but all of this is useless masturbation anyways, anything i say won't convince you, because you have your eyes firmly shut, feeling righteous in your cause, and that what you are offering is fair.
it's the same with my extended family, i was furious when they donated money to the yes on 8 campaign, but their church leaders sent down the command, and they, like a nice little flock, go and obey without thinking it out logically. but nothing i say will make them look at it with a fair even view, they are far too skewed.
it makes me very very sad.
That bolded phrase is an impossibility. :winky:
I personally don't feel like my eyes are shut. I am very much a free thinker (Philosophy major) and welcome any viewpoints. I don't think I have been unreasonable or illogical in my statements so I'm not sure why you are comparing me to sheep, but whatev. Regardless, thanks for the convo and for not getting pissed off. Most people just get all angry when having any sort of debate.
Of course you don't feel your eyes are shut. This is like Plato's cave. You don't know any better so you don't realise that what you see or think isn't at all rational or fair.
And you're obviously not a free thinker because you twist and turn in your logic to desparately cling to your backwards beliefs.
No offense intended.
According to you, my cave is my religion and the outside is the "real world"
According to me, your cave is this world and the outside is the truth I have learned through my religion.
So, right back at ya.
No offense intended.
Religion is not a cave. Religion is in the cave with you.
You are refusing to see MORE than just your religion. You do not need to abandon your religion to be open minded, you just need to be willing to see that there are other things that have the possibility of being true.
You can't call yourself open minded if you are in actuality closed off to the existence of an outside truth.
If God is eternal, he created us, and put us here for a reason, then all truth can be discovered or confirmed through Him. Its his game, afterall. So explain what you mean by "outside truth". Cuz thats not specific enough for me to fully follow.
And what if God isn't eternal?
The moment that you declare your "faith" to be "truth" you are closing your mind.
You CAN believe something without insisting to know it.
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
But it's a terrible example and unrealistic and thus you are dumb
You can't learn any truth through religious practice
Isn't that the whole point? Having faith?
What about the truth that you should love and accept others?
The truth that it is best to forgive and turn the other cheek?
The truth that all things are temporary?
That suffering could be overcome with love?
Or are you talking about a different definition of truth?
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
So you use a highly improbably example to prove your point. That makes sense. Here's another one: "What if 100% of the straight population decided they didn't want to have babies?"
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
Wow. It would be perfectly possible for society to function, and the birth rate could be maintained in any number of ways.
Two women is not the same as a man and a woman.
How enormously fucking insightful.
How you made the jump from "not equal qualitatively" to "not equitable" is way fucking beyond me.
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
Funny thing about homosexuality; it doesn't seem to be proportional to one's desire to have children.
I think if the world were chiefly homosexual, adaptations like large scale sperm banks and adoption centers would take place. The only change between then and now would be having children would be a much more conscious decision. No more 'mistakes' and births born of rape would all but disappear.
Really, why government has any control over marriage is beyond me.
Because it's a useful secular institution as well. We let people perform the religious ceremonies because it's their right to free exercise.
Then they get confused, thinking we're sanctioning their religious practices, and start demanding control of the secular institution, and then I have to explain the Establishment Clause again.
Yup. A religious marriage has no actual legal standing. You have to have a legal marriage liscence to get married, and you don't need an elaborate ceremony to get one.
The great irony of all of this is that Religions are actually free to perform Gay Marriages. There are liberal churches out there which will marry gay couples, and no amount of legislation could prevent that. All that the legislation has done is prevented human beings from having equal rights (before you respond, butters, sitting at the front of a bus isn't a civil right either, but that's the term we use) with absolutely NOTHING done to actually protect the word.
but all of this is useless masturbation anyways, anything i say won't convince you, because you have your eyes firmly shut, feeling righteous in your cause, and that what you are offering is fair.
it's the same with my extended family, i was furious when they donated money to the yes on 8 campaign, but their church leaders sent down the command, and they, like a nice little flock, go and obey without thinking it out logically. but nothing i say will make them look at it with a fair even view, they are far too skewed.
it makes me very very sad.
That bolded phrase is an impossibility. :winky:
I personally don't feel like my eyes are shut. I am very much a free thinker (Philosophy major) and welcome any viewpoints. I don't think I have been unreasonable or illogical in my statements so I'm not sure why you are comparing me to sheep, but whatev. Regardless, thanks for the convo and for not getting pissed off. Most people just get all angry when having any sort of debate.
Of course you don't feel your eyes are shut. This is like Plato's cave. You don't know any better so you don't realise that what you see or think isn't at all rational or fair.
