10 Aug 2007, 1:39 pm
10 Aug 2007, 1:39 pm
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
JoeCapricorn wrote:
Fifty pages...
And no one has presented any logical reason why gay marriage should be banned. No one has presented any logical reason why gay rights should be limited.
The closest is Ragtime's religious arguments, but in countries where religion does not dictate the law (The United States for example), that argument isn't even constitutional. (I.E. Banning gay marriage because it goes against the Bible violates freedom of religion and the establishment clause - there are even Christian churches that support gay marriage)
Otherwise every argument made against gay people has been easily debunked. 50 pages of all that.
And no one has presented any logical reason why gay marriage should be banned. No one has presented any logical reason why gay rights should be limited.
The closest is Ragtime's religious arguments, but in countries where religion does not dictate the law (The United States for example), that argument isn't even constitutional. (I.E. Banning gay marriage because it goes against the Bible violates freedom of religion and the establishment clause - there are even Christian churches that support gay marriage)
Otherwise every argument made against gay people has been easily debunked. 50 pages of all that.
Wow. An unconvincably biased person is still unconvinced that gay marriage is wrong.
Ya, that's pretty suprising, Joe.well when the opposing said cannot directly say WHY.... why should they suddenly switch?
we have provided lots of WHY NOTS (why homo. is not wrong)
but so far for why it's wrong... whe have:
cause god says so
Again, you can stop after reaching that reason, because for any true Christian, what God says goes, period. This thread solicited opinions on homosexuality. I gave mine, and explained why I am 100% against it. Now, if you don't respect God's authority, that's another issue altogether. The fact remains that I have given my answer regarding the issue. If you wish to disrespect God and my religion, that also makes no difference in the subject of this thread. Start another Christ-bashing thread if that's what you want to do.
Last edited by Ragtime on 10 Aug 2007, 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
10 Aug 2007, 1:40 pm
10 Aug 2007, 1:41 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
So nothing I could say will change your feelings, which you've let control your perception of reality.
Making assumptions about me again. That's not true at all. I can't believe I'm being criticised on my perception of reality by a Christian...
Gee, take your own advise:
Sopho wrote:
Making assumptions about me again.
You assume that because I'm a Christian I know nothing. That immediately weakens your credibility. For, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery is a conservative Christian who holds all my views, and has 11 earned degrees, including in law and human rights. He also pratices as a barrister in the U.K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warwick_Montgomery
But you would argue that, because he's a Christian, he must know little or nothing. How sad for you...
No I wasn't assuming you know nothing. When did I say that? You're making assumptions about me again. I know some Christians are intelligent people. I've even stated in this thread (I think it was this one anyway) that I find it hard to understand how intelligent people can believe this s**t. So you're wrong AGAIN.
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
10 Aug 2007, 1:43 pm
10 Aug 2007, 1:45 pm
10 Aug 2007, 1:46 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
We're unconvinced because you haven't provided any decent arguments in support of your position.
No, you decide by feelings rather than by truth.
That's not true actually. Even if I was straight I would have this exact same view.
Sopho wrote:
I arrived at this conclusion logically.
Impossible. Social issues are never strictly logical, but are open to a certain amount of subjective interpretation.
Sopho wrote:
It is discrimination. If you weren't allowed to marry anyone you would ever want to be with then I would think that was wrong as well.
Actually, you're quite selective in who people can marry, or what they can marry. Remember the Man-Boy Love Association argument? It's consensual, but you're against it. (And I'm definitely with you, on that.)
It's not consensual if it involves kids. Kids cannot consent technically.
Now look who's making assumptions about other people!
TheMachine1
Veteran
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.
10 Aug 2007, 1:47 pm
10 Aug 2007, 1:47 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
We're unconvinced because you haven't provided any decent arguments in support of your position.
No, you decide by feelings rather than by truth.
That's not true actually. Even if I was straight I would have this exact same view.
Sopho wrote:
I arrived at this conclusion logically.
Impossible. Social issues are never strictly logical, but are open to a certain amount of subjective interpretation.
