ok just because you happen to know a gay guy, and are unable to differentiate between the concept of immoral acts and immoral people (good people involved in bad acts).

or is it ok because you have the media and gays telling you day in and day out, that if you don't approve of gay sex and marriage that you are no better than your average clan member or the pieces of toejam who killed that Sheppard kid? are you unable to see how someone can disapprove of an activity without hating the people involved in it.

but the main question is why is the place that you draw the moral line any more valid than mine?

why do I have to be a bigot or religious wacko to draw the line to include homosexuality as immoral.

but drawing the line at say incest is still a completely enlightened place to do it.

personally I think most of the people who are 'ok' with the whole gay marriage thing are just very well programmed, they have this knee-jerk response where they automatically say it's ok because that’s the PC answer. but when they really look at the issue and imagine it effecting their family, their 'sure moral footing' crumbles from beneath them.

edited- again for my spelling

Gunthr · « **Reply #239 on:** August 03, 2003, 03:23:42 PM »

Quote

personally I think most of the people who are 'ok' with the whole gay marriage thing are just very well programmed, they have this knee-jerk response where they automatically say it's ok because that’s the PC answer. but when they really look at the issue and imagine it effecting their family, their 'sure moral footing' crumbles from beneath them. - Capt. Apathy

Actually, I think its just the opposite. In fact, imagining the issue effecting my family personally really crystalizes the issue for me. I am certain that I would support a gay child in having a socially accepted and legally binding union with someone they love.

I was a chauvanist until I had daughters. Now I'm not. And in the past I never saw homos as being quite human until I became friends with one long before learning he was gay. In that way I found out that you cannot paint all homos with the same brush.

If I had a gay child I would most certainly love and support that child in his/her pursuit of happiness, including the right to take part in a socially accepted and legally binding institution that defines their relationship with someone who they love and want to spend the rest of their life with.

I think the way you flop on this issue depends on whether you think gays have any choice in being gay ... and whether you believe in God and if so, whether you think God will bless a homosexual union. If you don't believe in God, it probablly isn't much of an issue.

Personally, I think any public committment between two people serves to stabilize society, and I think ALL people have the right to commit to each other... I think the gays legally have a case, and sooner or later its gonna happen.