And you're obviously not a free thinker because you twist and turn in your logic to desparately cling to your backwards beliefs.
No offense intended.
According to you, my cave is my religion and the outside is the "real world"
According to me, your cave is this world and the outside is the truth I have learned through my religion.
So, right back at ya.
No offense intended.
Religion is not a cave. Religion is in the cave with you.
You are refusing to see MORE than just your religion. You do not need to abandon your religion to be open minded, you just need to be willing to see that there are other things that have the possibility of being true.
You can't call yourself open minded if you are in actuality closed off to the existence of an outside truth.
If God is eternal, he created us, and put us here for a reason, then all truth can be discovered or confirmed through Him. Its his game, afterall. So explain what you mean by "outside truth". Cuz thats not specific enough for me to fully follow.
Or
Maybe
"He" put us here and endowed us with reason and compassion because we were meant to use it to examine the universe instead of burying our noses in one particular gospel and learning from nothing outside of a church setting.
My favorite gay republican is Bob Allen, the representative from Florida who tried to give a police officer a blowjob
Later, when asked why he did it, Allen said that fear made him do it.
Fear of black people, who apparently were "all over the place".
Man, I know that when I have to drive through inner city Baltimore I'm always thinking to myself "I hope a cop shows up, if things start to get bad, so I can blow him."
Evander on
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
My favorite gay republican is Bob Allen, the representative from Florida who tried to give a police officer a blowjob
Later, when asked why he did it, Allen said that fear made him do it.
Fear of black people, who apparently were "all over the place".
Man, I know that when I have to drive through inner city Baltimore I'm always thinking to myself "I hope a cop shows up, if things start to get bad, so I can blow him."
The best part is that Allen offered to pay the cop 20 bucks.
A blowjob AND cash from a state representative? Shit, now that's a bargain.
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
So you use a highly improbably example to prove your point. That makes sense. Here's another one: "What if 100% of the straight population decided they didn't want to have babies?"
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
So you use a highly improbably example to prove your point. That makes sense. Here's another one: "What if 100% of the straight population decided they didn't want to have babies?"
My favorite gay republican is Bob Allen, the representative from Florida who tried to give a police officer a blowjob
Later, when asked why he did it, Allen said that fear made him do it.
Fear of black people, who apparently were "all over the place".
Man, I know that when I have to drive through inner city Baltimore I'm always thinking to myself "I hope a cop shows up, if things start to get bad, so I can blow him."
The best part is that Allen offered to pay the cop 20 bucks.
A blowjob AND cash from a state representative? Shit, now that's a bargain.
Well, yeah.
Allen was practicing a new form of anti-prostitution, where you pay some one to get them off.
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
So you use a highly improbably example to prove your point. That makes sense. Here's another one: "What if 100% of the straight population decided they didn't want to have babies?"
My point is that straight couples are more valuable to society then gay couples. However I am starting to think that a small percentage of gay couples could have lots of benefits to society. Mostly for the adoption issue. People want their own blood to continue, so they have kids, gay couples don't have this option as readilly available as straight couples. That puts on high demands on adoption which would help out a lot.
You can't learn any truth through religious practice
Isn't that the whole point? Having faith?
What about the truth that you should love and accept others?
The truth that it is best to forgive and turn the other cheek?
The truth that all things are temporary?
That suffering could be overcome with love?
Or are you talking about a different definition of truth?
I am talking about truth in the sense of, you know, things that are quantifiably correct. What you've listed are beliefs. Noble beliefs, but you can't prove that they are true in the way that you can prove an object accelerates at 9.8 meters per second per second under the influence of Earth's gravity.
If you're deriving truth from religion, you're worshiping a textbook.
Tossrock on
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
My favorite gay republican is Bob Allen, the representative from Florida who tried to give a police officer a blowjob
Later, when asked why he did it, Allen said that fear made him do it.
Fear of black people, who apparently were "all over the place".
Man, I know that when I have to drive through inner city Baltimore I'm always thinking to myself "I hope a cop shows up, if things start to get bad, so I can blow him."
The best part is that Allen offered to pay the cop 20 bucks.
A blowjob AND cash from a state representative? Shit, now that's a bargain.
Well, yeah.
Allen was practicing a new form of anti-prostitution, where you pay some one to get them off.
"Lately I've been charging Brenna for sex."
"Oh yeah? How's that going?"
"I'm flat fucking broke"
Clint Eastwood on
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
So you use a highly improbably example to prove your point. That makes sense. Here's another one: "What if 100% of the straight population decided they didn't want to have babies?"
My point is that straight couples are more valuable to society then gay couples. However I am starting to think that a small percentage of gay couples could have lots of benefits to society. Mostly for the adoption issue. People want their own blood to continue, so they have kids, gay couples don't have this option as readilly available as straight couples. That puts on high demands on adoption which would help out a lot.
Jigrah, please.
As long as there is no HARM in gay marriage, it should be allowed.
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
So you use a highly improbably example to prove your point. That makes sense. Here's another one: "What if 100% of the straight population decided they didn't want to have babies?"
My point is that straight couples are more valuable to society then gay couples. However I am starting to think that a small percentage of gay couples could have lots of benefits to society. Mostly for the adoption issue. People want their own blood to continue, so they have kids, gay couples don't have this option as readilly available as straight couples. That puts on high demands on adoption which would help out a lot.
This is flat out not true. As I said, there has yet to be correlation between sexual preference and desire to raise children.
This country has a rather illustrious history of the majority acting on their ideals, which others recognized as immoral and eventually overturned.
If you're blind to history then I don't know what else to say to you.
It was a joke. I was sarcastically agreeing with the guy who said I don't actually know history because I'm mormon.
well, the mormon church does hide and bury it's history, but they can learn normal history just fine.
Actually, most historical records are held at the church offices in Salt Lake and any Joe Schmo can go and look at them. It's less hiding and more not talking about it. Because really who is going to go to the trouble?
yeah, but why not teach some of the full real history in those 3 hours of church i went to every sunday, and the many hours of youth group, or even in those hours of seminary. when i started studying on my own, my bishop scolded me for it and said it was best to not dig up the past and to just concern myself with having faith in the church leaders
i mean, i really would have loved to have been told about how a prophet is on record at a congressional hearing swearing that he has never received revelation from god, and that he was not chosen by god and that the apostles were also not chosen through revelation, and more. instead they teach the opposite of that! and those are all very important points to know
No church in its right mind would do something so foolish. That would only cause fear and distrust.
exactly, and therein lies the joke about hiding history.
we could also talk about how joseph smith gave the priesthood to black men and women, and the prophet after him took it away.
It's really more just a lack of desire by people to research and understand. Which is fine. They are happy people. Whatever.
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
So you use a highly improbably example to prove your point. That makes sense. Here's another one: "What if 100% of the straight population decided they didn't want to have babies?"
My point is that straight couples are more valuable to society then gay couples. However I am starting to think that a small percentage of gay couples could have lots of benefits to society. Mostly for the adoption issue. People want their own blood to continue, so they have kids, gay couples don't have this option as readilly available as straight couples. That puts on high demands on adoption which would help out a lot.
You can't learn any truth through religious practice
Isn't that the whole point? Having faith?
What about the truth that you should love and accept others?
The truth that it is best to forgive and turn the other cheek?
The truth that all things are temporary?
That suffering could be overcome with love?
Or are you talking about a different definition of truth?
I am talking about truth in the sense of, you know, things that are quantifiably correct. What you've listed are beliefs. Noble beliefs, but you can't prove that they are true in the way that you can prove an object accelerates at 9.8 meters per second per second under the influence of Earth's gravity.
If you're deriving truth from religion, you're worshiping a textbook.
I was legitimately asking.
Yes, if you are pulling what it says in your holy book out as empirical facts, you are a fucking toolbox who needs to shut up.
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
So you use a highly improbably example to prove your point. That makes sense. Here's another one: "What if 100% of the straight population decided they didn't want to have babies?"
What if 100% of the population was sterile.
THAT would be a serious issue.
ever read 'a handmaid's tale'?
really interesting read regarding near-universal in women sterility and how a religious extremist leadership dealt with it
Belruel on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Could our society survive if it was a complete 100% gay couple population?
Yes.
Gay people aren't infertile. They could still conceive children, either through arranged agreements or through artificial means.
But are you suggesting that gay is contagious? That allowing gay marriage means that everyone would become Gay?
If it was 100% gay population the birth rate would be tremendously low. Society would not function, it's possible but just no.
I was using the 100% to show value to society, not that it is contagious but to show they are not the same thing. People like to think they are, but they really are not.
So you use a highly improbably example to prove your point. That makes sense. Here's another one: "What if 100% of the straight population decided they didn't want to have babies?"
My point is that straight couples are more valuable to society then gay couples. However I am starting to think that a small percentage of gay couples could have lots of benefits to society. Mostly for the adoption issue. People want their own blood to continue, so they have kids, gay couples don't have this option as readilly available as straight couples. That puts on high demands on adoption which would help out a lot.
So wait, in the situation we are actually in, gay couples are of value to society?