Sopho wrote:
It is discrimination. If you weren't allowed to marry anyone you would ever want to be with then I would think that was wrong as well.
Actually, you're quite selective in who people can marry, or what they can marry. Remember the Man-Boy Love Association argument? It's consensual, but you're against it. (And I'm definitely with you, on that.)
It's not consensual if it involves kids. Kids cannot consent technically.
Now look who's making assumptions about other people!
What?
What assumptions am I making.
It's law. A child cannot consent to sex.
And even if they could, they're not legally old enough to enter into this kind of contract. That law applies to everyone.
10 Aug 2007, 1:48 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
So nothing I could say will change your feelings, which you've let control your perception of reality.
Making assumptions about me again. That's not true at all. I can't believe I'm being criticised on my perception of reality by a Christian...
Gee, take your own advise:
Sopho wrote:
Making assumptions about me again.
You assume that because I'm a Christian I know nothing. That immediately weakens your credibility. For, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery is a conservative Christian who holds all my views, and has 11 earned degrees, including in law and human rights. He also pratices as a barrister in the U.K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warwick_Montgomery
But you would argue that, because he's a Christian, he must know little or nothing. How sad for you...
No I wasn't assuming you know nothing. When did I say that? You're making assumptions about me again. I know some Christians are intelligent people. I've even stated in this thread (I think it was this one anyway) that I find it hard to understand how intelligent people can believe this sh**. So you're wrong AGAIN.
You believe Christians are deluded. That's what you wrote.
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
10 Aug 2007, 1:48 pm
Hadron wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Ok, the netherlands has a significantly higher rate of gay relationships than the UK. Now do you know what I am getting at?
They also have lower instances of teenage pregnancies and STDs among young people. We should be aiming for a society more like theirs if anything. And the economy there seems to be doing fine as well.
he's missing the key point that the age structure of countries is not directly linked to the proportion of the gay comunity... but has more to do with the size of families in straight relationships (and gay... they do adopt you know) and jobs available within that country.
even if everyone never had another kid, it'd take a while (i know he doesnt think so) to even put a dent in changing the age structure of any country.
it's a weak argument.... look at emmigration in those countries and you'll see that's more of an issue than immigration or whatevr he wants to say....
He doesn't seem to like immigration either.
I dont object to immigration per se, but i do when it gets to the rate we have it at. It is at the potentially destabilising level now, there is a limit to what the UK can cope with.
immigrants can have kids too (just like gay couples)......... so what's your beef?
it's when ppl leave the country to have kids eslsewhere that's more of a problem
That is the problem. Immigrants have kids faster than we do, within ghettos. Then we all sit down and wait for racial violence to start up.
so........ how can we tie your bigotry specifically into the topic of the thread? most immigrants are not homosexuals... and we've been through this one many times already
you could apply your theory to all of.... say india (minus the being due to imiigrants)
this issue then comes back to HAVING JOBS... which is why economics are sucking and you're looking for any excuse to blame for threatening your pension
10 Aug 2007, 1:49 pm
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
10 Aug 2007, 1:51 pm
10 Aug 2007, 1:53 pm
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
10 Aug 2007, 1:53 pm
10 Aug 2007, 1:56 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
We're unconvinced because you haven't provided any decent arguments in support of your position.
No, you decide by feelings rather than by truth.
That's not true actually. Even if I was straight I would have this exact same view.
Sopho wrote:
I arrived at this conclusion logically.
Impossible. Social issues are never strictly logical, but are open to a certain amount of subjective interpretation.
Sopho wrote:
It is discrimination. If you weren't allowed to marry anyone you would ever want to be with then I would think that was wrong as well.
Actually, you're quite selective in who people can marry, or what they can marry. Remember the Man-Boy Love Association argument? It's consensual, but you're against it. (And I'm definitely with you, on that.)
It's not consensual if it involves kids. Kids cannot consent technically.
Now look who's making assumptions about other people!
What?
What assumptions am I making.
It's law. A child cannot consent to sex.
And even if they could, they're not legally old enough to enter into this kind of contract. That law applies to everyone.
So does the law that only a man can marry a woman!
