Zelda Moderated Message: |
Ok guys, we can all agree the Pig took it too far ok. But I am going to have to start deleting these posts now since it is technically against the rules. Just PM him this please. Same goes for replying to this criticism Pig, do it via PM. |
Since you've said that the Constitution is not a set of laws, I would like you to confirm on the record that soldiers can commandeer your home, you are not entitled to a trial if arrested, you can keep slaves, and the government can deny blacks and women from voting. Unless you meant to say that the constitution as a whole is "the law" but is composed of "a laws".
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf
ctrl+f "first amendment"
USA has always been majority Christian, this majority extends from general population, to gov't employees, senate, cabinet, at every level USA is Christian.
"In God We Trust" - does this ring in bells? It's only the official motto of the USA, and part of the lyrics of the national anthem, and printed on the currency.
USA is secular in name only, but it is and always was a Christian nation.
Oh, did Christianity only just start disliking gays?
Oh wait no, the USA only just changed the definition of marriage.
How about you take a more /realistic/ metaphor and say that you are against slavery, and suddenly the gov't institutes slavery and tells you it's your job to register people as slaves. Of course, it's the law so you have no qualms with doing this because as previously established, law = morality.
lol who said anything about taking a vacation.
What rights were they lacking then?
map
map2
1980
1990
2000
map3
We are talking about thought policing and legislating the likes and dislikes of people, whom I think should have the right to free thought.
Firstly gay marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum, everyone in the entire society is affected.
Secondly what we are talking about is the feelings of gays vs the feelings of Christians
Thirdly, just because something does "no harm" doesn't mean it does any good, and doesn't mean it should be allowed.
If you want to advance civilization and the world, then I don't think legalizing gay marriage would even make it on the top 1000 things to do, heck, it would be closer to the bottom of the list than the top. How exactly does it benefit civilization or the world at all? It's pointless on every level - apart from the "feelings of homosexuals who want to get married and liberals who want to showcase just how tolerant they are" level.
lol ok mate, fyi we are up 100% iPhone 6 ownership from a decade ago too. iPhone 6 inequality C O N F I R M E D.
That is just the ruling that states are required to distribute marriage licenses to same-sex couples and each judge's opinion on the ruling. I asked for the ruling that says Kim Davis is protected by the first amendment and allowed to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Sure it's always been majority Christian. But you seem to misunderstand what is meant by the phrase "Christian Nation". It means that the laws are tied to Christianity, and that there is no separation between the church and state. It would not be a conflict of interest to be a Cardinal and a judge. There would be a state religion. The government would be controlled by the church. Since none of these statements apply to US, you can agree that while the US is predominantly Christian, the nation itself is not. As for "In God We Trust", this is a trivial argument. The phrase is an expression of patriotism, it's not pushing any agenda on the population and is not coercive, and it doesn't elevate any religion above another.
Avoiding my point, I see. How about you actually answer me instead of questioning my choice of words, hmm?
For reference, here is a map of people that were allowed to marry someone of the same sex in 1950
map
And here is a map of the countries that allowed same-sex marriage in 1970
map2
1980
1990
2000
And finally, 2001
map3
Sure, people can think whatever they want. But their freedom of expression ends at the tip of their nose. They cannot impose their beliefs onto others just because they disagree. And for the record, doing a public speech on the street is not imposing beliefs. Anyone who is annoyed or disagrees with the speaker can avoid him.
I'd like some examples please. And "A Christian sees a gay couple holding hands at the grocery store and she is offended" is not an example.
Tip of your nose. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not invalidate marriage for religious people.
So your argument is that allowing gay marriage isn't a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either, so there's no reason for it to exist. I guess the same could be said about you. And Twinkies.
It's official. Pig doesn't care about the feelings of homosexuals.
And his stab at liberals tells us what party he's likely to vote for in the upcoming election.
Can you make that list for us? I just want to see what your top 1k are.
Religion hasn't exactly benefitted society for quite a while either. At one point, religion was the driving force in innovation and progression of society. But now it is a hindrance and attempts to create stagnation. By your logic, the first thing on your top 1k things to do to advance society should be to eliminate religion in its entirety.
That would have actually been a good parallel if the iPhone 6 existed ten years ago but no one bought it until recently.
It was so fuckin obvious someone explained/worded his "same sex marriage" point poorly and you clung to it for 8 fucking pages...
It always is possible to understand what someone means depending on the context, and reply accordingly to his/her idea even if the wording wasn't perfect, especially after 8 pages if you're not stupid af. This is an international community, english isn't everyone's mother tongue, and even anglophones make mistake.
I'm alright with arguing a point for the sake of arguing and pushing people to think, but destroying/trolling a whole discussion because you think it's funny to base your whole "position" on someone's formulation mistake, then I don't know why the fuck they allow you to speak on the discussion board in the first place.
Why do you think she wasn't thrown in jail? Because it was ruled that she had protection of the first amendment, I linked the full discourse so you could see yourself that the idea that the first amendment protects religious freedom is unanimous.
So not everyone can afford to take a vacation to Europe, but certainly I'm sure they can find a weekend off to visit Vermont or whatever. Look if you are so worried about vacations, then maybe you should save up, start a bank account and make sure to deposit just a small amount every week, it will add up in no time. You can always take cheap vacations to close by places or heck even have a vacation at home, read some books and drink some coffee, you don't always have to go over seas to relax.
Sorry to break it to you mate, but heterosexuals didn't have that right either.......................
What you said sounds fine, until you consider that you think "doing your job in a Christian compliant manor" is not OK. What exactly do you consider freedom to be? The freedom to think and say but never to act? Are churches an imposition on their neighbourhood? Is wearing regalia an imposition on the eye? Such a broad and non-specific statement is very troubling, and what it boils down to is a license to persecute.
Lol you do realize this thread started because someone was arrested for not complying with gay agenda?
No, as above, my argument is that it does harm, and that "just because something does 'no harm' doesn't mean it does any good, and doesn't mean it should be allowed".
As I said previously: "How about you take a more /realistic/ metaphor and say that you are against slavery, and suddenly the gov't institutes slavery and tells you it's your job to register people as slaves. Of course, it's the law so you have no qualms with doing this because as previously established, law = morality."
Oh wait, saying that appeasing homosexuals is NOT an efficient way to advance civilization is NOT the same as saying "I don't care about the feelings of gays". Shit, almost got sucked into the "Hawkes' Alternate Dimension" with that one. I felt my body turning to straw for a second before I snapped back!
Lol yeah because I'm totally American. America is the only country that exists, so of cour- Oh shit, almost got sucked in again!!!
By my logic? Sorry but how exactly does my logic lead to that conclusion? Is this more of the Hawkes' Alternate Dimension (now to be called HAD to save typing)? Saying that legalizing gay marriage is a very ineffective way to advance civilization somehow implies that removing religion is?
Sorry but I'm not going to fight that one lol, not even going to try and reply XD
Nonsense, just because the Netherlands had the iPhone 6 doesn't mean the rest of us did. You are talking about instantaneous globalculturaliPhone transfer here, it's just not possible.
I don't see it. Either I'm blind or you consolidated a couple of quotes and did a blanket answer for them. If you could quote that answer for me, it would be much appreciated.
Lol.
"A law" is not the same as "the law". "A law" is a rule, "the law" is a framework. This is a non-trivial difference.
She was put in jail. Or do you mean prison? Because there's a whole process that needs to happen in order to throw her in prison.
These links also show that the majority of the people in these positions are white. My god, WE'RE LIVING IN A WHITE NATION TOO. Just because the majority of the people that hold public office positions are a certain religion does not mean that the laws passed are privileging or empowering that religion. In reference to the Chaplain of the Senate, the constitutionality of it has been questioned. There are also guest chaplains that are usually different religions than just Christian or a denomination of it, which further enforces the fact that no religion is being shown favoritism.
Still avoiding the actual point that I was making and continuing to talk about vacations. You truly are a master debater. /s
The point is that heteros had the right to marry whoever they wanted, while homosexuals did not. And before you put up a strawman of "well then we should allow people to marry apples and dogs" Neither of those things have the ability to express consent or understand what marriage is. Now, if we could pick up the pace and invent those collars that the dogs in 'Up' wore, then I might consider it.
How would a church be imposing itself on the neighborhood in your example? Just trying to figure out what you mean by that so I can reply adequately. In reference to the rest of that, people can wear regalia because while other people can see it, it does not directly affect the people around them. It would be wrong if the royalty forced everyone around them to wear a specific type of clothes. Christians have no right to deny gay marriage, just as gays do not have the right to deny straight marriage.
The point that I was making was that a common argument that Christians use against gay marriage is that it somehow lessens the legitimacy of their own marriage.
"Gay marriage does harm." -ImmortalPig, 2015. If you could elaborate on that please. On the other side of the coin, if something doesn't do harm, then there's no reason for it to not be allowed, since it's not hurting anybody. Just because you don't think an issue is unimportant doesn't mean that it isn't. For the gay community, same-sex marriage is a very big deal, but giving churches another tax break isn't.
I still like my example better, but I wouldn't have a problem doing that job. Because while I myself wouldn't want to own slaves, it's not my job to tell them how to live their lives. If I was really against it, I would either quit or move to another position, and then protest or write letters to my senator in my free time.
Just because they're a part of a really old religion does not entitle them to make decisions that denies some people their rights.
No, I said that in response to you saying that it's "pointless on every level." Everything is pointless on some level or another, and making sure everyone has equal rights is hardly pointless on every level. Unless you want to live in a dictatorship.
I do not know what nationality you are, so I used your profile to make my best guess. Since your country code says US, I assumed that was right. I apologize that I offended your petite Australian or whatever feelings.
There never was a HAD, just you misunderstanding what I meant and a bit of me not fully explaining what I mean even though it would be really cool to be able to make a dimension that turns people into scarecrows I explained why it would conform to your logic in the sentence right before it.
And THAT would have made sense if only the Netherlands had gays before everyone else. In your analogy, the iPhone is gay people, and people owning it is marriage. But this is a weird argument that doesn't actually go anywhere because it stemmed from you being trolly.