Posts
And what if God isn't eternal?
The moment that you declare your "faith" to be "truth" you are closing your mind.
You CAN believe something without insisting to know it.
But it's a terrible example and unrealistic and thus you are dumb
heh heh heh
heh
ugh
i am intermittently, my attention span is really low right now. my body is saying it is tired, but my mind won't let me sleep, it is annoying.
What about the truth that you should love and accept others?
The truth that it is best to forgive and turn the other cheek?
The truth that all things are temporary?
That suffering could be overcome with love?
Or are you talking about a different definition of truth?
GoFund The Portland Trans Pride March, or Show It To People, or Else!
So you use a highly improbably example to prove your point. That makes sense. Here's another one: "What if 100% of the straight population decided they didn't want to have babies?"
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
i believe my advice in this situation is clear
Bel what are you reading now
Later, when asked why he did it, Allen said that fear made him do it.
Fear of black people, who apparently were "all over the place".
Wow. It would be perfectly possible for society to function, and the birth rate could be maintained in any number of ways.
Two women is not the same as a man and a woman.
How enormously fucking insightful.
How you made the jump from "not equal qualitatively" to "not equitable" is way fucking beyond me.
Funny thing about homosexuality; it doesn't seem to be proportional to one's desire to have children.
I think if the world were chiefly homosexual, adaptations like large scale sperm banks and adoption centers would take place. The only change between then and now would be having children would be a much more conscious decision. No more 'mistakes' and births born of rape would all but disappear.
just started runaways
also tehe ori
Yup. A religious marriage has no actual legal standing. You have to have a legal marriage liscence to get married, and you don't need an elaborate ceremony to get one.
The great irony of all of this is that Religions are actually free to perform Gay Marriages. There are liberal churches out there which will marry gay couples, and no amount of legislation could prevent that. All that the legislation has done is prevented human beings from having equal rights (before you respond, butters, sitting at the front of a bus isn't a civil right either, but that's the term we use) with absolutely NOTHING done to actually protect the word.
Or
Maybe
"He" put us here and endowed us with reason and compassion because we were meant to use it to examine the universe instead of burying our noses in one particular gospel and learning from nothing outside of a church setting.
Fucking homotextuals.
The first run is pretty good (Volumes 1-4, I think, of the digests or like 16 issues)
After that I stopped being able to care but the first arc of the relaunch was pretty cool with it's "teen hero support group"
Man, I know that when I have to drive through inner city Baltimore I'm always thinking to myself "I hope a cop shows up, if things start to get bad, so I can blow him."
A blowjob AND cash from a state representative? Shit, now that's a bargain.
What if 100% of the population was sterile.
THAT would be a serious issue.
Then we'd have to have gay marriage!
wait...
they sure were prompt in getting to the voting booths do you get me
Well, yeah.
Allen was practicing a new form of anti-prostitution, where you pay some one to get them off.
What were you seriously hoping for?
GoFund The Portland Trans Pride March, or Show It To People, or Else!
My point is that straight couples are more valuable to society then gay couples. However I am starting to think that a small percentage of gay couples could have lots of benefits to society. Mostly for the adoption issue. People want their own blood to continue, so they have kids, gay couples don't have this option as readilly available as straight couples. That puts on high demands on adoption which would help out a lot.
that must mean I'm right.
I'm going to get pizza to celebrate.
I am talking about truth in the sense of, you know, things that are quantifiably correct. What you've listed are beliefs. Noble beliefs, but you can't prove that they are true in the way that you can prove an object accelerates at 9.8 meters per second per second under the influence of Earth's gravity.
If you're deriving truth from religion, you're worshiping a textbook.
"Oh yeah? How's that going?"
"I'm flat fucking broke"
discussion about food? maybe starship troopers
from his previous track record?
locked in four pages
man when you make threads some are bound to crash and burn
Jigrah, please.
As long as there is no HARM in gay marriage, it should be allowed.
Debating HOW useful it is, is beyond the point.
This is flat out not true. As I said, there has yet to be correlation between sexual preference and desire to raise children.
It's really more just a lack of desire by people to research and understand. Which is fine. They are happy people. Whatever.
No. no they're not you twit.
That's our point.
NO ONE QUITS
I was legitimately asking.
Yes, if you are pulling what it says in your holy book out as empirical facts, you are a fucking toolbox who needs to shut up.
GoFund The Portland Trans Pride March, or Show It To People, or Else!
ever read 'a handmaid's tale'?
really interesting read regarding near-universal in women sterility and how a religious extremist leadership dealt with it
So wait, in the situation we are actually in, gay couples are of value to society?