63 replies to this topic

[smurf0852]

Mr Right Wing, on 09 October 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

1. I agree.
2. From my online debating I think 80% of them actually believe all people are gay. They are unable to see that their sexual desire is different from that of a hetrosexual.
3. I agree.

The lifestyle choice of homosexuality is at odds with the one deemed acceptable by religion. Homosexuals know that religion is a threat to their existance and this is why I think the ex-Archbishop is correct. I believe that given the chance homosexuals would -

1. Close down government to protect themselves.
2. Promise not to violate anyone elses rights.
3. Try to 'educate' those against them.
4. When education fails then the violation of peoples rights would begin.
5. The first violation would be the labeling of those against them as 'bigots' or 'homophobes' (Hitler used the Star of David).
6. The second violation would be employment restrictions (Hitler stopped Jews being business owners).
7. These measures will fail to make people accept their lifestyle choice leading to the third violation which is 'correction' (prison sentences and brain washing)
8. When correct fails I believe genocide would begin whereby millions of people would simply 'disappear'.

are you insane or just pretending to be ?

[None of the above]

smurf0852, on 09 October 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

are you insane or just pretending to be ?

For quite a while I actually thought he was acting and this was all a plan to discredit the far right.
But I think he is genuine. A genuine Nazi of course.

By 'other peoples rights', he means the 'rights' of the bigotted to descriminate. Their 'right' to refuse service based on sexuality etc.
He feels that any legistlation protecting the rights of minorites that he personally disaproves of is tantermount to brainwashing.
He believes that 'religious freedom' is a charter for bigotry and intollerance.

[smurf0852]

Atlantia, on 09 October 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

For quite a while I actually thought he was acting and this was all a plan to discredit the far right.
But I think he is genuine. A genuine Nazi of course.

By 'other peoples rights', he means the 'rights' of the bigotted to descriminate. Their 'right' to refuse service based on sexuality etc.
He feels that any legistlation protecting the rights of minorites that he personally disaproves of is tantermount to brainwashing.
He believes that 'religious freedom' is a charter for bigotry and intollerance.

i really couldnt agree more with you however you know he will just see this as "lefties"ganging up on him dont you

[Professor Buzzkill]

Atlantia, on 09 October 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

For quite a while I actually thought he was acting and this was all a plan to discredit the far right.
But I think he is genuine. A genuine Nazi of course.

By 'other peoples rights', he means the 'rights' of the bigotted to descriminate. Their 'right' to refuse service based on sexuality etc.
He feels that any legistlation protecting the rights of minorites that he personally disaproves of is tantermount to brainwashing.
He believes that 'religious freedom' is a charter for bigotry and intollerance.

Who's rights take priority? A priest who's religion tells him that he cannot marry two men, or the two men who want to get married? Either way, human rights are breached

[Imaginarynumber1]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

Who's rights take priority? A priest who's religion tells him that he cannot marry two men, or the two men who want to get married? Either way, human rights are breached

Discrimination is not a right.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Imaginarynumber1, on 10 October 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

Discrimination is not a right.

Freedom of religion is

[Imaginarynumber1]

Mr Right Wing, on 09 October 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

The lifestyle choice of homosexuality

You have no clear understanding of biology, nor sex or gender roles.

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Freedom of religion is

But discrimination is not a protected right. Doesn't matter if it's a religious organization or a business.

Edit: It's not like religion hasn't changed its mind about thousands of other things over the course of history.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 10 October 2012 - 01:20 AM.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Imaginarynumber1, on 10 October 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

But discrimination is not a protected right. Doesn't matter if it's a religious organization or a business.

So you can alter someones religion to suit your own needs?

[Imaginarynumber1]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

So you can alter someones religion to suit your own needs?

Religion needs to do the altering, not me. The whole bible is against gays thing is a bunch of crap anyway.
No form of discrimination should be protected at all. If that means forcing churches to marry gays, then so be it. Gay people can be religious, too.

Edit: It is incredibly stupid and ignorant to discriminate against somebody because of biology.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 10 October 2012 - 01:24 AM.

[Hasina]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Freedom of religion is

So if I marry a fundamentalist Muslim, he should be allowed to beat me for going outside without an escort?

[Professor Buzzkill]

Imaginarynumber1, on 10 October 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

Religion needs to do the altering, not me. The whole bible is against gays thing is a bunch of crap anyway.
No form of discrimination should be protected at all. If that means forcing churches to marry gays, then so be it. Gay people can be religious, too.

Edit: It is incredibly stupid and ignorant to discriminate against somebody because of biology.

Not being a christian (or involved with any religion) this would not effect me in anyway. But on the one hand you are saying discrimination is wrong, on the other you are trying to tell people what their religion should say. It sounds very hypocritical.

Human rights have been set in law. Why change one at the expense of another?

If marriage has been the domain of religions, why get involved? Have something different and leave marriage to die the death it deserves as populations become less religious.

If you read back through this thread it is full of people stating that religions will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. In reality, this is incorrect, as any discrimination can be taken before a human rights tribunal.

Hasina, on 10 October 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

So if I marry a fundamentalist Muslim, he should be allowed to beat me for going outside without an escort?

If you want him to.

Do you want me to tell you how to wipe your bum as well? Maybe how to breathe?

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 10 October 2012 - 01:34 AM.

[Hasina]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

Not being a christian (or involved with any religion) this would not effect me in anyway. But one the one hand you are saying discrimination is wrong, on the other you are trying to tell people what their religion should say. It sounds very hypocritical.

Human rights have been set in law. Why change one at the expense of another?

If marriage has been the domain of religions, why get involved? Have something different and leave marriage to die the death it deserves as populations become less religious.

If you read back through this thread it is full of people stating that religions will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. In reality, this is incorrect, as any discrimination can be taken before a human rights tribunal.



If you want him to.

Do you want me to tell you how to wipe your bum as well? Maybe how to breathe?

Marriage is controlled by the state here in the US, yet everyone keeps hammering on about how it's a 'religious' thing. I don't want a religion dictating who can enter into a contractual agreement with each other, and who the bloody heck cares what it's called? Unless you're just looking for reasons to discriminate.

Plus, if marriage needs to be 'protected', stop allowing divorces, if they're entering into some vow with each other and their God, shouldn't it be all 'oh yeah, God wanted this so you guys have to stay together cause it says 'till death do us part.'' You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either marriage is special and needs to be protected at all costs, or it should be allowed for any free thinking adult to do so. A religion that says 'oh, just cause you do this in your bedroom God hates you,' is by no means a loving one. People who express these kinds of views are, sure, practicing religious freedom, but in a very poor manner of it that just makes religious freedom look dangerous.

Edit: Another view point would be segregated water fountains. 'Well, they can still drink out of a water fountain but not MY water fountain.'

Edited by Hasina, 10 October 2012 - 01:40 AM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Professor Buzzkill, on 10 October 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

If marriage has been the domain of religions, why get involved? Have something different and leave marriage to die the death it deserves as populations become less religious.

Marriage is a legal contract. Religion only provides a pointless ceremony.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Hasina, on 10 October 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

Marriage is controlled by the state here in the US, yet everyone keeps hammering on about how it's a 'religious' thing. I don't want a religion dictating who can enter into a contractual agreement with each other, and who the bloody heck cares what it's called? Unless you're just looking for reasons to discriminate.

Plus, if marriage needs to be 'protected', stop allowing divorces, if they're entering into some vow with each other and their God, shouldn't it be all 'oh yeah, God wanted this so you guys have to stay together cause it says 'till death do us part.'' You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either marriage is special and needs to be protected at all costs, or it should be allowed for any free thinking adult to do so. A religion that says 'oh, just cause you do this in your bedroom God hates you,' is by no means a loving one. People who express these kinds of views are, sure, practicing religious freedom, but in a very poor manner of it that just makes religious freedom look dangerous.

Edit: Another view point would be segregated water fountains. 'Well, they can still drink out of a water fountain but not MY water fountain.'

I'll lay my cards on the table here. I AM AGAINST MARRIAGE.

Now, why would i be in support of gay people doing something I'm against anyway?

I don't believe in a god that cares about everyone personally. I don't want to discriminate against homosexuals. All the gay marriage debate will do is cement religious people AGAINST homosexuals and created issues where there didn't need to be any.

If anything, my solution of civil unions (where there is a ceremony, but it doesn't have to be religious) will stop conflict not incite it.

I do not hold one human right over the others as you appear to be doing, as i hold them all in the same regard.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Imaginarynumber1, on 10 October 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

Marriage is a legal contract. Religion only provides a pointless ceremony.

I can't find any stats but i am almost certain that the vast majority of weddings are performed by a member of a religious organization (90-95% estimate). I am happy to change my opinion if you can enlighten me.