...*twitch*

[The BB of C offline]

Ah, the Emperor has no clothes. It's perfectly okay for people from the Church/Closed-Minded-Dom to say whatever they want about gay people, condemning them to hell, but the moment someone says something to call them out, it's a "low blow."

Dude, you just totally attacked a religion twice. That's what's low about what you said.

[YDV offline]

It's not really the religion itself I was attacking, it's the way its leaders choose to... go about the business of condemning things. But anyway, that's not where I was trying to go with this. So I shut up. ^-^...Why do I get the feeling this is how Voltaire felt? Not saying I'm anything like an Enlightenment thinker, but still he attacked the way religion at the time functioned and got beat up for it too.

[The BB of C offline]

Unintentionally or otherwise, Your De-Virtualization, that was an attack.

[YDV offline]

...Kay. That's what debators do. They attack things. Get used to it.

Are we just done here or what? xD;

[LadyChaos offline]

First off, a couple of slightly off-topic topics:

Ah, the Emperor has no clothes. It's perfectly okay for people from the Church/Closed-Minded-Dom to say whatever they want about gay people, condemning them to hell, but the moment someone says something to call them out, it's a "low blow."

Dude, you just totally attacked a religion twice. That's what's low about what you said.

What's so wrong about attacking a religion???


Also:

Hmm... this makes me think back to Checks and Balances in 8th grade... (damnit I knew I should've saved my binder! xD) Executive checks Legislative by vetoes. Legislative checks Executive by over...over... over something. And Judicial? Don't they judge the constitutionality of things?

Legislative checks Executive by over-running Executive vetoes. Also, Legislative can impeach Executive.

______________________


This amendment can never be passed, because ultimately it has to be ruled un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court, who has the ultimate say on these types of matters. It takes away people's rights, and that is un-Constitutional.

I hate that people can't get over what other people do with their own lives. Nevermind whether you think something is wrong/disgusting (although I don't get why people see love as "disgusting"...), it's other people. Gay people marrying do not effect straight couples. Their marriage doesn't make yours any less valid or "threaten" yours in any way. People just need to get over it and get used to the idea. Homosexuality is not something that's going to go away in our lifetimes, so everyone just needs to get over their opposition to it.

[. offline]

so long as where bashing christianity, I have only this to say: Backlash 2006

McMahonism Pwns.

[The BB of C offline]

Attacking a religion is one of the lowest things you can do in a debate or anything. I don't even dare get that low as to insult someone's religion or symbol. In a debate, go after your opponent's credibility, education, and oppinions. Not they're country, flag, religion. Because when you do that, you insult the person as the person that they are and not the debator that they are.

[GOGOLINIICHAN! offline]

Attacking a religion is one of the lowest things you can do in a debate or anything. I don't even dare get that low as to insult someone's religion or symbol. In a debate, go after your opponent's credibility, education, and oppinions. Not they're country, flag, religion. Because when you do that, you insult the person as the person that they are and not the debator that they are.

That sounds odd coming from you. Based on this opinion, I would say you'd consider attacking someone's sexual preference just as bad; but I don't think you do.

[. offline]

Play nice children!!!!

[Lani offline]

Attacking a religion is one of the lowest things you can do in a debate or anything. I don't even dare get that low as to insult someone's religion or symbol. In a debate, go after your opponent's credibility, education, and oppinions. Not they're country, flag, religion. Because when you do that, you insult the person as the person that they are and not the debator that they are.

That sounds odd coming from you. Based on this opinion, I would say you'd consider attacking someone's sexual preference just as bad; but I don't think you do.

Religion is something you can choose; sexuality is something you're born with.

[The BB of C offline]

Attacking a religion is one of the lowest things you can do in a debate or anything. I don't even dare get that low as to insult someone's religion or symbol. In a debate, go after your opponent's credibility, education, and oppinions. Not they're country, flag, religion. Because when you do that, you insult the person as the person that they are and not the debator that they are.

That sounds odd coming from you. Based on this opinion, I would say you'd consider attacking someone's sexual preference just as bad; but I don't think you do.

Wrong, I don't attack people's sexuality. I disagree with it. The only time I ever come close to "attacking" it is when I make a joke. When I joke, everyone can tell, and I say things that could make the type of person the joke is aimed at laugh.

[mooshie offline]

Attacking a religion is one of the lowest things you can do in a debate or anything. I don't even dare get that low as to insult someone's religion or symbol. In a debate, go after your opponent's credibility, education, and oppinions. Not they're country, flag, religion. Because when you do that, you insult the person as the person that they are and not the debator that they are.

I don't think anyone attacked a certain religion just the way it works and I would like to go a step further, the very concept of religion, instead of leaving descisions that we can make on our own, logically, we put our trust in something we don't know for sure exists, and the interpretation of this theoreticall thing through hallucinations, delirium, and old guys that rape little boys (okay the preist thing was a little bit over board) so why not make our own descisions, based on what we know, and not have to affirm that there is purpose in life by worshipping something that doesn't exist through the most ridiculous and asanine rituals possible, and don't try to turn this back on me, if you truly have faith in your religionl, go about wasting your time and demeaning yourself before something that is non-existant

[The BB of C offline]

Good, that's cool you think like that. Reguardless, when someone believes in something as complex as religion, to challenge it is just not a good thing to do. Even if I didn't practice a certain religion I would think that.
One more thing, just because someone is a Catholic priest, doesn't mean they're going to rape kids!

[mooshie offline]

Good, that's cool you think like that. Reguardless, when someone believes in something as complex as religion, to challenge it is just not a good thing to do. Even if I didn't practice a certain religion I would think that.
One more thing, just because someone is a Catholic priest, doesn't mean they're going to rape kids!

I know the priest thing is just a stereotype, but the not challenging religion thing, if something can't be challenged then the religion obviously can't stand up to logic and if something isn't logicall there's no reason to believe it, like, just because someone says that santa comes down the chimney every year doesn't mean it's true, and when you read a fantasy book just because it says that elves live in the forest, it doesn't mean it's true, now you might say that religion is different but it isn't, the bible is a fantasy book, and the "prophets" were just people that belonged in padded cells but people believed them because they were charismatic, and the bible is, in essence, a fantasy book the reason we know fantasy books aren't real is because the stories don't mesh with what we know about reality, but neither does the bible

[The BB of C offline]

Quite on the contrary, Mooshie. Many people have gone through the Bible. It does, in fact go along with secular history quite well. There is also plenty of logic in religion. I see the world very logically.

[mooshie offline]

Quite on the contrary, Mooshie. Many people have gone through the Bible. It does, in fact go along with secular history quite well. There is also plenty of logic in religion. I see the world very logically.

really it's logical that a mystical power that can't be proven even exists created the universe and sculpted the first human, comprised of a couble trillion atoms, out of clay, and that the second human was made of the first human's rib. And that this power that con't be proven even exists sent down angel's regularly in a time that has little or no records but now that we record history doesn't send down angels, and that this power is omnipotent, and omnicient, and yet does nothing to prevent people from dying, and that someone came back from the <i>dead</i>, and that this god loves every person, and yet will damn us to hell, and forces us to waste one day a week for fear of going to "hell"

[The BB of C offline]

Yes, that is a complicated piece of work right there. I have never read the Bible all of the way through. But I am told by dozens of people on both sides that if you read it all of the way through and pay attention, than everything is explained at one point or another. In other words, I'm not the person to explain to you why that is because I haven't read it and I don't remember my priest's explanation well enough. But I know for a fact that you can find a person who has and can and when they do, everything will click into place. Understand what I mean?

[mooshie offline]

Yes, that is a complicated piece of work right there. I have never read the Bible all of the way through. But I am told by dozens of people on both sides that if you read it all of the way through and pay attention, than everything is explained at one point or another. In other words, I'm not the person to explain to you why that is because I haven't read it and I don't remember my priest's explanation well enough. But I know for a fact that you can find a person who has and can and when they do, everything will click into place. Understand what I mean?

so what you're saying is that there is a logical argumant but that you don't know what it is and that it wasn't revealed to me in 8 years of going to sunday school (yes I used to be christian), or in other words that you say that there is a logical explanation because someone told you that and now, rather than questioning your belief you say that there is an explanation but that you forgot it, or maybe it doesn't make sense when you examine it, and only when you get caught up in a religious fervor with other unquestioning believers near you, all I'm saying is, don't believe anything just on what someone says, closely examine it and compare it to what you know about how the world works, and if it doesn't add up, don't believe in it, or to quote my dad

believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see

my dad believes in god by the way

[GOGOLINIICHAN! offline]

I think all religion is ridiculous. ^^;

All I've ever seen it do is cause wars, terrorism, discrimination, controversy, death, etc.

