Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2013, 08:29 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 07:57 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 07:55 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I think communism is a disaster at the level of the state, but works in communal organizations like a monastery or convent. My views about the world are wide open and based on the principle "it depends". What is evil in one situation is good in another. I don't like polygamy(although I don't believe there should be laws forbidding it - I don't like to legislate my views on others as so many of you in this forum would choose to do), but in the space ship/doomed earth scenario, polygamy would be good.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said Shocking

What is the best social hierarchy? Well it depends. I'm not narrow minded...far from it. My views are open and rational. Suppose the ship taking earthings away from the doomed earth carried 3 billion people. I wouldn't give a second thought to including gays.

I think you guys are narrow minded actually. You think Homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality simply because that is the egalitarian view. You would allow gays onto the ship even if it could only hold 2 people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 08:42 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 08:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I never said homosexuals were lessor human beings. Your making this up in lieu of a compelling counter argument.
I said there is a rational reason to hold homosexuality with less regard(as compared to heterosexuality).

Really. Dodgy How, exactly, do you separate the attribute from the individual in this 'less regard' viewpoint? They're a package deal. The legislation based on sexuality affects the person, not the attribute. The church doctrine and psychological battering affects the person, not the attribute. You're now trying to walk the line of being against the sexuality but somehow supporting the individual. That doesn't work; it simply shows me you know what you're doing is wrong and you're trying to find a way to make it work without looking like an asshole.

So homosexuals are not lesser beings? You view and treat them equally? You don't deny them the same rights heteros are allowed? You vote in support of gay marriage (completely harmless to you) and you support gay adoption? These are not viewpoints you have previously expressed. Remember, these decisions affect PEOPLE. Not their sexuality. The PEOPLE are the victims of this discrimination.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
18-10-2013, 08:46 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 08:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You would allow gays onto the ship even if it could only hold 2 people.

If the ship only had two seats I'd say to you "Enjoy the extra leg room."

Trolls... In... Spaaaaaace!

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
18-10-2013, 08:49 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 02:57 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  Is there any specific reason as to why homosexuality is immoral other than "because the bible says so"? What harm does it do to society? Is it based in promiscuity/fornication? In which case, if homosexuals got married, and committed themselves to a monogomous relationship, is the marriage bed then undefiled? [/b]

If everyone on the planet suddenly became black, it wouldn't be catastrophic. If everyone on this planet suddenly became heterosexual, it wouldn't be catastrophic. However if everyone on the planet suddenly became homosexual, it would be catastrophic.

It is good for society if homosexuality isn't prevalent.

Are you implying that if everyone is homosexual, humanity would be doomed?


You do realize there is a thing as ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION, right? So, your "argument" doesn't even make fucking sense.

Homosexuals can reproduce, they just don't want to do it via heterosexual intercouse. If everyone turned gay, I think humanity would still manage to survive.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
18-10-2013, 08:56 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 08:49 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If everyone on the planet suddenly became black, it wouldn't be catastrophic. If everyone on this planet suddenly became heterosexual, it wouldn't be catastrophic. However if everyone on the planet suddenly became homosexual, it would be catastrophic.

It is good for society if homosexuality isn't prevalent.

Are you implying that if everyone is homosexual, humanity would be doomed?

You do realize there is a thing as ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION, right? So, your "argument" doesn't even make fucking sense.

Homosexuals can reproduce, they just don't want to do it via heterosexual intercouse. If everyone turned gay, I think humanity would still manage to survive.

Actually it does mean humanity would be doomed.
If everyone was fabulous, the universe would have no structure.
It would be chaos. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 09:24 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 08:42 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  So homosexuals are not lesser beings? You view and treat them equally? You don't deny them the same rights heteros are allowed? You vote in support of gay marriage (completely harmless to you) and you support gay adoption? These are not viewpoints you have previously expressed. Remember, these decisions affect PEOPLE. Not their sexuality. The PEOPLE are the victims of this discrimination.

George and Martha Washington didn't need a marriage license so neither should anyone else. The state shouldn't be involved in marriages.....heterosexual or homosexual or polygamous. Why should I need the permission of the state to marry someone?

I wouldn't ban gay parents from adopting, but adoption agencies shouldn't be forced to help gay couples obtain an adoption. Passing laws to force adoption agencies to help gays find children is legislating beliefs onto others. There are certainly enough gays to start their own adoption agency, they don't need to force their beliefs on others and make them do it.

That kind of bigotry is okay though cause its the right thing to do....right? Wrong. Let people be free to operate under their own belief systems. This whole its okay to believe what you want is long as you conform to what we tell you is right is just too Orwellian for me. Where is the value in being an individual if you can't operate on your individual beliefs?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 08:49 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If everyone on the planet suddenly became black, it wouldn't be catastrophic. If everyone on this planet suddenly became heterosexual, it wouldn't be catastrophic. However if everyone on the planet suddenly became homosexual, it would be catastrophic.

It is good for society if homosexuality isn't prevalent.

Are you implying that if everyone is homosexual, humanity would be doomed?


You do realize there is a thing as ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION, right? So, your "argument" doesn't even make fucking sense.

Homosexuals can reproduce, they just don't want to do it via heterosexual intercouse. If everyone turned gay, I think humanity would still manage to survive.

I'm sure it would, but I imagine you would have to force or pay women to become pregnant otherwise the fertility rate wouldn't be nearly enough to support a stable population. If everyone suddenly turned heterosexual, you wouldn't need to employ these draconian population life support measures.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 09:33 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 09:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The state shouldn't be involved in marriages.....heterosexual or homosexual or polygamous. Why should I need the permission of the state to marry someone?

Because the state grants legal rights that are associated with it. You want to give all those up ? The state should do civil unions, nothing else. The rest can be left to the churches.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2013, 09:50 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 09:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 08:49 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Are you implying that if everyone is homosexual, humanity would be doomed?


You do realize there is a thing as ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION, right? So, your "argument" doesn't even make fucking sense.

Homosexuals can reproduce, they just don't want to do it via heterosexual intercouse. If everyone turned gay, I think humanity would still manage to survive.

I'm sure it would, but I imagine you would have to force or pay women to become pregnant otherwise the fertility rate wouldn't be nearly enough to support a stable population. If everyone suddenly turned heterosexual, you wouldn't need to employ these draconian population life support measures.

Why would we possibly want to maintain the population we currently have? There is no need for many humans, there is no need to force women to birth babies left and right. I think a decreased human population is preferable, just not forcibly decreased by genocide or the taking of a persons life.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 09:52 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 09:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 09:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The state shouldn't be involved in marriages.....heterosexual or homosexual or polygamous. Why should I need the permission of the state to marry someone?

Because the state grants legal rights that are associated with it. You want to give all those up ? The state should do civil unions, nothing else. The rest can be left to the churches.

Sure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: