63 replies to this topic

[Mr Right Wing]

Br Cornelius, on 09 October 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

The majority simply don't care. The majority personally know a gay person and have empathy with their situation.

It is the minority who are not willing to accept gays as having equal rights - and it is the Conservative party and the Churches who are pandering to this dwindling minority.

Br Cornelius

You dont speak for all people you speak for yourself.

[Hasina]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 October 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

You dont speak for all people you speak for yourself.

No, but the polls pretty much do.

[Mr Right Wing]

Hasina, on 10 October 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

No, but the polls pretty much do.

Actually they dont

A couple of months back they polled Scotland over gay marriage and the vast majority of people rejected it. There was a debate on these forums about it if you want to search.

Its just that a high percentage of UMers seem to bat for the other team (or both! lol).

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 10 October 2012 - 11:39 AM.

[Hasina]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 October 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Actually they dont

A couple of months back they polled Scotland over gay marriage and the vast majority of people rejected it. There was a debate on these forums about it if you want to search.

Its just that a high percentage of UMers seem to bat for the other team (or both! lol).

Ah, right, Scotland, a very religious country. My apologies though, I was referring to here in the States. Miss reading on my part, gotta remind my self sometimes the world's not US-centric.

And hurhur, sexuality joke are always fresh.

[Mr Right Wing]

Hasina, on 10 October 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Ah, right, Scotland, a very religious country. My apologies though, I was referring to here in the States. Miss reading on my part, gotta remind my self sometimes the world's not US-centric.

And hurhur, sexuality joke are always fresh.

So you live in a fairly liberal state -
1. Would you agree with me if I said religion and homosexuality will always be in conflict with each other?
2. Would you agree that should either side ever get power they would be a threat to the other?

The motivation to close down Government would be different from each side -
1. Would you agree that the relgious would do it because homosexuality is a sin?
2. Would you agree that the homosexuals would do it out of fear over what the Church could do to them should they ever get power?

I personally think if there is going to be the seperation of Church from state there should be the seperation of alternative sexuality from state too as both are a threat to Democracy.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 10 October 2012 - 11:57 AM.

[Hasina]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 October 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

So you live in a fairly liberal state -
1. Would you agree with me if I said religion and homosexuality will always be in conflict with each other?
2. Would you agree that should either side ever get power they would be a threat to the other?

The motivation to close down Government would be different from each side -
1. Would you agree that the relgious would do it because homosexuality is a sin?
2. Would you agree that the homosexuals would do it out of fear over what the Church could do to them should they ever get power?

I personally think if there is going to be the seperation of Church from state there should be the seperation of sexuality from state too as both are a threat to Democracy.

1. I disagree
2. I disagree

1. I disagree
2. I disagree

Neither side would have the power to 'shut down the Government', that's just silly. And the 'separation of sexuality and state' is moronic, the state protects religious freedom, it should protect sexual freedoms (of course to a point, just like religions, you don't see human sacrifices going on because it's 'their religion'). Race should also be separate from state going by you're 'religion and sexuality are a danger to democracy', because people will vote in blocs because of their race. Let's also separate income level from state. Heck, let's separate everything from the government and make the government a computer.

[Mr Right Wing]

Hasina, on 10 October 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

1. I disagree
2. I disagree

1. I disagree
2. I disagree

Neither side would have the power to 'shut down the Government', that's just silly. And the 'separation of sexuality and state' is moronic, the state protects religious freedom, it should protect sexual freedoms (of course to a point, just like religions, you don't see human sacrifices going on because it's 'their religion'). Race should also be separate from state going by you're 'religion and sexuality are a danger to democracy', because people will vote in blocs because of their race. Let's also separate income level from state. Heck, let's separate everything from the government and make the government a computer.

1. Common sense and logic dictates reliigion and homosexuality are at odds with each other. History and the present stance from religious people in opposition to homosexuality show both are in conflict. To write 'I disagree' in dispite of this says to me you're biased. If thats wrong please tell me why.
2. Religious governments usually punish homosexuals with the death sentance so how are they not a threat? Many homosexuals are hysterical towards religion so how are they not a threat? Again with 'I disagree' I see 'I'm biased'. Again if thats wrong then please tell me why.
3. In Iran they've closed down Government to exclude liberals and they also execute gays. In Western History when the Catholic Church was powerful they did the same. Again I dont know how you can write 'I disagree'. There are a lot of religious people who want homosexuality stopped.
4. Come on you arent niave enough to belive that a theocratic state wouldnt come for the homosexuals should they get power. They'd do a lot of things you wouldnt like. Women would have few rights, men would be allowed to beat them, homosexuals would be dead, we'd take slaves from warfare, etc, etc. If you look at present religious states you can find many Muslim countries on this planet doing all of those things I just mentioned. We Christain countries only stopped doing it because when Napoleon conquered the Vatican it lost most of its power, land and influence.

I think checks and measures need to be put in place to stop a future homosexual or religious government trying to get the other side.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 10 October 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[None of the above]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 October 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Actually they dont

A couple of months back they polled Scotland over gay marriage and the vast majority of people rejected it. There was a debate on these forums about it if you want to search.

Its just that a high percentage of UMers seem to bat for the other team (or both! lol).

If you want to reference it then you should find the details, it's not up to us to help you make your points

[Cradle of Fish]

Mr Right Wing are you aware that the painter of the Sistine Chapel was probably a homosexual?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Cradle of Fish, on 10 October 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Mr Right Wing are you aware that the painter of the Sistine Chapel was probably a homosexual?

Not to mention Richard the Lionheart, and Alan Turing, who far from wanting to overthrow the State rendered immeasurable service to it, and in return was effectively murdered by the conservative elements in the State.

[Br Cornelius]

The very idea that a 10% minority is ever going to be in a position to persecute the remaining 90% majority shows a level of paranoia which borders on insanity. It also represents a total reversal of all human history up to this point.
However I have come to expect nothing less from Mr Right Wing and the Right in general.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Right Wing]

Cradle of Fish, on 10 October 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Mr Right Wing are you aware that the painter of the Sistine Chapel was probably a homosexual?

So -
1. I say I agree with the ex-Archbishops opinion.
2. I express why I think he's correct which is homosexality and religion being incompatable with each other.
3. Next thing I know, and because I dared to agree with his opinion, I'm being labelled a homophobe.

Charming

[Br Cornelius]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 October 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

So -
1. I say I agree with the ex-Archbishops opinion.
2. I express why I think he's correct which is homosexality and religion being incompatable with each other.
3. Next thing I know, and because I dared to agree with his opinion, I'm being labelled a homophobe.

Charming

You arguments are preposterous and you are a homophobe - you have proven that on numerous occasions.
The only reason that religion and homosexuality are currently at odds is because religion codifies ancient social morays. There is nothing inherently at odds between been a religious person and been a homosexual - apart from an outdated tradition.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Right Wing]

Br Cornelius, on 10 October 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

You arguments are preposterous and you are a homophobe - you have proven that on numerous occasions.
The only reason that religion and homosexuality are currently at odds is because religion codifies ancient social morays. There is nothing inherently at odds between been a religious person and been a homosexual - apart from an outdated tradition.

Br Cornelius

Outdated in your opinion but not for billions of other people on this planet.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 10 October 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[OverSword]

Hasina, on 09 October 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

They only dislike religion because it's demonized their lifestyle. Do gay people force you to be gay? No. Do religious folks force people to abide by their principles? For the most part, yes.

For the most part, no.  I'm religious, although I don't participate in organized religion and could care less what others choose to believe.  I live in the gayest nieghborhood in in the 2nd or 3rd gayest city in America and the Christian church 2 blocks from my apartment has a giant rainbow coloured banner stating "Come as you are. You are welcome here".  We're not all mormons or Jehova witnesess.