I think everyone should just have their own beliefs and practice them however they wish as long as they don't harm or disrupt others in the process. And that everyone should just respect each other instead of "converting;" but it's not like that will happen anytime soon. x)

[Shi_Min_Xi offline]

I think all religion is ridiculous. ^^;

All I've ever seen it do is cause wars, terrorism, discrimination, controversy, death, etc.

I think everyone should just have their own beliefs and practice them however they wish as long as they don't harm or disrupt others in the process. And that everyone should just respect each other instead of "converting;" but it's not like that will happen anytime soon. x)

So much to read and remember. Okay fine, so I did read through this whole thread...Just forgive me people if I forget what you guys said and stuff...

Though first I would like to appluad Linii, YDV, Lani, Chosen_One for their views and BBoC and mooshie in arguing so nicely...xDD

About the statement I quoted from Linii, I agree with that whole-heartly. Feel free to flame me off with this but check out WWII. Hitler was against Jews and only Jews (religion-wise I know he was against Gypsies and other minorities but let's just stick with Jews please?). If there were no such religion (not saying it's bad but hypothetically) then there wouldn't be the Holocaust or genocide now would there?

Anyways....

I don't see what the whole deal is. As I remember someone/or peoples saying...It's THEIR life, not yours (including the religion you/they practice). What happens to them doesn't affect you, however, if this law does/or does not get pass will affect them. And that's not cool. There is something somewhere stating that church and state be SEPARATE. Meaning, in deciding laws, government should not/can not pass stuff based off the Bible (or whatever the religion uses). It's clearly shown here that Bush is considering this AMENDMENT based of the Bible that gay marriages and homosexuality in it's entireity is just plain wrong. Why? Here's proof ('cause I feel like saying it)

From what I remember correctly here's how it goes.

Jesus is the son of God. Whatever Jesus did we should do. Jesus was not gay. Therefore we should not be gay.

I don't have a religion. I'll say that right up-front. My parents have placed chruch under very low priorities and they believe that there are other more important stuff to do first. So...I have never really been exposed to the Bible and all that relgion stuff. So I really don't see what's so wrong about homosexuality. Besides like Lani stated earlier, Religion is something you choose to be, sexuality is something you're born with. Is it really fair of us to pass a national law that denys the rights of human who can't help but to be homosexual/bisexual/transexual (I think I'm forgetting one....)? Anyways...[/end of rant]

[Lani offline]

Besides like Lani stated earlier, Religion is something you choose to be, sexuality is something you're born with.

Yeahyeahyeah. I remember when I was like five I was some hardcore Christian, and I got all offended when another girl said she didn't believe in God. If that happened NOW, I'd be like "...Cool. I'm Erynnist and Buddha's my homeboy." xD; See, you are mostly influenced by your parents' religion and your community and environment. I chose not to be religious, mostly because what Linii said - it causes too much unnecessary violence and stuff.

Lots of people want to DENY the fact that they're not straight, and either end up living in denial/in the closet all their lives, or settling for something less, like bi. Others embrace that fact and live happily with it. Others accept that fact, but hate it, and sometimes that can end up tragically. Like take for example: a hardcore Christian/very religious, very conservative man just doesn't wake up one morning deciding he likes men. It's in your genes, not like you can control it.

Lani's two cents, copters.

