Christians suck; world still turns

[Zephyrus]

IE locked up while trying to edit it, earlier post is edited for more clarity.
So what if it's a fucking predisposition? As I put in the edit, it is still a fundamentally self defeating predisposition on any level.
Even if you may be "pre-disposed" to something, you still have a choice to go with it or not.

That's a stupid argument. Being homosexual is just as counterproductive to procreation as being straight yet not choosing to have children. So shouldn't the latter be just as wrong? Not at all. We've gotten to the point that the continuation of our species is threatened more by nuclear war than by the prospect of less people having children.

 

[AchrisK]

The point of those parades and shit is to make a deal out of it, to cause controversy, to get them equal rights. The fact that you find homosexuality to be a choice shows only that you ignore all of the psychological and biological research that has been proving otherwise.

Is it not true that certain psychological and biological conditions and differences can be the result of certain behavior, rather than necessarily being a pre-existent cause to that behavior?

I am not saying there is nothing that might predispose someone to homosexuality, but research done on homosexuals cannot be trusted to know the difference between that which results from, and that which causes.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm sure if I wanted to I could pick holes in the constitution you were 'founded on' just as easily.

So how should it be rewritten for our own time?

You all need to keep in mind two things about the Constitution:

1) It relies on interpretation to fill in the cases it doesn't address (hint: this is the purpose of the Supreme Court).

2) It's supposed to be difficult to change the Constitution. If it weren't, we'd have a lot more detrimental laws being made in times of panic. Our government was designed to make the Constitution fairly immutable.

Ferretallica, if you can get these points through your head there would be no need for this ridiculous discussion of how many "holes" there are in the Constitution.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

So, itt Dakryn is a faggot and I'm deleting his shitty irrelevant red herring posts

 

[Dak]

So, itt Dakryn is a faggot

Giving up on the attempted pseudo-intellectualism and going straight to personal attacks? Brilliant.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Is it not true that certain psychological and biological conditions and differences can be the result of certain behavior, rather than necessarily being a pre-existent cause to that behavior?

I am not saying there is nothing that might predispose someone to homosexuality, but research done on homosexuals cannot be trusted to know the difference between that which results from, and that which causes.

I'm pretty sure we can assume that there are enough inherently homosexual people out there to warrant giving homosexuals rights equal to heterosexuals. There's no need to turn this into a question of whether some homosexuals choose to be so, because that misses the point entirely.

 

[Dak]

If you are going to base rules for society on how many people want to do something than why have any rules at all? Great idea. Ill be hiding out in the middle of nowhere while everyone kills each other within a couple of years.

 

[chuj666]

So I guess we have lowered ourselves to the fundamental islamic countries wher religion and politics are entwined.

 

[AchrisK]

So, itt Dakryn is a faggot and I'm deleting his shitty irrelevant red herring posts

That's chicken-shit, dude.

Weakness.

I am truly surprised, but I guess it is par for the current course...

 

[AchrisK]

I'm pretty sure we can assume that there are enough inherently homosexual people out there to warrant giving homosexuals rights equal to heterosexuals. There's no need to turn this into a question of whether some homosexuals choose to be so, because that misses the point entirely.

No. There are a lot of murderers too. A lot of people are sexually aroused by children. No.

...and you say "inherently" homosexual, but that is part of the point that was being discussed.

And don't accuse me of equating homosexuality to murder. It's the logic that I am pointing out.

I am all for people being viewed as equal, based on being humans.

 

[Dak]

So, itt Dakryn is a faggot and I'm deleting his shitty irrelevant red herring posts

George W would be proud. Now you just need to put me on the axis of evil and declare me a sponser of terrorism unless I halt my posting program and allow moderators to inspect all my opinions.

 

[Crimson Velvet]

The point of those parades and shit is to make a deal out of it, to cause controversy, to get them equal rights. The fact that you find homosexuality to be a choice shows only that you ignore all of the psychological and biological research that has been proving otherwise.

Some just are that way. Some, perhaps, choose it. Does it really make a difference? They still are what they are.

EDIT: Woah, that actually turned into a debate. What a waste of internet-space...

 

[Mort Divine]

The fact that it's a biological/psychological predisposition should further substantiate it's need to be tolerated and accepted.

I am for the acceptance of it, I think you misunderstood my response to CV.

 

[cookiecutter]

No one has freedom from religion in this country. You have the right to choose which religion to practice (and that includes no religion), but you can't "free" yourself from the influence of other religions, if that's what you mean. It's a real fine line we're debating here, because in a sense the separation of Church and State implies a certain freedom "from" religion; but that's not the case. The separation of Church and State encourages the freedom to choose your religion, because if the two were merged we would be faced with the issue of discrimination among the political system (as we truly already are; I don't think Muslims enjoy much love from our current president). If I'm not misunderstanding what everyone is saying, I believe that because of the simple right of freedom of religion (and speech), we can never be free "from" religion. We will always have its influence upon us, but we have the choice to recognize and shun that influence (if even possible). Personally, I think this country fails considerably when it comes to separation of Church and State.

You and seemingly everyone besides V5 and Dodens misunderstand what freedom from religion means. I said it earlier but apparently everyone ignored me. It means that the government cannot pass laws, arrest people, set tax rates or whatever they do based on religion. This should mean that, to use the running example, it can't discriminate against homosexuals since the only reason to do is because Christianity (and other religions but mainly Christianity in North America) has helped perpetuate bigotry towards them. Dodens also articulated this point very well:

Freedom "from" religion means freedom from government subjection of religious doctrine, not an air-tight, Jeebus-free zone. Nobody said it always works out in practice either. When the Constitution talks of freedom of this and freedom from that, it's talking about the government's obligation to its people, not the people's and other organizations' obligations to each other.

FerretallcA don't seem to know what they're talking about but I doubt you Einherjar would disagree with this.

On the topic of homosexuality: the basis for it, while interesting, is irrelevant to the question of whether they should have equal rights. They are human beings who are not doing anything wrong*. Therefore they should have equal rights. This seems obvious to me.

*Despite what some primitive middle eastern tribes said millenia ago, two men "knowing" one another is not a bad thing.

 

[seedofvengeance]

This thread has gotten retarded. I don't even think half of you know what point you're trying to make, you're just arguing to be arguing.
Is there somebody actually arguing against the separation of church and state? Or in other words, religious freedom?
That's just pure stupidity, Christian or not.

 

[AchrisK]

...
FerretallcA and AchrisK don't seem to know what they're talking about but I doubt you Einherjar would disagree with this.
...
On the topic of homosexuality: the basis for it, while interesting, is irrelevant to the question of whether they should have equal rights. They are human beings who are not doing anything wrong*. Therefore they should have equal rights. This seems obvious to me.

Be sure to read me before judging me. I have only made a one post on the topic, a couple on the poor level of "discussion" displayed by some people, and a little bit on cause vs result in homosexuals.

I also said that people should be treated equal based on being people.

 

[cookiecutter]

I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea, but it seems FerretallicAthink it can be interpreted as Christians being free to enshrine their views based solely on religion into law.

EDIT: I included you because I thought you were supporting FerretallicA and your usual ideas from past threads. I will remove your name though because you're right, you haven't said what I attributed to you and that is unfair.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Dakryn: I deleted your stupid posts because they're ignorant and almost completely irrelevant.

 

[Dak]

Ignorance and irrelevance are purely your opinions. The fact that you find my opinions ignorant leads me to believe the same about yours. So who gets to decide true ignorance? Ah yes, the one with the "power".

 

[cookiecutter]

Fight the power! Workers of the world unite! We have nothing to lose but out chains!