Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10

 

2009-12-02 09:40:18
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:


Belief never killed anyone, laws never killed anyone ... actions however do, and only a mere few do actions that kills someone ...
Sorry, if those beliefs and laws curtail freedoms and is intolerant of others, it counts, and does not belong in western society.
Soooo ... how does those believes and laws curtail your freedoms lowing?
I'm sorry, I didn't  know this was about "ME", I thought we were speaking about culture and society as a whole.

Now, speaking as a culture and society, are you still willing to ask that question?
2009-12-02 14:58:17
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6966|Canberra, AUS

Zefar wrote:

Seeing how Islam kinda like the beacon of intolerance against most things I don't really see this as a bad thing to do.

Islam demand respect but don't give any back. They always flare up once they are slightly insulted and A LOT of Muslims do this. They are fine with Freedom of Speech AS LONG as it doesn't put a negative view on their religion. Then it should be banned.
Among so many other things.

I'd be happy if Islam disappeared all together and I wouldn't shed a tear about it. Every other religion have made their peace while Islam is still fighting and claiming to be Religion of Peace.

But they voted for it right? So the majority won, big deal. Now all we need to do is stop making the Islamic laws get into Europe. In UK some have already gotten in and it's probably just the start.

We certainly don't need anything from Islam, we got the rules we need. We got our norms and holidays. What could Islam offer other than trouble? And a messed up religion.
Who gives a fuck, we live in civilised free societies and you are no person to judge whether a religion is 'worthy' of the freedoms the rest of us enjoy.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-12-02 15:01:51
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|6041|شمال

Zefar wrote:

Seeing how Islam kinda like the beacon of intolerance against most things I don't really see this as a bad thing to do.

Islam demand respect but don't give any back. They always flare up once they are slightly insulted and A LOT of Muslims do this. They are fine with Freedom of Speech AS LONG as it doesn't put a negative view on their religion. Then it should be banned.
Among so many other things.

I'd be happy if Islam disappeared all together and I wouldn't shed a tear about it. Every other religion have made their peace while Islam is still fighting and claiming to be Religion of Peace.

But they voted for it right? So the majority won, big deal. Now all we need to do is stop making the Islamic laws get into Europe. In UK some have already gotten in and it's probably just the start.

We certainly don't need anything from Islam, we got the rules we need. We got our norms and holidays. What could Islam offer other than trouble? And a messed up religion.
Dr.PhiL?
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
2009-12-02 17:09:29
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,057|7063|PNW

Spark wrote:

Who gives a fuck, we live in civilised free societies and you are no person to judge whether a religion is 'worthy' of the freedoms the rest of us enjoy.
What about human sacrifice?
2009-12-02 17:23:51
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

Spark wrote:

Zefar wrote:

Seeing how Islam kinda like the beacon of intolerance against most things I don't really see this as a bad thing to do.

Islam demand respect but don't give any back. They always flare up once they are slightly insulted and A LOT of Muslims do this. They are fine with Freedom of Speech AS LONG as it doesn't put a negative view on their religion. Then it should be banned.
Among so many other things.

I'd be happy if Islam disappeared all together and I wouldn't shed a tear about it. Every other religion have made their peace while Islam is still fighting and claiming to be Religion of Peace.

But they voted for it right? So the majority won, big deal. Now all we need to do is stop making the Islamic laws get into Europe. In UK some have already gotten in and it's probably just the start.

We certainly don't need anything from Islam, we got the rules we need. We got our norms and holidays. What could Islam offer other than trouble? And a messed up religion.
Who gives a fuck, we live in civilised free societies and you are no person to judge whether a religion is 'worthy' of the freedoms the rest of us enjoy.
Uhhhhh yeah we are.

When that religion curtails the rights and freedoms of others, it matters. Again, if you want such a society, then move your ass to where it is practiced, and accepted.
2009-12-02 17:31:40
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6761

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Zefar wrote:

Seeing how Islam kinda like the beacon of intolerance against most things I don't really see this as a bad thing to do.

Islam demand respect but don't give any back. They always flare up once they are slightly insulted and A LOT of Muslims do this. They are fine with Freedom of Speech AS LONG as it doesn't put a negative view on their religion. Then it should be banned.
Among so many other things.

I'd be happy if Islam disappeared all together and I wouldn't shed a tear about it. Every other religion have made their peace while Islam is still fighting and claiming to be Religion of Peace.

But they voted for it right? So the majority won, big deal. Now all we need to do is stop making the Islamic laws get into Europe. In UK some have already gotten in and it's probably just the start.

We certainly don't need anything from Islam, we got the rules we need. We got our norms and holidays. What could Islam offer other than trouble? And a messed up religion.
Who gives a fuck, we live in civilised free societies and you are no person to judge whether a religion is 'worthy' of the freedoms the rest of us enjoy.
Uhhhhh yeah we are.

When that religion curtails the rights and freedoms of others, it matters. Again, if you want such a society, then move your ass to where it is practiced, and accepted.
like half of christian america that bans the rights for gays to marry?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2009-12-02 17:38:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:


Who gives a fuck, we live in civilised free societies and you are no person to judge whether a religion is 'worthy' of the freedoms the rest of us enjoy.
Uhhhhh yeah we are.

When that religion curtails the rights and freedoms of others, it matters. Again, if you want such a society, then move your ass to where it is practiced, and accepted.
like half of christian america that bans the rights for gays to marry?
Gays have the EXACT same rights I do.

I can not marry a man, neither can a gay man.

I can marry a woman so can a gay man.

a gay woman can not marry a woman

a straight woman can not marry a woman

a gay woman can marry a man

a straight woman can marry a man


What you are after, are special rights, and no, special rights should not be allowed.
2009-12-02 17:39:17
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:


Uhhhhh yeah we are.

When that religion curtails the rights and freedoms of others, it matters. Again, if you want such a society, then move your ass to where it is practiced, and accepted.
like half of christian america that bans the rights for gays to marry?
Gays have the EXACT same rights I do.

I can not marry a man, neither can a gay man.

I can marry a woman so can a gay man.

a gay woman can not marry a woman

a straight woman can not marry a woman

a gay woman can marry a man

a straight woman can marry a man


What you are after, are special rights, and no, special rights should not be allowed.
That's the most ass backwards logic I've ever seen. Kudos.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-02 17:40:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:


like half of christian america that bans the rights for gays to marry?
Gays have the EXACT same rights I do.

I can not marry a man, neither can a gay man.

I can marry a woman so can a gay man.

a gay woman can not marry a woman

a straight woman can not marry a woman

a gay woman can marry a man

a straight woman can marry a man


What you are after, are special rights, and no, special rights should not be allowed.
That's the most ass backwards logic I've ever seen. Kudos.
Why? Am I wrong?
2009-12-02 17:41:38
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Gays have the EXACT same rights I do.

I can not marry a man, neither can a gay man.

I can marry a woman so can a gay man.

a gay woman can not marry a woman

a straight woman can not marry a woman

a gay woman can marry a man

a straight woman can marry a man


What you are after, are special rights, and no, special rights should not be allowed.
That's the most ass backwards logic I've ever seen. Kudos.
Why? Am I wrong?
Strictly speaking, you are entirely correct. However, you know damn well they are discriminated against because of religion.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-02 17:41:54)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-02 17:42:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

That's the most ass backwards logic I've ever seen. Kudos.
Why? Am I wrong?
Strictly speaking, you are entirely correct. However, you know damn well they are discriminated against because of religion.
Uhhh nope, REGARDLESS of religion, the laws are the same.

If you want to speak of inequality consider this.

A straight man can not cover his live in girlfriend on his insurance, however, a gay person can do exactly that. Where is the uproar? Because that is discrimination in its purest form.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-02 17:47:15)

2009-12-02 17:45:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


Why? Am I wrong?
Strictly speaking, you are entirely correct. However, you know damn well they are discriminated against because of religion.
Uhhh nope, REGARDLESS of religion, the laws are the same.
Those are some amazing mental gymnastics you are showing.

Ok. Why is marriage in the United States defined as being between a man and a woman?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-02 17:48:00
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6761

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


Why? Am I wrong?
Strictly speaking, you are entirely correct. However, you know damn well they are discriminated against because of religion.
Uhhh nope, REGARDLESS of religion, the laws are the same.
You're such an obtuse dumbass.

They don't have equal rights to marry who they want. Well duh a gay man can marry a woman just as you can, so do have SOME similar rights... but they're not entitled to free will and freedom because of religious dogma overhanging your society. That my friend, is not democracy.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2009-12-02 17:49:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Strictly speaking, you are entirely correct. However, you know damn well they are discriminated against because of religion.
Uhhh nope, REGARDLESS of religion, the laws are the same.
Those are some amazing mental gymnastics you are showing.

Ok. Why is marriage in the United States defined as being between a man and a woman?
read up I edited


Dunno, and it does not matter, the law covers ALL men and ALL women. No discrimination. We all have the same rights. except as posted above.
2009-12-02 17:50:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Strictly speaking, you are entirely correct. However, you know damn well they are discriminated against because of religion.
Uhhh nope, REGARDLESS of religion, the laws are the same.
You're such an obtuse dumbass.

