To gay marriage backers:

Post Reply New Topic

Yes. Thank you for understanding. I've made it clear, or not so clear, that gay marriage is an oxymoron. There can be no such thing when marriage, despite modern belief, is a religios duty. Homosexuals who force themselves to be accepted over something seen completely incompatible are faced with a severe backlash, with accusations of bigotry and ignorance on both sides. I am somewhat sure that the many who are against gay marriage, would try to turn a blind-eye towards a "union" that isn't truly a married but meant to support gay monogamous couples.





A gay personal digital assistant? Is that what you are?

You atheists amuse me.

...Okay...so what's your point?

So what? I feel the same about Christianity. I'm accepting of Christians, though. I think that we've been victim of a confusion of definitions, here...

We are born different. We are born very nearly sexually undifferentiated, and human sexual dimorphism remains slight until adolescence kicks in.

They're not consciously attempting to mislead, though. They actually believe that they are members of the opposite sex. They see their sex change as a correction from deviancy, not as a deviancy. They consider their sex at birth an embarassing mistake.


In modern times, we have different ways of dealing with the problems that the old ways were intended to address. Modern liberalism is hardly a permissive doctrine. In fact, it entails highly strict standards of conduct.

Suit yourself. Most of them tend to be rather unpleasant, though. Consider Poland, though. Their economy isn't terrible, and their crime rates are relatively low in comparison to most extremely conservative cultures. They're still a recovering economy, though, so expect them to plateau within the next few years. Furthermore, they will not remain immune from the problems of urbanization for very long.

Last edited by Griff on 07 May 2008, 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1) My point is that I wont accept them, but I'm not going to go around harassing them. People seem to believe that if you don't accept or approve of another person, it means you hate them.

2) I couldn't care less what Christians think. That's the thing. I will never accept their ideology and beliefs. They wont accept mine. It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) make us enemies or bitter people in the end. I try to maintain this philosophy.

3) I'm aware they believe they're of the opposite sex, but you and I know it isn't true. I'm just much more unaccepting of the idea, while you are embracing.

4) The strict standards conflict with the strict standards of conservatism. I have no problem with liberalism if it is meant to advance and help people, but to let liberalism became a haven to what I, and many others, deem socially unacceptable is contrary to any liberal ideal I might have. Europe is very different. I wouldn't want to live in Europe.

5) Unpleasant in what sense? Wealth or happiness? I'm pretty bland. I like simple things. Austerity is beautiful in my world.

I would like to live in Saudi Arabia. I just find that the Salafis have erred in their interpretations. Dubai seems like a fine place. I wouldn't like to live in Latin America.

Again, you are misinterpreting liberalism. The ideas is to, exactly as you say, not go around harrassing people just because you disagree with them. It is all about coexistence.

What ARE your beliefs, anyway?

On the contrary, 1) I couldn't care less besides finding a sort of charm in its novelty, and 2) I think it's actually quite possible that transsexualism is rooted in central nervous system morphology, though I would need more data for this to be confirmed.

Conservatism has lost all sense of standards, though. They have abandoned most of their basic views, and they have mutated into what is nothing more than a political machine that is designed to get corrupted politicians elected into public office. They haven't stood for anything since we stopped giving a hoohah what the Puritans had to say about things. To be perfectly frank, though, I do see a great deal of merit in the original teachings of the Puritans. We may have erred in altogether abandoning some of them. As society progresses, by the way, we may well come back full-circle to some of them, only without the inherent problems entailed by foundationalism and dogmatism.

The transsexuals aren't doing anything socially unacceptable, though. They are generally keeping a very low profile, and they do little to stir up drama.

They're politically stable, though, and there is very little drama there.

My tastes tend toward austerity as well, but I am quite a big fan of social peace and political stability.

I agree with your view on the modern conservative movement. It's just another title for Evangelical Republican, and I sure as hell am neither.

Much of my "transphobia" if you can call it that stem from news stories I've heard or read. This isn't the greatest route to take in informing one's self but I don't visit "subculture enclaves" to gather information. There was even news of a man who went into a Catholic hospital to demand a breast augmentation, and sued them because he was denied. Why?

There is plenty of drama in Europe. Just look at France last year or two. How many riots were there?


To answer about my beliefs: I would describe it non-dualism; mystic.

This wouldn't be any good, either. Transsexuals are not necessarily interested in "subculture." A lot of these folk just want to complete their gender correction and be done with it.

The youths mostly just went around setting automobiles on fire, which is a common, if unlawful, symbol of protest. It doesn't concern me because I am a devoted cyclist, and I otherwise prefer public transportation.

Then atheists getting married should be illegal, too.

The fact is that marriage is, and has been for quite some time, a civil affair rather than a religious one. You can wave your hands however you want over whatever alter you want, but you can't do your taxes 'married filing jointly' until you've each signed the paper at the courthouse.

Inform me when an atheist has their rights performed by a priest.

Priests have nothing to do with it. Justices of the Peace perform marriages these days.

Yeah! And I'm not an atheist!

Such an event is not a true marriage.




Well, your statement said otherwise.

so you see a divide between 'legal' marriages and 'true' marriages?

What about marriages performed by ship captains?

Now, now. If you've read anything you know my position. Frankly, I couldn't care what you think of it. Feel free to ridicule it.

That was a stupid thing to say.

And you're stupid for saying it.

If she knew, she wouldn't be asking. You are assuming, perhaps, that you have been clearer than you were. You said:



Just out of curiosity, do you think that infertile people should be allowed to marry? Or that infertility is grounds for divorce? Do you think that old people past the fertile periods of their lives should be allowed to marry?

Don't get ole Osuria fired up again. I think he just wants to rant since that's all he's been doing in this whole loooooooong entire thread. Makes me wonder.