[mooshie offline]

Religion is something you choose to be, sexuality is something you're born with. Is it really fair of us to pass a national law that denys the rights of human who can't help but to be homosexual/bisexual/transexual (I think I'm forgetting one....)? Anyways...[/end of rant]

actually homosexuality is caused by an overabundance of testosterone for women, or estrogen for men, in the hypothalmus of the pregnant woman, whereas the amendment was caused by our president having diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain, and the thing about religion is that it's addictive, much like other, less detrimental habits, like crack-cocaine, and it ingrains itself into every aspect of the host's life, so I personally think that the president should be required to be at least an agnostic, if not, an aetheist, or even a nihilist (not a bad thing read about it here, but that's just me, and by the way none of the three options I posted in any way involve any sort of worship, much less of the devil contrary to what some christians will say

[YDV offline]

Religion is something you choose to be, sexuality is something you're born with. Is it really fair of us to pass a national law that denys the rights of human who can't help but to be homosexual/bisexual/transexual (I think I'm forgetting one....)? Anyways...[/end of rant]

actually homosexuality is caused by an overabundance of testosterone for women, or estrogen for men, in the hypothalmus of the pregnant woman, whereas the amendment was caused by our president having diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain, and the thing about religion is that it's addictive, much like other, less detrimental habits, like crack-cocaine, and it ingrains itself into every aspect of the host's life, so I personally think that the president should be required to be at least an agnostic, if not, an aetheist, or even a nihilist (not a bad thing read about it here, but that's just me, and by the way none of the three options I posted in any way involve any sort of worship, much less of the devil contrary to what some christians will say

...If you actually believe that the way someone loves is based off of... of... hormones and chemicals, then I'll be HAPPY to tell you exactly what you can do with all that dras. You can't define the heart by science, you know. It's like saying human beings are nothing but groups of organs working together in direction of their genes. Which, scientifically, is true, but it is not in any way what we truly are.

"Actually, homosexuality is caused by.." is like saying "People create art becuase of random firing off of synapses in their brains, which creates the illusion of imagination." Which, again, is preposterous.

I agree with Lani and SMX. Seriously, religion should not affect government at all. Especially when it goes as far as taking away basic human rights. And it's not like it's something you can control, anyway, and like I said before, who is the government to judge people worthy or unworthy of living their lives based off of an influence which isn't supposed to be influencing them in the first place?

I think all religion is ridiculous. ^^;

All I've ever seen it do is cause wars, terrorism, discrimination, controversy, death, etc.

I think everyone should just have their own beliefs and practice them however they wish as long as they don't harm or disrupt others in the process. And that everyone should just respect each other instead of "converting;" but it's not like that will happen anytime soon. x)

True. Kay, first thing in my new world order: Linii shall replace the Pope. xD;;

[GOGOLINIICHAN! offline]

True. Kay, first thing in my new world order: Linii shall replace the Pope. xD;;

Nyce. I get to be Pope. xDD;

About the whole homosexual people being born that way thing, I don't agree with it entirely. I think that some people may be born with certain chemicals or whatever that affect what gender they're attracted to, but that's mostly not it at all. People choose their sexuality, based on love or any of the other reasons people choose things, even for attention a lot too. I mean, that kind of stuff even happens with straight couples; going out with someone just because you think they're hot, to get attention, to just have a boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. Why shouldn't that apply to homosexual people too? They're still people who do those types of things.

Basically, IMO sexuality is chosen. Hopefully it's mostly based on love but unfortunately a lot of times it's also based on stupid reasons (for straight people as well, probably even moreso).

[MY85 offline]

Religion is something you choose to be

If your family's an atheist, because most religions have as a rule "preach and expand ____ to the world". So, I was raised by catholics and got to be baptized at 5 months of life. I jsut got stuck with it because... well, I don't know, but I would never do the whole "go once to La Meca" thing that Muslims do.
Religion... I would define it as a form of philosophy you want to preach, live, experience, etc.

Somehow, it's funny that we're talking about religion and the creator of this thread tried to force us to believe in a religion to worship the Admin. Erynnism is to me like McMahonism.

Basically, IMO sexuality is chosen. Hopefully it's mostly based on love but unfortunately a lot of times it's also based on stupid reasons (for straight people as well, probably even moreso).

You mean... sexual tendency? That's what we get to choose, not sexuality.

who is the government to judge people worthy or unworthy of living their lives based off of an influence which isn't supposed to be influencing them in the first place?

What would be a world without any kind of rules at all? Just think about it. BTW, who the hell proclaimed a random family as the royal Family of the UK, which cuurently goes with the Windsors? (Sorry for ignorance, but shouldn't a country choose who shall rule them instead of having a family that hands over the power between themselves?

There are many things one can do with their own lives... but some things need rules in order to get things progressing in a country, otherwise, chaos would reign.