• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

I love when KB tells me that I am part of a small sliver of people who support gay marriage, and that my small sliver is mostly young and educated.

Uh, okay.
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
that is a tad intolerant
Click to expand...

I've never claimed to be "tolerant" in all things. Nor will I, because that would be bullshit.

but you are right
Click to expand...

In case anyone reading this still isn't sure what's important to me: Being right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Being tolerant to stupidity.

the Old Testament God is a major dick, kills his flocks with a flood, sticks a guy in a whale, burns cities with fire and brimstone, turned a woman into a pillar of salt, allows Lot to hammer his daughters etc.
Click to expand...

Which seems like a funny thing to be tolerant of really.

At least the New Testament is nicer.
Click to expand...

In places, yeah. It's a book with some issues of it's own. At least the philosophy of Christ is worth a read though.

Face it, religion isn't bad
Click to expand...

Uhhh...why isn't it? Any belief system that stops you from looking for answers to your own questions is contrary to the physical reality that humanity exists within. You either adapt and overcome as a species, or you die. Religion providing incorrect answers for problems the physical world presents us is absolutely a threat to the species in the long run.

There's a reason why the vast, vast majority of improvements humanity has ever seen in it's history was due to the application of the scientific method. There are no sacred questions when the world is viewed through it's lens.
 
Religion is there to give people hope and to allow mortals to face the fact that we are mortal. We are the only animals who know that one day we won't be here, that our parents won't always be there for us, that we won't always be there for our children. In order to compensate for that, we created the after life scenario and many hold to the belief that they will be there for their children later, that we will again see our parents etc.

That idea isn't bad. The organization of religion that you only get to the after life if you follow certain precepts and religions is the problem.
 
corksens said:
Okay. Compromise time.

We "let" gays marry (their loss anyways), but we don't force churches to marry same-sex couples. Further, gay rights parades are allowed to continue, but only women are allowed to wear assless chaps.

Rollerblades and waterguns for all.
Click to expand...

I would be more than a bit of a douche if I suggested that LGBT's have the inalienable right to marriage, but that churches are forced to marry them against the will of that church.

****, Churches could develop their own brand of marriage, and call it "Jesus Marriage" or some such, and not offer those to same sex couples....there is no way for the english language to properly convery how few ****s I would give.
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
Religion is there to give people hope and to allow mortals to face the fact that we are mortal. We are the only animals who know that one day we won't be here, that our parents won't always be there for us, that we won't always be there for our children. In order to compensate for that, we created the after life scenario and many hold to the belief that they will be there for their children later, that we will again see our parents etc.

That idea isn't bad. The organization of religion that you only get to the after life if you follow certain precepts and religions is the problem.
Click to expand...

Sure, but what you just described isn't really "religion".

re·li·gion
   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.


If what you described was what "religion" was, I would get on the band wagon of blaming organization of said religion for ruining it. But that just isn't the fact at all. Organization has simply made a bad idea worse.

If I was to somewhat bluntly summarize your statement above, I would call it wishful thinking from scared people. Not exactly the healthy roots of a societally unifying belief system.
 
I really have no problem with religion itself but I think a lot of people who say they are religious are ridiculously hypocritical and the total opposite of all the qualities of their Lord and Savior. Really annoying.
 
Leafovic said:
KB's version of morality:

Agree with me and you are moral.

People that are truly moral try to solve real life problems/moral issues..they accept the imperfections of human beings and try to help EVERYONE.

The real imperfection are human beings as a whole not what any individual person is.
Click to expand...
How is that any different than "agree with me or you are a bigot" position on social issues?
 
puckinA said:
Brian Burke tried to get Don Cherry fired? I missed that one!
Click to expand...

Says Cherry. Head of CBC Sports says otherwise:

Cherry opened the door over a week ago, when he accused Burke of going to CBC bosses to get him fired for criticism of the Leafs on Coach’s Corner. Burke has denied this and said he does not want to engage in any further feud with Cherry.

“I can’t speak (for Cherry), but I can say Brian Burke specifically told me: ‘I don’t want the guy fired.’ ” Jeffrey Orridge, head of CBC Sports, said in an interview on Sunday.

Orridge did not dispute what was reported in the Globe piece, but did want to clear the air on some points.
 
hockeylover said:
I really have no problem with religion itself but I think a lot of people who say they are religious are ridiculously hypocritical and the total opposite of all the qualities of their Lord and Savior. Really annoying.
Click to expand...

The values of the "Church" (I'm aware that they don't all agree, but for the sake of my point they can be considered a single monolith) have co opted the stated values of the religion, and it happened long ago. I've said it before numerous times....most Christians I've ever met simply aren't "Christ-Like" in the least. Most of them pick and choose what portions of their religion their listen to.
 
Hoss said:
heh... any money this man is snorting meth off a stiff cork (no offense to cork just didn't want to spell co*k)

[video=youtube;v085W58o7ng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=v085W58o7ng#![/video]
Click to expand...
You sonofabitch.
 
MindzEye said:
I would be more than a bit of a douche if I suggested that LGBT's have the inalienable right to marriage, but that churches are forced to marry them against the will of that church.

****, Churches could develop their own brand of marriage, and call it "Jesus Marriage" or some such, and not offer those to same sex couples....there is no way for the english language to properly convery how few ****s I would give.
Click to expand...
Can't we just call gay marriage "gay marriage".

Add an "and gay marriage" to all of our legal docs behind "marriage" and move on.
 
corksens said:
How is that any different than "agree with me or you are a bigot" position on social issues?
Click to expand...

It's not. They're both stupid. However, calling something bigoted because I disagree with it doesn't mean that it's not bigoted. If I made the argument that owning a black guy was wrong, obviously the opposing argument would be bigoted, whatever the justification is.

Frankly, when you're arguing against inclusion, against equal rights, it's hard to not tip toe into the realm of bigotry, whatever your personal motivation is.
 
corksens said:
Can't we just call gay marriage "gay marriage".

Add an "and gay marriage" to all of our legal docs behind "marriage" and move on.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand why it's a big deal if it's the same word. How does it affect your life to let them just call it marriage?
 
corksens said:
Can't we just call gay marriage "gay marriage".

Add an "and gay marriage" to all of our legal docs behind "marriage" and move on.
Click to expand...

Again, I give a **** what "you" call it. What my government calls it though....no, it should be no different in the eyes of my government. Should it be called "inter racial" marriage in our legal documents?
 
I think it's awesome when these anti-gay people turn out to have gay kids. Ie Dick Cheney

In fact Dick Cheney arrived at the "it's a state issue" before Obama.

[video=youtube_share;E5jefmsqBG8]http://youtu.be/E5jefmsqBG8[/video]
 
Last edited:
ACtually, he supports gay marriage it seems.

[video=youtube_share;Jrp3wihDrXQ]http://youtu.be/Jrp3wihDrXQ[/video]


I mean seriously..who would think that Dick Cheney would go so soft like this?
And this is exactly why the gay movement has been so succesful so fast, everyone knows someone that is gay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top