They don't have equal rights to marry who they want. Well duh a gay man can marry a woman just as you can, so do have SOME similar rights... but they're not entitled to free will and freedom because of religious dogma overhanging your society. That my friend, is not democracy.
Sorry ya feel that way. It still stands however, you are asking for special consideration, and that should not be allowed.

They are entitled to EXACTLY the same rights I am, any man can marry any woman, any woman can marry any man. I am also not allowed to marry a man. Where is the discrimination?

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-02 17:52:15)

2009-12-02 17:51:17
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uhhh nope, REGARDLESS of religion, the laws are the same.
Those are some amazing mental gymnastics you are showing.

Ok. Why is marriage in the United States defined as being between a man and a woman?
read up I edited


Dunno, and it does not matter, the law covers ALL men and ALL women. No discrimination. We all have the same rights. except as posted above.
That exists because the inequality in marriage rights exists. You remove hindrances to gay marriage and the boyfriend/girlfriend benefits crap goes away.

Ok, so the law is perfect and does not need changing? Are all laws this perfect or do many have flaws that require change over time?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-02 17:51:54)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-02 17:54:36
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Those are some amazing mental gymnastics you are showing.

Ok. Why is marriage in the United States defined as being between a man and a woman?
read up I edited


Dunno, and it does not matter, the law covers ALL men and ALL women. No discrimination. We all have the same rights. except as posted above.
That exists because the inequality in marriage rights exists. You remove hindrances to gay marriage and the boyfriend/girlfriend benefits crap goes away.

Ok, so the law is perfect and does not need changing? Are all laws this perfect or do many have flaws that require change over time?
Now, you are changing the subject, I never said the laws were perfect, nor did I say I agreed with them. That is a different matter all together.

I do maintain however, that under the law, we all have EXACTLY the same rights. Again except for the discrimination that I previously mentioned
2009-12-02 17:56:04
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

read up I edited


Dunno, and it does not matter, the law covers ALL men and ALL women. No discrimination. We all have the same rights. except as posted above.
That exists because the inequality in marriage rights exists. You remove hindrances to gay marriage and the boyfriend/girlfriend benefits crap goes away.

Ok, so the law is perfect and does not need changing? Are all laws this perfect or do many have flaws that require change over time?
Now, you are changing the subject, I never said the laws were perfect, nor did I say I agreed with them. That is a different matter all together.

I do maintain however, that under the law, we all have EXACTLY the same rights. Again except for the discrimination that I previously mentioned
So you agree that the law isn't perfect but you won't take the next logical step and admit that it is discriminatory?

Ok, is a marriage performed by a secular Justice of the Peace consecrated? Is it 'holy matrimony', or is it just a civil union? If both a marriage before a minister and a marriage before a JotP require a 'marriage license' before the ceremony may take place, are they in fact equal in gods eyes? Does that piece of paper make the difference?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-02 17:58:28)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-02 17:59:34
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6966|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Zefar wrote:

Seeing how Islam kinda like the beacon of intolerance against most things I don't really see this as a bad thing to do.

Islam demand respect but don't give any back. They always flare up once they are slightly insulted and A LOT of Muslims do this. They are fine with Freedom of Speech AS LONG as it doesn't put a negative view on their religion. Then it should be banned.
Among so many other things.

I'd be happy if Islam disappeared all together and I wouldn't shed a tear about it. Every other religion have made their peace while Islam is still fighting and claiming to be Religion of Peace.

But they voted for it right? So the majority won, big deal. Now all we need to do is stop making the Islamic laws get into Europe. In UK some have already gotten in and it's probably just the start.

We certainly don't need anything from Islam, we got the rules we need. We got our norms and holidays. What could Islam offer other than trouble? And a messed up religion.
Who gives a fuck, we live in civilised free societies and you are no person to judge whether a religion is 'worthy' of the freedoms the rest of us enjoy.
Uhhhhh yeah we are.

When that religion curtails the rights and freedoms of others, it matters. Again, if you want such a society, then move your ass to where it is practiced, and accepted.
So, in turn, we should curtail the rights and freedoms of those who follow that religion?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-12-02 18:00:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


That exists because the inequality in marriage rights exists. You remove hindrances to gay marriage and the boyfriend/girlfriend benefits crap goes away.

Ok, so the law is perfect and does not need changing? Are all laws this perfect or do many have flaws that require change over time?
Now, you are changing the subject, I never said the laws were perfect, nor did I say I agreed with them. That is a different matter all together.

