another_earthling Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Um. Conservative statements like this have been made for every advance from the wheel to heart transplants. Because it doesnt conform to what was before, it is therefore nonsensical. Rubbish, I say. With science almost anything is possible so in the future suppose its possible to conceive children artificially by {censored} and {censored} couples. (I think its possible today also..but anyways..) But what happens when this child is born? Why are you taking a child's right to have a "mother" and a "father" ? What whould you tell the child when he sees other kids and questions you where is his/her mom? You cant say this is rubbish. Since a child is innocent. He or she deserves a normal family with a mother and a father. You just cant say rubbish to this fact and say he/she will get used to it. Its natural and the child deserves a mother and a father. What do you say to this? If your reply is that you dont plan to conceive a child. Then you will contradict my earlier post and your reply about everyone on earth turning {censored} and the human race becoming extinct. So assuming {censored} couples wonna have kids, what would be your answer then? About a child's right to have a normal family with a mother and a father. Before answering try to put yourself in the position of this child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_muad_dib Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 quote from jurassic park: Henry Wu: You're implying that a group composed entirely of female animals will... breed? Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way. i say... yeah.. cloning cells BTW i'm etero and single Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_earthling Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 quote from jurassic park:Henry Wu: You're implying that a group composed entirely of female animals will... breed? Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way. i say... yeah.. cloning cells BTW i'm etero and single But we are not animals, we are humans. And I dont use hollywood and their fancy dialouges to show humanity the way. By the way look at my previous post, it asks an important question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_muad_dib Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 i wasn't comparing humans and animals.. not a flame...anyway.. i guess it's very hard to answer this question and i think it will never be a right answer i mean in my opinion every one must be free to do what it wants with his/her own life free to love everyone.... but a child deserves a mom and a dad in order to be formed entirely two different kinds of point of view... to fill every aspect of life two men or 2 women will never fill this gap it's not intended as a flame! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 That's ok, lord_muad_dib. We know it wasn't a flame. Here's another question to ponder - do we really believe that everyone should be free to love who/what they want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Sure seems that way to me - sperm + sperm and egg + egg (impossible naturally) doesn't do much for baby rearing. (Barring artificial conception) P.S. On the Bible thing (in case you hadn't noticed it yet, philosophy is something I enjoy), there are different "dispensations," meaning that God "reveals" different aspects of himself to humans at different times. Thus, while the Old Testament says don't eat pork, you have to look at context - he's talking to Jews wandering in the desert who didn't have the means to preserve it. Same with mildew, etc. With the coming of Jesus in the New Testament, a lot of those old laws were made null and void. Some were pulled through, however - homosexuality is discussed in both Testaments. Also, pay careful note to what the Bible talks about vs what it mandates. It's a different thing to talk about slavery (which is just being culturally relevant) than saying "Thou shalt have slaves" (which it doesn't do).[/bible lesson] Anyway, just wanted to throw that in there, since the Bible thing had come up. Proceed. The way I see it, if everyone was {censored} the society would be just fine, we would have sex with the same sex for pleasure, and the opposite sex for procreation, people would understand that, and do it, not a problem. With science almost anything is possible so in the future suppose its possible to conceive children artificially by {censored} and {censored} couples. (I think its possible today also..but anyways..) But what happens when this child is born? Why are you taking a child's right to have a "mother" and a "father" ? What whould you tell the child when he sees other kids and questions you where is his/her mom? You cant say this is rubbish. Since a child is innocent. He or she deserves a normal family with a mother and a father. You just cant say rubbish to this fact and say he/she will get used to it. Its natural and the child deserves a mother and a father. What do you say to this? If your reply is that you dont plan to conceive a child. Then you will contradict my earlier post and your reply about everyone on earth turning {censored} and the human race becoming extinct. So assuming {censored} couples wonna have kids, what would be your answer then? About a child's right to have a normal family with a mother and a father. Before answering try to put yourself in the position of this child. The psychological research does not indicate that a child born to {censored} parents has any sort of emotional problems in comparison to children raised in "normal" households, the only difference is other people, who make fun of them for having {censored} parents, thats when they run into trouble, not the fact that they have {censored} parents and again, I am not a homosexual, I am totally strait, I feel its none of my business to tell people who are {censored} that they are sinning and sofourth, I dont know them, Ive never been {censored}, I dont know that its a choice (and its not), so its none of my business to dictate morality on sexual preference to them heheh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeehre Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 What annoys me is {censored} people that whine on about how they are treated by straight people and we should be more understanding etc etc Im not advocating being nasty to {censored} people or anything but it needs to be understood that a gayness just seems wrong and discusting to alot of straight men me included. This doesnt come from religion or anything its just how i feel about it.... If someone is {censored} thats fine by me but i just dont really want to have to see it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 What annoys me is {censored} people that whine on about how they are treated by straight people and we should be more understanding etc etc Im not advocating being nasty to {censored} people or anything but it needs to be understood that a gayness just seems wrong and discusting to alot of straight men me included. This doesnt come from religion or anything its just how i feel about it.... If someone is {censored} thats fine by me but i just dont really want to have to see it all the time. totally understandable, but that doesnt mean that {censored} should have action taken against them. Im sure youre not advocating this or anything, but they are not treated with the respect of the society, and they should be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james2mart Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 killbot1000, you are right in the fact that they should be treated with respect, but that's not going to happen. Why? Because if society respects something, they are condoning it. Just like when this nation was founded, freedom of religion was respected. So people decided to take it one step further and say "freedom of lack of religion." This country was founded on the basis of God (hence "under God") in the pledge. Freedom of religion was meant to let you choose what to believe about God. Not to not believe in God. That's a fact. Anyways. If society decides to respect and condone homosexuals and their lifestyle, our kids are going to be some messed up generation, not knowing who to do. Like I said before: THE {censored} FITS INTO THE {censored}. hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 THE {censored} FITS INTO THE {censored}. hehe I absolutely agree with that point. Now heres my part. {censored} {censored} me off (Apart from hot Lesbians), i have nothing against them but all the time they are complaining about equal rights and equal this and wanting to be treated like Normal people, If they want to be treate dlike normal people then why should they be given little {censored} paardes where they march around the streets showing how {censored} they are, we dont (well at least i dont) want to see that sort of {censored} on the streets, heck if i walked down the street naked and said im normal i'd get thron into jail and be on the news and everything. It just pisses me off. /end rant P.S: Im Normal (straight) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 killbot1000, you are right in the fact that they should be treated with respect, but that's not going to happen. Why? Because if society respects something, they are condoning it. Just like when this nation was founded, freedom of religion was respected. So people decided to take it one step further and say "freedom of lack of religion." This country was founded on the basis of God (hence "under God") in the pledge. Freedom of religion was meant to let you choose what to believe about God. Not to not believe in God. That's a fact. Anyways. If society decides to respect and condone homosexuals and their lifestyle, our kids are going to be some messed up generation, not knowing who to do. Like I said before: THE {censored} FITS INTO THE {censored}. hehe what a nonsense the {censored} fits into a lot of things but you seem to forget that a lot of {censored} don't have anal sex but at the same time a lot of straight people do have anal sex so the anal sex aspect is not something just for and by {censored}'s so your whole {censored} fits {censored} story is just a lot of nonsense sure its fits the {censored}.. but what do you what to say by that becauce its fits, people should not have {censored} feelings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takuro Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I almost considered bisexuality. In the modern day, there's a lot of talk about "coming out of the closet" and stories of celebrities admitting homosexuality. It almost puts pressure on me to evaluate myself and wonder if I myself am also partially {censored}. It's easy to almost convince yourself you're something that you're not after thinking about it for too long. Heck, I once had a girlfriend who claimed to be bisexual because she thought it'd turn guys on. Doesn't that basically mean her motives point to that fact that.. she's.. uh... straight? It's a confusing world. Although I admit when a guy looks attractive, I realized it's in a way that I say to myself "hey maybe it'd be cool if I had a similiar haircut." In the end, when it comes to looking at a persons body with strong sexual desires, it's always a girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 bigots are so much fun. If you live in the United States and arent a White, Anglo-Saxon Heterosexual Protestant, you're abnormal. That's just the way it is. If you're asian in the united states, you arent normal, no matter how straight you claim to be. So, on that note. What's so great about being "normal"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeehre Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I absolutely agree with that point. Now heres my part. {censored} {censored} me off (Apart from hot Lesbians), i have nothing against them but all the time they are complaining about equal rights and equal this and wanting to be treated like Normal people, If they want to be treate dlike normal people then why should they be given little {censored} paardes where they march around the streets showing how {censored} they are, we dont (well at least i dont) want to see that sort of {censored} on the streets, heck if i walked down the street naked and said im normal i'd get thron into jail and be on the news and everything. It just pisses me off. /end rant P.S: Im Normal (straight) could not agree more! the {censored} parades really {censored} me off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrupted Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 killbot1000, you are right in the fact This country was founded on the basis of God (hence "under God") Actually, I heard that "Under God" came to be in the pledge of allegiance when the Cold War started.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Actually, I heard that "Under God" came to be in the pledge of allegiance when the Cold War started.. I was just about to say that, and I never said the nation was founded "under god" it was added to the pledge of alleigence in like 1957 or something, I mean, im all for religion, but separation of church and state, keep it out of political decisions, especially now, when a little less than half of the nation ISNT WHITE, maybe they have different ideas on how the country should be run. and about the {censored} parade thing, if {censored} werent shunned, they would have no reason to throw a parade, if they were given equal rights, they would pretty much stop their {censored} parades because theres nothing to parade about, dont you understand that? ({censored} parade posters) Plus theres lots of {censored}/normal people, pretty much all the {censored} friends I have act completely normal, except that they happen to be {censored}, the reason why you guys think that all {censored} people act "{censored}" is because those are the only ones you see on tv, and parading around, how else would you know if somebody is {censored}? you wouldnt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I was just about to say that, and I never said the nation was founded "under god" it was added to the pledge of alleigence in like 1957 or something, I mean, im all for religion, but separation of church and state, keep it out of political decisions, especially now, when a little less than half of the nation ISNT WHITE, maybe they have different ideas on how the country should be run.and about the {censored} parade thing, if {censored} werent shunned, they would have no reason to throw a parade, if they were given equal rights, they would pretty much stop their {censored} parades because theres nothing to parade about, dont you understand that? ({censored} parade posters) Plus theres lots of {censored}/normal people, pretty much all the {censored} friends I have act completely normal, except that they happen to be {censored}, the reason why you guys think that all {censored} people act "{censored}" is because those are the only ones you see on tv, and parading around, how else would you know if somebody is {censored}? you wouldnt... Where on earth did you learn that... just over 30% aren't white In addition, what does racial composition have to do with religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james2mart Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 who cares WHEN "under God" was added to the pledge? Our nation was FOUNDED UNDER GOD. End of story. Go back and read your non-biased history books. Lots of letters from the four fathers to each other show serious concern about the corruption of religion that separation of church and state could cause. Separation of church and state was also intended to be one-way when it was thought up - to keep the state out of the church. go back and read transcripts of T.Jefferson's letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_earthling Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Here's another question to ponder - do we really believe that everyone should be free to love who/what they want? I think here the answer is a big NO. If these are what {censored} use to justify there love for the same sex then it is wrong. Because there are certain limits set by the society in general and the law in particular which you cant cross. For example a man might love a women who is already married. Is this correct? No Ok, now I wanna give a more effective example. A Pedophile is someone who wants to make sexual love with children. The society does not allow that. A pedophile cant argue that he/she is free to love whoever they want. Its totally baseless. Now a {censored} person might argue that "what about mutual consent?" Since in a {censored} relationship both the people agree. But will the society allow a pedophile to harbour sexual feelings for a child even if the child agrees to the relationship? No! In such a case I dont see much of a difference between a pedophile and a {censored}. I always think that a {censored} persons sexual orientation has gone horribly wrong and should be cured by treatment before it effects the society and the children. Just for a few peoples sexual fixations which are quite similar to a pedophile's fixations we cant have kids born to two men or women. Then again these are my own views. Your opinion on it are always welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I think here the answer is a big NO. If these are what {censored} use to justify there love for the same sex then it is wrong. Because there are certain limits set by the society in general and the law in particular which you cant cross. For example a man might love a women who is already married. Is this correct? No Ok, now I wanna give a more effective example. A Pedophile is someone who wants to make sexual love with children. The society does not allow that. A pedophile cant argue that he/she is free to love whoever they want. Its totally baseless. Now a {censored} person might argue that "what about mutual consent?" Since in a {censored} relationship both the people agree. But will the society allow a pedophile to harbour sexual feelings for a child even if the child agrees to the relationship? No! In such a case I dont see much of a difference between a pedophile and a {censored}. I always think that a {censored} persons sexual orientation has gone horribly wrong and should be cured by treatment before it effects the society and the children. Just for a few peoples sexual fixations which are quite similar to a pedophile's fixations we cant have kids born to two men or women. Then again these are my own views. Your opinion on it are always welcome right, but the pedophile sexing up the child harms the society, two {censored} consenting adults sexing eachother up do not harm the society, wheres the problem here? Let them be {censored}, and let them marry, it doesnt affect you. And according to the psychological research, it doesnt harm the children either. Suprisingly, children dont need a mother and father to grow up emotionally healthy, its funny that people think they do. Comparing {censored} to pedophiles? come on! its obvious youre biased here, I mean, its like saying that {censored} people cant be teachers or whatnot because of the harm to the children, as if them being {censored} is a sickness (which its not), and that it would harm these chilren somehow. Cant we all just be a little more enlightened and get our face out of other people's business, its really sickening to me...I mean, I will never march in a {censored} pride parade or anything, but, it doesnt affect me, if {censored} get to be married, it really doesnt change my life at all, I still have the right to marry a woman, and thats what ill do, I dont see the problem at all here... who cares WHEN "under God" was added to the pledge? Our nation was FOUNDED UNDER GOD. End of story. Go back and read your non-biased history books. Lots of letters from the four fathers to each other show serious concern about the corruption of religion that separation of church and state could cause. Separation of church and state was also intended to be one-way when it was thought up - to keep the state out of the church. go back and read transcripts of T.Jefferson's letters. Im a history and philosophy major, I am 3 quarters from graduating, I know a little bit about history, every book anybody reads is biased, even the bible heheh, but honestly, theres nothing wrong with having religion, but when you become elected, and you use the government to exert your religious will on all the people, who dont share your religious will, you are going against the constitution, end of story, maybe the founding fathers wouldnt Like separation of church and state because it doesnt mesh with their religion, but im sure they could understand it...given the kind of nation we live in now. So if one takes religion out of the equation, the only moral rulebook you have to go on is actual harm to the society, and there is no evidence to suggest that being {censored} harms the society in any way, other than it offending people, which i hardly consider harm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_earthling Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 ..... And according to the psychological research, it doesnt harm the children either. Suprisingly, children dont need a mother and father to grow up emotionally healthy, its funny that people think they do.... Even orphans grow up to be normal and healthy. But why would you take a child's right to having a father and a mother? I dont need psychological research to tell me that a child will grow healthy if he is born in a {censored} family. I say a child will grow healthy even if he is born in a war zone in a refugee camp with no parents to look after him. Thats the human spirit. But why would you deprive a child purposely from having both a father and a mother. Also you cant pled ignorance to this by saying "it doesnt efect you". If this was the attitude of the people of the world then slavery would have never been abolished, communism would have never been defeated and so on... "It doesnt effect me...so I dont care a damn about it" is not the right attitude. Anyways in my opinion its now too late to stop this "{censored} phenomenon". It should have been eliminated decades back by putting it in the same place as being a pedophile. Its sick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Thomas Jefferson was a rabid anti-christian, as evidenced by just about everything he wrote. His views on seperation of church and state (the establishment clause), WERE almost entirely one-sided. But you're incorrect on the side. Thomas Jefferson felt that religion was a corrupting influence on society and government, not vise versa. Also, the founding fathers, for the most part werent Christians, they were Deists. Christians (like jews and muslims) worship YHVH or Yahweh. Deists worship the all-seeing eye, which is a different sort of god all-together. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical.../chapter_2.html http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatc...hers_quote2.htm http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/tripoli/tripoli.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Even orphans grow up to be normal and healthy. But why would you take a child's right to having a father and a mother? I dont need psychological research to tell me that a child will grow healthy if he is born in a {censored} family. I say a child will grow healthy even if he is born in a war zone in a refugee camp with no parents to look after him. Thats the human spirit. But why would you deprive a child purposely from having both a father and a mother. Also you cant pled ignorance to this by saying "it doesnt efect you". If this was the attitude of the people of the world then slavery would have never been abolished, communism would have never been defeated and so on... "It doesnt effect me...so I dont care a damn about it" is not the right attitude. Anyways in my opinion its now too late to stop this "{censored} phenomenon". It should have been eliminated decades back by putting it in the same place as being a pedophile. Its sick Im sorry that you feel that way, but equating somebody being {censored} to being a pedophile, or a slavery is vastly overblown, and quite frankly, ignorant. Slavery did affect everybody, so did the cold war, in fact it involved people that didnt want to get involved in the first place. look, nobody is forcing you to be {censored}, in fact other people are trying to force {censored} to be strait, and their not, so why try to force them, I can even turn your argument inside out and say that its like slavery, back in the day, black people (simply for the fact of them being black) were FORCED to be slaves, just as much of the community is trying to force {censored} into being strait, calling it a disease and sofourth, given being {censored} is not the same as slavery, but my argument has solid grounding, whereas yours does not... Also, I dont get your objection, you admit that a child can grow up perfectly healthy without a mother and father, but they still need a mother and father? I just dont get that...if the child turns out emotionally healthy isnt that all that really matters? Some people just have different households than others, children can understand that, I had a totally different childhood than many of my friends, but that doesnt make their parents, or my parents wrong, just different...being {censored} is the same thing, not right or wrong, its not a value judgement, its just different... also, having a mother and a father isnt a right, its a luck of the draw, if you have one, great, if you dont, oh well, thats life. Personally, as long as I had people in my life that cared about me, and loved me, that would be enough, it doesnt matter whether one of them has a {censored}, and one of them has a {censored}, or if both of them have penises, as long as they love me and nurture me, why the fvck does it matter? it doesnt... Thomas Jefferson was a rabid anti-christian, as evidenced by just about everything he wrote. His views on seperation of church and state (the establishment clause), WERE almost entirely one-sided. But you're incorrect on the side. Thomas Jefferson felt that religion was a corrupting influence on society and government, not vise versa. Also, the founding fathers, for the most part werent Christians, they were Deists. Christians (like jews and muslims) worship YHVH or Yahweh. Deists worship the all-seeing eye, which is a different sort of god all-together. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical.../chapter_2.html THANK YOU! ah, finally some help on the front lines here heheh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Just about every jot of evidence that exists about the founding fathers and religion points clearly to the idea that the founding fathers didnt have much use for it. In their ideal society, it would barely exist, but because the people of the united states had religion, the correct method was to institutionalize the tolerance of all different religions. The fact that this nation was not founded on Christianity or Christian principles is codified as law by presidential decree in the treaty of tripoli (1797). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
u1m2 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Sorry to drop the {censored} percentage down, another str8 guy here... One thing I will never understand is why religion and sex are so interlinked. It just seems silly to me how people can consider {censored} people being non-religious or homosexuality being against religion in general ? Isn't this against the fundamentals of the idea of belief ? Belief is a spiritual thing and it should never be confused with a person's choice of physical desires, the two are completely different parts of human existence in my opinion. If an unnatural (as the so called religious people claim) pleasure of this kind is sinful, then why isn't motorcycle riding sinful too or bungee jumping or listening to classical music. None of these exist naturally or are a natural part of human nature thus enjoying these should be equally sinful but somehow nobody gives a damn about them. Sex is always a provocative subject and unfortunately all modern religion are stuck on sexual issues as if there aren't much bigger 'flaws' of the human nature to be dealt with other than sex. One human being's sexuality shouldn't tell anything about their character, beliefs or values because it rarely will be accurate therefore I just find it criminal to judge any person by their sexual choice, all it will tell is which sex that person fancies. Having said that, I truly find it hard to understand the {censored} people's choices, it shocks me how one can live without {censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts