Homosexuality

[Eevee]

Okay, I have to step into this old post to say something. I was raised Catholic and I will tell you right now my mom and sister are not, I repeat, not batshit insane.

then

why are they catholic

 

[J.T.]

Just because God can do something doesn't mean he will. I prefer the 'does not interfere' principle for the Christian God. (For the record, I'm agnostic about him.)

Surely if God cares about us as much as the Bible says he does, he'd be willing to step in and do a bit of fighting for the greater good, rather than standing back and watching his "beloved" creations go in a direction that a) he considers unbelievably horribly bad for who knows what reason (homosexuals, equal rights for women, etc.); b) threatens their life/happiness (plagues of disease, serial killers, natural disasters, etc.)

I don't actually think that homosexuals should be prevented from marrying.

Well that's good at least.

Although I thought you said--

Saying that, I think that perhaps gays shouldn't be allowed to get married

... what

because it will put them at risk from crazed fundamentalists. It's not safe, at least not in the conservative areas of the USA, for them to get married (although I doubt that it's very safe for them to even be out).

Okay, so it's for their safety. So should going outside be considered too dangerous? I mean, you might trip and break your neck, or get attacked by someone and raped/killed, and all sorts of bad things might happen to you!

People who are openly gay usually know that they're in danger from being mocked, ridiculed, discriminated against, and - in some parts of the world - killed. Gay marriage isn't all that much different either, I don't think.

 

[Valor]

Saying that, I think that perhaps gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because it will put them at risk from crazed fundamentalists. It's not safe, at least not in the conservative areas of the USA, for them to get married (although I doubt that it's very safe for them to even be out).

I think you should die.

What? It's obviously to protect you. The world is way too scary with all the murders and tortures and all that jazz. So, rather than have the possibility of you go through that, I should help you by killing you.

And that's exactly what you're saying.

 

[Shiny Grimer]

Surely if God cares about us as much as the Bible says he does, he'd be willing to step in and do a bit of fighting for the greater good, rather than standing back and watching his "beloved" creations go in a direction that a) he considers unbelievably horribly bad for who knows what reason (homosexuals, equal rights for women, etc.); b) threatens their life/happiness (plagues of disease, serial killers, natural disasters, etc.)

But then we wouldn't learn a lesson and there's no point in doing anything since big ol' God is gonna come from the sky and fix it for us! According to Christianity, God already interfered with the big flood and Jesus, and that's as much as he's gonna do. You can have the choice of obeying him or not; he's just going to wait until you die.

Try to think about this from the point of view of a religious person to see why those arguments never work.

because it will put them at risk from crazed fundamentalists. It's not safe, at least not in the conservative areas of the USA, for them to get married (although I doubt that it's very safe for them to even be out).

The japanese were put in internment camps during WWII for their own good, right? I mean, they were at risk of being attacked by patriots. They should be glad that they had to leave their homes and belongings behind - it was for the better good. Besides, one of them could have been a spy, and we couldn't let spies hurt the great US nation!

Well, that didn't work out so well, now did it? You're suggesting a similar thing.

 

[Music Dragon]

oh right so it's for our protection that we can't get married, i see. are you going to give us a curfew next? Voluntary housing in concentration camps?

We'd be safer there, you know.

Okay, so it's for their safety. So should going outside be considered too dangerous? I mean, you might trip and break your neck, or get attacked by someone and raped/killed, and all sorts of bad things might happen to you!

People who are openly gay usually know that they're in danger from being mocked, ridiculed, discriminated against, and - in some parts of the world - killed. Gay marriage isn't all that much different either, I don't think.

I think you should die.

What? It's obviously to protect you. The world is way too scary with all the murders and tortures and all that jazz. So, rather than have the possibility of you go through that, I should help you by killing you.

And that's exactly what you're saying.

The japanese were put in internment camps during WWII for their own good, right? I mean, they were at risk of being attacked by patriots. They should be glad that they had to leave their homes and belongings behind - it was for the better good. Besides, one of them could have been a spy, and we couldn't let spies hurt the great US nation!

Well, that didn't work out so well, now did it? You're suggesting a similar thing.

Hoohoo! Yes, we mustn't take away people's freedom "for their own good", I agree. And yet, we don't allow people to commit suicide, and those who are under-age can't drink alcohol or gamble, and we don't let raving psychotics go about their business as they please...

 

[Shiny Grimer]

Hoohoo! Yes, we mustn't take away people's freedom "for their own good", I agree. And yet, we don't allow people to commit suicide,

I personally think this is ridiculous since it's virtually impossible to enforce.

and those who are under-age can't drink alcohol or gamble,

True dat, dawg.

and we don't let raving psychotics go about their business as they please...

Isn't that to protect other people rather than the psychotics themselves?

 

[Music Dragon]

Isn't that to protect other people rather than the psychotics themselves?

Well, that may very well be true, depending on the person in question. But then there are also those kinds of psychotic people who are pretty harmless to everyone but themselves.

 

[ultraviolet]

Saying that, I think that perhaps gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because it will put them at risk from crazed fundamentalists. It's not safe, at least not in the conservative areas of the USA, for them to get married (although I doubt that it's very safe for them to even be out).

It's not safe for you to be religious, with all these anti-religious maniacs around. *shoves you in a church*


I think you've got the gist by now that you've said the wrong thing.

 

[Eevee]

Hoohoo! Yes, we mustn't take away people's freedom "for their own good", I agree. And yet, we don't allow people to commit suicide, and those who are under-age can't drink alcohol or gamble, and we don't let raving psychotics go about their business as they please...

Are you actually supporting a nanny state?

 

[Time Psyduck]

I wouldn't seriously argue that point, although you could just put up with it for like a year or so and then go to the UN and claim your human rights have been violated.
I don't advocate removing rights. Not granting a right that people didn't have before is a slightly different case, since all the people who never had the right managed to cope, but in most cases I am all for granting said rights. I know this doesn't make any sense.

Anyway it's the crazed fundamentalists who get the concentration camps, or rather 'Christian Living Zones,' so they are safe from all you 'sinful gays' trying to 'corrupt their society.'

Ahem.

I now draw your attention to my signature.

Thankyou for all your messages pointing out my error, however as you can see they were not required. Honestly, I don't care what people choose to do, unless it has a direct impact on me or any religion I follow.

Really I said the comment you all dislike so much as much as a joke as anything else. I think. I don't know - I'm crazy.

 

[Music Dragon]

Are you actually supporting a nanny state?

Well, no, not really. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not necessarily wrong to prevent people from acting as they please in order to protect them from themselves. Still, you have to draw the line somewhere. (But where?)

Ahem.

I now draw your attention to my signature.

Thankyou for all your messages pointing out my error, however as you can see they were not required. Honestly, I don't care what people choose to do, unless it has a direct impact on me or any religion I follow.

Really I said the comment you all dislike so much as much as a joke as anything else. I think. I don't know - I'm crazy.

I think it would be a great idea for you to think before you post. Simply putting a sentence in your signature that says "I'm crazy, don't take me seriously if we're in a debate" doesn't really excuse you, and it certainly doesn't make you look good.

 

[ultraviolet]

Really I said the comment you all dislike so much as much as a joke as anything else. I think. I don't know - I'm crazy.

As MD said so politely

stop posting unless you learn how to connect your brainsquish to your hands

seriously

You can't debate and then have a disclaimer under every post in case someone says you're wrong and you can't back it up. Don't start arguments and then add 'But not really, I didn't mean it'.

Grow some balls. >:|

 

[Tarvos]

then

why are they catholic

Eevee, most Catholics I know are baptised Catholics but don't really believe in much of anything and only adhere to those basic Jesus rules of "don't be a complete fucking twat to other people." I know that loads of Catholics are batshit insane about their religion, but I don't have any experience with those Catholics. My whole goddamn extended family is catholic and none of them are even remotely close to endorsing anything the Pope says.

Then maybe again that is because they rarely go to church and crap.

 

[Eevee]

I now draw your attention to my signature.

Really I said the comment you all dislike so much as much as a joke as anything else. I think. I don't know - I'm crazy.

Seconding the "grow some balls".

Well, no, not really. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not necessarily wrong to prevent people from acting as they please in order to protect them from themselves.

That's what a nanny state is.

Still, you have to draw the line somewhere. (But where?)

I draw it at people who fundamentally cannot be expected to be responsible for themselves, which is pretty much children (however you may want to define that) and the brain-damaged.

For the record I oppose suicide laws, seatbelt laws, drug laws, a drinking age over the age of majority, etc etc.

Eevee, most Catholics I know are baptised Catholics but don't really believe in much of anything and only adhere to those basic Jesus rules of "don't be a complete fucking twat to other people." I know that loads of Catholics are batshit insane about their religion, but I don't have any experience with those Catholics. My whole goddamn extended family is catholic and none of them are even remotely close to endorsing anything the Pope says.

Oh, okay.

So it's like how I'm in the KKK, but I don't actually hate black people or anything; it's just my whole family's in it so I thought I would adopt a label implying I believe something for the social aspect even though it's a total lie.

 

[Dannichu]

For the record I oppose ... seatbelt laws

Not wearing a seatbelt makes you a serious danger to people other than yourself.

 

[Eevee]

Elaborate?

 

[Dannichu]

Lots of people are killed every year by backseat passengers who aren't wearing seatbelts being flung forward in an accident/during a sudden breaking and seriously injuring/killing the person in front.

Like this.

Any loose objects in a car are dangerous (a friend of my parents' was paralysed after breaking harshly and being hit in the spine by a frozen turkey he'd put on his back seat), but fully-grown humans are deadly.

 

[Eevee]

Then if that's a concern for you, insist that everyone else in the car wear a seatbelt, or refuse to go with them (or at least refuse to sit up front). You have very simple and direct control over this.

 

[ultraviolet]

Then if that's a concern for you, insist that everyone else in the car wear a seatbelt, or refuse to go with them (or at least refuse to sit up front). You have very simple and direct control over this.

What reason is there not to wear one? It's not as if they're particularly restricting or annoying. Even if they are, surely it's better to wear them and put up with it rather than not wear one and probably seriously injure yourself and/or someone else.
Just curious. 8)

 

[#1 bro]

What reason is there not to wear one? It's not as if they're particularly restricting or annoying. Even if they are, surely it's better to wear them and put up with it rather than not wear one and probably seriously injure yourself and/or someone else.
Just curious. 8)

If you're a rebel