I do maintain however, that under the law, we all have EXACTLY the same rights. Again except for the discrimination that I previously mentioned
So you agree that the law isn't perfect but you won't take the next logical step and admit that it is discriminatory?

Ok, is a marriage performed by a secular Justice of the Peace consecrated? Is it 'holy matrimony', or is it just a civil union?
I never said the law was perfect either, and I already shown that it is not discriminatory, you admitted that remember, "strictly speaking"?

All of the above, also tack on a ships captain, and Elvis in Las Vegas.
2009-12-02 18:02:40
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


Now, you are changing the subject, I never said the laws were perfect, nor did I say I agreed with them. That is a different matter all together.

I do maintain however, that under the law, we all have EXACTLY the same rights. Again except for the discrimination that I previously mentioned
So you agree that the law isn't perfect but you won't take the next logical step and admit that it is discriminatory?

Ok, is a marriage performed by a secular Justice of the Peace consecrated? Is it 'holy matrimony', or is it just a civil union?
I never said the law was perfect either, and I already shown that it is not discriminatory, you admitted that remember, "strictly speaking"?

All of the above, also tack on a ships captain, and Elvis in Las Vegas.
I edited. So even though those people performing the marriage ceremony are secular, you believe that god is working through them to consecrate the marriage? What would happen to a JotP, ships captain or Elvis if they performed a ceremony for a gay couple?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-02 18:08:20
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


So you agree that the law isn't perfect but you won't take the next logical step and admit that it is discriminatory?

Ok, is a marriage performed by a secular Justice of the Peace consecrated? Is it 'holy matrimony', or is it just a civil union?
I never said the law was perfect either, and I already shown that it is not discriminatory, you admitted that remember, "strictly speaking"?

All of the above, also tack on a ships captain, and Elvis in Las Vegas.
I edited. So even though those people performing the marriage ceremony are secular, you believe that god is working through them to consecrate the marriage? What would happen to a JotP, ships captain or Elvis if they performed a ceremony for a gay couple?
Actually, I have no idea what to believe, I do not know the truth, nor do I believe the truth is known by anyone alive either.

I am speaking of the laws of our society, and they are not discriminating in this matter, again, except for the example I gave.
2009-12-02 18:11:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:


Who gives a fuck, we live in civilised free societies and you are no person to judge whether a religion is 'worthy' of the freedoms the rest of us enjoy.
Uhhhhh yeah we are.

When that religion curtails the rights and freedoms of others, it matters. Again, if you want such a society, then move your ass to where it is practiced, and accepted.
So, in turn, we should curtail the rights and freedoms of those who follow that religion?
Nope, society should interfere with ANY religion that is intolerant toward others. Opinion does not matter, as in what Catholics think of homosexuals. Catholics are not acting on their opinions. Islam carries laws that curtails the rights and freedoms of others.
2009-12-02 18:12:16
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


I never said the law was perfect either, and I already shown that it is not discriminatory, you admitted that remember, "strictly speaking"?

All of the above, also tack on a ships captain, and Elvis in Las Vegas.
I edited. So even though those people performing the marriage ceremony are secular, you believe that god is working through them to consecrate the marriage? What would happen to a JotP, ships captain or Elvis if they performed a ceremony for a gay couple?
Actually, I have no idea what to believe, I do not know the truth, nor do I believe the truth is known by anyone alive either.

I am speaking of the laws of our society, and they are not discriminating in this matter, again, except for the example I gave.
They were only non-discriminatory in the very narrow way you presented them. You completely negated the sexual orientation of the people involved and used a very strict, very literal criteria to reaffirm marriage between a man and a woman. Who would benefit in a marriage where one of the members was gay? No one. It would be a false marriage from the start. Whether you want to admit it or not, preventing people from marrying based on the sexes involved is discriminatory.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-02 18:15:55
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:


Uhhhhh yeah we are.

When that religion curtails the rights and freedoms of others, it matters. Again, if you want such a society, then move your ass to where it is practiced, and accepted.
So, in turn, we should curtail the rights and freedoms of those who follow that religion?
Nope, society should interfere with ANY religion that is intolerant toward others. Opinion does not matter, as in what Catholics think of homosexuals. Catholics are not acting on their opinions. Islam carries laws that curtails the rights and freedoms of others.
WICHITA, Kan. — George Tiller, one of only a few doctors in the nation who performed abortions late in pregnancy, was shot to death here Sunday in the foyer of his longtime church as he handed out the church bulletin.

The authorities said they took a man into custody later in the day after pulling him over about 170 miles away on Interstate 35 near Kansas City. They said they expected to charge him with murder on Monday.
I guess this wasn't motivated by religion.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard