NationStates Jolt Archive

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-19-03.gif
This is seriously something I've never understood. How is it people make this leap, in their minds, from basic civil rights for gay people, to the downfall of society? How is it that some people can actually feel victimised by the fact that another group is gaining some ground, at no detriment to them? Why is it that gays are so terrible to some people that they feel threatened if they are given the rights accorded to every other citizen of their country?

How is it people make this leap, in their minds, from basic civil rights for gay people, to the downfall of society?

Gay marriage would be like putting hot sex oil on the slippery slope of society's genitals.

You have obviously never been anywhere near a fundamentalist church in the deep south.

I'd put on my best southern drawl for you all, but unfortunately it doesn't translate across the net; probably for the best since I haven't lived there since I was a kid and so my accent has all but disappeared...

"Them homo's is a abomination in the eyze uh God. We shuld hang evry last one uh dem."


The above is something that you could hear in a church pew if you go far enough inland.



And as far as several Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Presbyterian, etc. sects are concerned homosexuality is a sin...


Remember there are a significant number of people out there who actually believe that religion = morality, and thus "legalizing" homosexuality constitutes an acceptance of immorality into the law.

NT

You have obviously never been anywhere near a fundamentalist church in the deep south.

I'd put on my best southern drawl for you all, but unfortunately it doesn't translate across the net; probably for the best since I haven't lived there since I was a kid and so my accent has all but disappeared...

"Them homo's is a abomination in the eyze uh God. We shuld hang evry last one uh dem."


The above is something that you could hear in a church pew if you go far enough inland.



And as far as several Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Presbyterian, etc. sects are concerned homosexuality is a sin...


Remember there are a significant number of people out there who actually believe that religion = morality, and thus "legalizing" homosexuality constitutes an acceptance of immorality into the law.

NT
But shouldn't legalizing, say, alchohol, or unmarried sex, or numerous other things held by christianity as "immoral" stand on the same grounds?

But shouldn't legalizing, say, alchohol, or unmarried sex, or numerous other things held by christianity as "immoral" stand on the same grounds?You weren't around when Neo Rogolia still frequented this forum, were you?

But shouldn't legalizing, say, alchohol, or unmarried sex, or numerous other things held by christianity as "immoral" stand on the same grounds?

yeah, but they (generally) don't like having gay sex, so it's easier to vilify it.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-19-03.gif
This is seriously something I've never understood. How is it people make this leap, in their minds, from basic civil rights for gay people, to the downfall of society? How is it that some people can actually feel victimised by the fact that another group is gaining some ground, at no detriment to them? Why is it that gays are so terrible to some people that they feel threatened if they are given the rights accorded to every other citizen of their country?

because of Black people.

Alcohol usage is illegal in Islam, but not Christianity. Jesus was a wine drinker (at least its presumed he was since he supposedly changed water into wine as his first "miracle" at the wedding in Caana (sp?)), so you'd be hard pressed to get that one to fly. Even out right drunkenness is something you don't try and rail against in the South.


Pre-Marital sex is a hot button in the South, but homosexuality is a HUGE hot button in the South. Rallying for gay marriage in the South (especially amongst the hill-folk) is like going to a Civil War re-enactment and telling everyone there that Robert E. Lee was a godless hippy loser.

NT

because of Black people.

Yeah, still lame.

You weren't around when Neo Rogolia still frequented this forum, were you?
I've been around here, under various names, since around 2003. I've skipped in and out though, so I might have missed him.

Alcohol usage is illegal in Islam, but not Christianity. Jesus was a wine drinker (at least its presumed he was since he supposedly changed water into wine as his first "miracle" at the wedding in Caana (sp?)), so you'd be hard pressed to get that one to fly. Even out right drunkenness is something you don't try and rail against in the South.


Pre-Marital sex is a hot button in the South, but homosexuality is a HUGE hot button in the South. Rallying for gay marriage in the South (especially amongst the hill-folk) is like going to a Civil War re-enactment and telling everyone there that Robert E. Lee was a godless hippy loser.
Sounds like a fun time, so long as I had a fast motorbike.

But really, why do the southerners seem to hate gays so virulently?

I've been around here, under various names, since around 2003. I've skipped in and out though, so I might have missed him.


Sounds like a fun time, so long as I had a fast motorbike.

But really, why do the southerners seem to hate gays so virulently?

Sterotypically, southerns are more religious and ignorant of civil rights than any other in the country.

From what I've seen of the majority, it's true. But, I've also seen some very nice, caring people who believe in tolerance in the south.

Everybody in the world should just duke it out. And then eat each other. Not like in the "Tee-hee, he means 'eat' like oral sex!" kinda way that you sickos always seem to jump to, but more like "He means 'eat' as in consume, devour, digest, absorb, ruminate, feast, gormandize. Like a cannibal. That's weird."

I personally think that it would solve all of this nonsensical arguing.

It's because people are afraid of the unknown. It's the greatest curse humankind has dealt with. It has been the cause of slavery, sexism, homophobia, the persecution of natives/indians, the war on terror, anti-semtism, etc. The list just keeps growing.

It's because people are afraid of the unknown. It's the greatest curse humankind has dealt with. It has been the cause of slavery, sexism, homophobia, the persecution of natives/indians, the war on terror, anti-semtism, etc. The list just keeps growing.
Well, all human looks about the same on a spit. I don't think it'll matter if you skin it before you eat it...

Besides, it tastes like chicken!

It's because people are afraid of the unknown. It's the greatest curse humankind has dealt with. It has been the cause of slavery, sexism, homophobia, the persecution of natives/indians, the war on terror, anti-semtism, etc. The list just keeps growing.

I'm not sure if that's entirely true. Slavery was due to laziness and being more productive. Killing of Natives/Indians was to get them off 'our' land. The war on terror is a chrock of shit and isn't real.

I've been around here, under various names, since around 2003. I've skipped in and out though, so I might have missed him.Yeah, then you probably missed her posts about how the temperance movement should be brought back ;)

The war on terror is a chrock of shit and isn't real.
You know this because you've witnessed a specific counter-example.

I'm not sure if that's entirely true. Slavery was due to laziness and being more productive. Killing of Natives/Indians was to get them off 'our' land. The war on terror is a chrock of shit and isn't real.
But we were able to convince ourselves that all of those groups were not human, not deserving of the same freedom, dignity, and respect that we were, because deep down, we feared them.

You know this because you've witnessed a specific counter-example.

I know this because you can't wage war against a TACTIC.

I'm not sure if that's entirely true. Slavery was due to laziness and being more productive. Killing of Natives/Indians was to get them off 'our' land. The war on terror is a chrock of shit and isn't real.

So if slavery is just laziness, why weren't any caucasions made slaves? If no one was afraid of natives/indians, why was propaganda about "scalpers" and "savages" spread so rampantly? The war of terror, in addition, may be a "crock of shit," but it's certainly real, in a sense of it happening and killing people and destroying land.

I know this because you can't wage war against a TACTIC.

So it's incorrectly named. Does that change the impact it's had on the world?

So if slavery is just laziness, why weren't any caucasions made slaves? If no one was afraid of natives/indians, why was propaganda about "scalpers" and "savages" spread so rampantly? The war of terror, in addition, may be a "crock of shit," but it's certainly real, in a sense of it happening and killing people and destroying land.

A line was drawn at the blacks in America. (White slaves were used countless times in history.) They were different so they were targetted. And it wasn't just laziness, productivity played a role. The propaganda about them being savages was made to gain support for the theft of their land. And no it's not real. It's like having a war on war. It's a fruitless fight. And as said before, you can't wage war against a tactic.

So if slavery is just laziness, why weren't any caucasions made slaves?Um... they were. In the olden days before the European nations were very powerful, they were often made slaves too. In fact, the Ottoman empire often employed white slaves.
Before enslaving people from Africa became a hit in the New World, we had indentured servants, which were white people that sold themselves into temporary slavery in exchange for the trip overseas. It would be wrong to refer to serfs as better treated than slaves, especially in Czarist Russia.

So it's incorrectly named. Does that change the impact it's had on the world?

Not talking about impact on the world are we? To have a war, you must have the idea to win. You can't win against a tactic, especially one that will never go away. It's been around since we've been fighting each other.

So if slavery is just laziness, why weren't any caucasions made slaves?

Blame black people.


If no one was afraid of natives/indians, why was propaganda about "scalpers" and "savages" spread so rampantly?

Black People.

I know this because you can't wage war against a TACTIC.
Well, duh. I agree with you that the name is stupid, but the fact is that the U.S. government is fighting a select few groups in the Middle East. To call it "The War on Al Qaeda and Friends" would sound odd, so these terrorist groups are being associated with the word, "terror", to just fuck things up for Arabic people in the future. But I would also like to say that one can wage war against a concept – it's called criminal justice.

So if slavery is just laziness, why weren't any caucasions made slaves? If no one was afraid of natives/indians, why was propaganda about "scalpers" and "savages" spread so rampantly? The war of terror, in addition, may be a "crock of shit," but it's certainly real, in a sense of it happening and killing people and destroying land.
Caucasians were made slaves back when Europe was young and Rome and whatnot kicked ass. We haven't seen it since because other groups were so much easier to contain and use as slaves.

A line was drawn at the blacks in America. (White slaves were used countless times in history.) They were different so they were targetted. And it wasn't just laziness, productivity played a role. The propaganda about them being savages was made to gain support for the theft of their land. And no it's not real. It's like having a war on war. It's a fruitless fight. And as said before, you can't wage war against a tactic.
When he says the war on terror is real, he means it the same way as he might mean the statement "Stalinism is real" He isn't supporting or endorsing it, but he is saying that it is going on, and people are in other countries, shooting and bombing people for it.

A line was drawn at the blacks. They were different so they were targetted. And it wasn't just laziness, productivity played a role. The propaganda about them being savages was made to gain support for the theft of their land. And no it's not real. It's like having a war on war. It's a fruitless fight. And as said before, you can't wage war against a tactic.

As for slaves, you're just confirming what I've been saying. If Africans weren't feared, they would have been readily accepted into society. As for natives, the propaganda wouldn't have been affective if general society didn't have a capacity to fear strangers. And as for the War on Terror, the general idiocy of the movement has no bearing on whether or not it is "real."

Well, duh. I agree with you that the name is stupid, but the fact is that the U.S. government is fighting a select few groups in the Middle East. To call it "The War on Al Qaeda and Friends" would sound odd, so these terrorist groups are being associated with the word, "terror", to just fuck things up for Arabic people in the future. But I would also like to say that one can wage war against a concept – it's called criminal justice.


Caucasians were made slaves back when Europe was young and Rome and whatnot kicked ass. We haven't seen it since because other groups were so much easier to contain and use as slaves.


Alright, so what exactly is your point to be debating me about this then? And again, you're wrong. You may wage war against a 'concept' but a 'tactic' isn't a 'concept'. Also, when Bush announced this war, he didn't target the middle east specifically. As I recall, he 'vowed' to end ALL terror. So that's wrong as well.

Not talking about impact on the world are we? To have a war, you must have the idea to win. You can't win against a tactic, especially one that will never go away. It's been around since we've been fighting each other.

Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about an invasion, a poltical movement, that hurts REAL people and causes REAL damage. But it's going on far away from us, right? So, that makes it okay to pretend like it doesn't happen. Might as well go for a soda, cause nobody hurts, and nobody cries.

When he says the war on terror is real, he means it the same way as he might mean the statement "Stalinism is real" He isn't supporting or endorsing it, but he is saying that it is going on, and people are in other countries, shooting and bombing people for it.
One doesn't necessarily give one's support to an idea by confirming that it exists; that's stupid. Try again.

I wonder if the homosexual agenda comes in folder or binder form?

Questions to ponder...

Alright, so what exactly is your point to be debating me about this then? And again, you're wrong. You may wage war against a 'concept' but a 'tactic' isn't a 'concept'. Also, when Bush announced this war, he didn't target the middle east specifically. As I recall, he 'vowed' to end ALL terror. So that's wrong as well.
There are U.S. Soldiers in the middle east, shooting at people! Is that not "Real" enough? Whether or not it's right, it is happening!

Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about an invasion, a poltical movement, that hurts REAL people and causes REAL damage. But it's going on far away from us, right? So, that makes it okay to pretend like it doesn't happen. Might as well go for a soda, cause nobody hurts, and nobody cries.
Wars happen. They've happened for millenia on end. Worse atrocities than the ones our world experiences today have been committed. As far as we know, it's human nature, so don't be a **** about it.

But shouldn't legalizing, say, alchohol, or unmarried sex, or numerous other things held by christianity as "immoral" stand on the same grounds?

Many are working to change those laws. I take it you've never heard of a dry county. It is a county where the sale of alchohol is illegal. There are a lot of dry counties down here.

Caucasians were made slaves back when Europe was young and Rome and whatnot kicked ass. We haven't seen it since because other groups were so much easier to contain and use as slaves.

FYI, when I mentioned caucasions not being slaves, I was specifically speaking of the slavery occuring during the colonization of America. Of course caucasions were slaves once upon a time. And guess what? The culture of fear was probably responsible for that, too! I don't actually know the history of Rome well enough to ascertain the exact involvement of fear, but I can pretty well garuntee that it was involved.

As for slaves, you're just confirming what I've been saying. If Africans weren't feared, they would have been readily accepted into society. As for natives, the propaganda wouldn't have been affective if general society didn't have a capacity to fear strangers. And as for the War on Terror, the general idiocy of the movement has no bearing on whether or not it is "real."

Wrong. I admit, some feared them. But then again, some respected them. But the majority saw them as a way for profit. Their idea was, why fear a primative people? As for the natives, the way you've worded it this time, causes me to agree in a small part, but other motives were at work, such as greed for their land. But the Custer surely didn't fear them =p.

And for the war on terror, the war on terror itself is NOT real. The only war being fought is on a select group of people. As said, it's been taken out of context and horribly worded by the Busheviks.

Wars happen. They've happened for millenia on end. Worse atrocities than the ones our world experiences today have been committed. As far as we know, it's human nature, so don't be a **** about it.

Oh, thanks. Using a crude sexual joke to attack me. Way to be mature.

FYI, when I mentioned caucasions not being slaves, I was specifically speaking of the slavery occuring during the colonization of America. Of course caucasions were slaves once upon a time. And guess what? The culture of fear was probably responsible for that, too! I don't actually know the history of Rome well enough to ascertain the exact involvement of fear, but I can pretty well garuntee that it was involved.

Why would Rome fear their slaves? It's safe to say that their entire army were slaves, especially ones merged from once opposing armies. Slaves were necessary to keep a large empire stable. I highly doubt fear was on the lists.

But really, why do the southerners seem to hate gays so virulently?

No more so than anywhere else. They're just more vocal about it. I've seen a lot of homophobia in both th north and south. They just go about it differently. Several northern states have passed anti gay marrage ammendments too you know.

FYI, when I mentioned caucasions not being slaves, I was specifically speaking of the slavery occuring during the colonization of America. Of course caucasions were slaves once upon a time. And guess what? The culture of fear was probably responsible for that, too! I don't actually know the history of Rome well enough to ascertain the exact involvement of fear, but I can pretty well garuntee that it was involved.
Okay, whatever. Or it could be because people are lazy assholes who would rather have those whom they've conquered do their work for them. When it gets down to it, it's fear of life that drives anything so inane like that.

Now just how in the hell did this thread become about Iraq and whatever else you all are discussing inside of 20 minutes?! I wasn't gone for that long!


This thread last time I checked was about fundies going gonzo over gay rights legislation.



Cyrian:


How complicated do you want your answer to be? Because I don't want to type up an essay on the topic if a couple sentences will do the trick. There are a lot of factors involved, but it can be pretty easily simplified without losing a whole lot of truth value if you aren't in the mood for my long-winded style of forum posting.

NT

Oh, thanks. Using a crude sexual joke to attack me. Way to be mature.
Hey, porktwine, I wrote more than an insult there. Read it again, then get back to me.

There are U.S. Soldiers in the middle east, shooting at people! Is that not "Real" enough? Whether or not it's right, it is happening!

Just because there is a war going on, doesn't mean it's on terror.

It's a war for 'democracy' now. When the status quo changes, as does the name.

And for the war on terror, the war on terror itself is NOT real. The only war being fought is on a select group of people. As said, it's been taken out of context and horribly worded by the Busheviks.
And that's where the fear comes in.
After all, a lot of people have expressed nervousness with getting on a plane with a middle eastern man since 9-11.
Fear, usually in the form of agression, is one of the big excuses for our actions in that war.

Wrong. I admit, some feared them. But then again, some respected them. But the majority saw them as a way for profit. Their idea was, why fear a primative people? As for the natives, the way you've worded it this time, causes me to agree in a small part, but other motives were at work, such as greed for their land. But the Custer surely didn't fear them =p.

And for the war on terror, the war on terror itself is NOT real. The only war being fought is on a select group of people. As said, it's been taken out of context and horribly worded by the Busheviks.

Okay, if Africans weren't feared, why were there so many fearful, hateful attitudes towards them? Why are big, black men still associated with crime, rape and guns? Why weren't black people allowed into white schools? Why were (and are, for that matter) black people blamed for nearly all crimes, including those caused by whites?

Maybe the War on Terror isn't a War on Terror. But that doesn't make it less real! That doesn't make it something that doesn't exist. You're letting your political views cloud your sense of reality. A war is happening in the middle east, and it just happens to have an incorrect name. What more do you want?

Hey, porktwine, I wrote more than an insult there. Read it again, then get back to me.

What more do you want me to say?

And that's where the fear comes in.
After all, a lot of people have expressed nervousness with getting on a plane with a middle eastern man since 9-11.
Fear, usually in the form of agression, is one of the big excuses for our actions in that war.

What the hell are you talking about? The war is taking place in Iraq. Iraq has shown no hostility towards us before the war. No fear was present. And those people on that plane are asshats.

Just because there is a war going on, doesn't mean it's on terror.

It's a war for 'democracy' now. When the status quo changes, as does the name.

So call it by a different name. Don't deny it's existence.

And that's where the fear comes in.
After all, a lot of people have expressed nervousness with getting on a plane with a middle eastern man since 9-11.
Fear, usually in the form of agression, is one of the big excuses for our actions in that war.
That's the thing that I don't agree with when it comes to these silly wars. Such innutile concepts become so magnified. Who cares if some guy who hijacked a plane was Middle-Eastern? An East Asian or North American has just the same capacity for such an act. For now on, the media (or the persons responsible for declassifying data) shouldn't release any details about race or country of origin when it comes to matters like this.

Porktwine?

Why would Rome fear their slaves? It's safe to say that their entire army were slaves, especially ones merged from once opposing armies. Slaves were necessary to keep a large empire stable. I highly doubt fear was on the lists.

Why would Rome need an army if they didn't fear strangers? Why would they need a large, stable empire?

Okay, if Africans weren't feared, why were there so many fearful, hateful attitudes towards them? Why are big, black men still associated with crime, rape and guns? Why weren't black people allowed into white schools? Why were (and are, for that matter) black people blamed for nearly all crimes, including those caused by whites?

Because black people are stinky, smelly, dirty and criminal. Hasn't this already been addressed in my "Let's Blame Everything on Black People" Thread ?

What more do you want me to say?
Try "Yes, Baking Soda, I totally agree that everybody should duke it out and then eat each other after they're all finished."

The "fear" explaination for slavery and the "laziness" explaination apply to two completely different sets of people, and the class system in the south is much less euphemised or disguised than it is in the rest of America.

A lot of the bigotry I've seen in my southern relatives seemed like it came from a kind of petty hopelesness. The south never recovered from The War, and it certainly hasn't recovered from the dustbowl, so poverty is much more evenly widespread there. Being American and caught up in that "American Dream" mythology about everyone having a chance and how wonderful and rich the country is, and then turning off "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" and looking around at the intense poverty that surrounds you, seems like it has left all of lower-class dixie with a permanent case of cognitive dissonance. They can plainly see that their lives are hard and often fairly hopeless, but they keep hearing that they're rich and better than everyone, so - since there isn't much opportunity for worldliness - they resolve that disparity by proclaiming themselves to be better than someone, just anyone who they can see and make one notch lower than themselves. And so while the conscious, official reason for their vitriol may be based on twisted bible phrases or weather-worn stereotypes, they cling to that hate because it's the only thing between them and total failure as Americans.

At least, that's what I see when I visit them. They're victims of a really fucked up ecconomic and social structure, but just like sexual abuse victims who express their trauma by passing on the abuse; they have a reason, not an excuse.

Try "Yes, Baking Soda, I totally agree that everybody should duke it out and then eat each other after they're all finished."

So, basically, you want me to lie?

Okay, if Africans weren't feared, why were there so many fearful, hateful attitudes towards them? Why are big, black men still associated with crime, rape and guns? Why weren't black people allowed into white schools? Why were (and are, for that matter) black people blamed for nearly all crimes, including those caused by whites?

Maybe the War on Terror isn't a War on Terror. But that doesn't make it less real! That doesn't make it something that doesn't exist. You're letting your political views cloud your sense of reality. A war is happening in the middle east, and it just happens to have an incorrect name. What more do you want?

Maybe because the big black men are more likely to commit said crimes? Black people weren't allowed in schools because of fear. It was because of white elitism. It would be the same reason why I don't want my kids hanging out with your kids. Poverty is based on crime, and it just so happens that most blacks are poor. And please, don't twist my words, all ethic groups are poor, just more blacks are.

Then stop mentioning the war on terror, especially when it's not a war on terror. My political views are not clouding my sense of reality, especially when I've said that there is indeed a war taking place. I just want you to drop it because you don't know what to do with it.

What the hell are you talking about? The war is taking place in Iraq. Iraq has shown no hostility towards us before the war. No fear was present. And those people on that plane are asshats.
I remember the atmosphere after 9-11. And it was most definitely an atmosphere of fear. I'm not talking about the politics of the war right now, but only about what motivated it, and even then only in what it has to do with the issue at hand.
Americans were afraid after 9-11. And like Yoda said "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate... leads to suffering."

So, basically, you want me to lie?
No, I want you to submit.

Why would Rome need an army if they didn't fear strangers? Why would they need a large, stable empire?

Your ignorance hurts my head. Rome needed an army to take over foreign lands. Most emperor's were power hungry. They need a large stable empire to continue that power. Fear played no part. Fear was only a part when they were fighting another and death was a possiblity...but that's neither here not there.

I remember the atmosphere after 9-11. And it was most definitely an atmosphere of fear. I'm not talking about the politics of the war right now, but only about what motivated it, and even then only in what it has to do with the issue at hand.
Americans were afraid after 9-11. And like Yoda said "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate... leads to suffering."

Fear of Bin Laden, I can understand. But we've dropped the manhunt for him, and invaded a totally DIFFERENT man. A man who didn't hurt us in any way.

I remember the atmosphere after 9-11. And it was most definitely an atmosphere of fear. I'm not talking about the politics of the war right now, but only about what motivated it, and even then only in what it has to do with the issue at hand.
Americans were afraid after 9-11. And like Yoda said "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate... leads to suffering."
Americans have this complex which seems to dictate that they can't handle a minor change in their lifestyles. Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, all those places have experienced so much more trauma than the U.S. We shouldn't have the right to whine.

Fear of Bin Laden, I can understand. But we've dropped the manhunt for him, and invaded a totally DIFFERENT man. A man who didn't hurt us in any way.
And you know because you either directly or indirectly received the Pentagon dispatch which proclaimed that we have ceased seeking said individual. Plenty goes on behind your back that you'll never hear of, you know.

Your ignorance hurts my head. Rome needed an army to take over foreign lands. Most emperor's were power hungry. They need a large stable empire to continue that power. Fear played no part. Fear was only a part when they were fighting another and death was a possiblity...but that's neither here not there.
I've noticed most people in anchient times had very little sympathy for their fellow humans, or at least seemed to. Then again, it may be a naive assumption of mine to believe that this has changed significantly.

Behold the real reason why "The Homosexual Agenda" persists:

We as a nation have our heads so firmly up our own asses that we can't take the time to spend more than an hour discussing on a thread about it much less actually do anything about it.


The fundies thrive within a smoke screen of our own creation.

NT

And you know because you either directly or indirectly received the Pentagon dispatch which proclaimed that we have ceased seeking said individual. Plenty goes on behind your back that you'll never hear of, you know.

So, when we pull our forces, which had him surrounded in a mountain area to invade Iraq...that's not dropping the manhunt? Sorry, but since it's 'going on behind my back' and I've haven't heard any updates, press conferences, etc..it's safe to say we're not trying hard to look for the man who killed 3000 people in a single day.

I've noticed most people in anchient times had very little sympathy for their fellow humans, or at least seemed to. Then again, it may be a naive assumption of mine to believe that this has changed significantly.
I blame the media and lack of cannibalism.

Behold the real reason why "The Homosexual Agenda" persists:

We as a nation have our heads so firmly up our own asses that we can't take the time to spend more than an hour discussing on a thread about it much less actually do anything about it.


The fundies thrive within a smoke screen of our own creation.

NT

It's ADHD on a national level. :p

Could it be that the majority of us do not care what the most deranged and loud 2% of the US population is doing at any one time? Everyone also convently forgets that scientificaly homosexuality is a mental condition, if you do not belive me take a few college phsyc. and soc. classes. So no, today I don't feel like going outa my way to deal with 5 million loons.

Maybe because the big black men are more likely to commit said crimes? Black people weren't allowed in schools because of fear. It was because of white elitism. It would be the same reason why I don't want my kids hanging out with your kids. Poverty is based on crime, and it just so happens that most blacks are poor. And please, don't twist my words, all ethic groups are poor, just more blacks are.

Then stop mentioning the war on terror, especially when it's not a war on terror. My political views are not clouding my sense of reality, especially when I've said that there is indeed a war taking place. I just want you to drop it because you don't know what to do with it.

Yes, and America has always been exactly as it is right now. Magically one day, Black people appeared and were poor, and white people appeared and were rich. It had nothing to do with slavery, and white people refusing to help out because of a superiortiy complex. And, even if it did, superiority would have no roots in fear. Now, I'm not sure where it's roots would lie, but if you ask an expert like Istenbul, he's sure to tell you.

In addition, the only reason why I don't know what to do with this middle-eastern war crap is because I don't really understand what it has to do with my general thesis. By being nitpicky about wording, you are neither disproving my point nor proving your own. You are simply making mountains out of molehills.

Life is fear, nothing more and nothing less. Fear is the single biggest driving force in our lives. Fear is the only reason any animal really does anything. The only reason why you are attacking me is because you fear I may be right. The only reason why I'm fighting back is because I fear you may be right. Don't deny fear. Fear may not be the concious, overt cause of all the world's problems, but it's the underlying thread that links all of them together.

So, when we pull our forces, which had him surrounded in a mountain area to invade Iraq...that's not dropping the manhunt? Sorry, but since it's 'going on behind my back' and I've haven't heard any updates, press conferences, etc..it's safe to say we're not trying hard to look for the man who killed 3000 people in a single day.
So you've witnessed our forces pulling out of an area which we were certain Bin Laden was hiding at, too? Man, I've gotta start hanging out with you more often. But yes, we should have located him by now. I suggest we send cannibals after him.

Could it be that the majority of us do not care what the most deranged and loud 2% of the US population is doing at any one time? Everyone also convently forgets that scientificaly homosexuality is a mental condition, if you do not belive me take a few college phsyc. and soc. classes. So no, today I don't feel like going outa my way to deal with 5 million loons.

Funny, how the scientific community has completely dropped the case that homosexuality is a mental condition. I believe you need to retake those college classes.

Phailed.

No, I want you to submit.

Sorry, but I'm not that kind of person.

I blame the media and lack of cannibalism.

I blame black people.

Sorry, but I'm not that kind of person.
I know you aren't. That's what makes it all the more enjoyable.

So you've witnessed our forces pulling out of an area which we were certain Bin Laden was hiding at, too? Man, I've gotta start hanging out with you more often. But yes, we should have located him by now. I suggest we send cannibals after him.

We pulled out of the area we were certain he was in and left it in the hands of Afghanistan warlords.

I'm done with this particular argument. You keep spouting off the same garbage, just with different wording.

Your ignorance hurts my head. Rome needed an army to take over foreign lands. Most emperor's were power hungry. They need a large stable empire to continue that power. Fear played no part. Fear was only a part when they were fighting another and death was a possiblity...but that's neither here not there.

And why would the emperor be power hungry? It's a personality condition, sure, but what is it's root cause?
And, I sincerely apologise that I, a performer and creative writer, lack extensive knowledge regarding the Roman Empire.

I blame black people.
You would, you Nazi bastard.

The diagnostic statistical manual no longer classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder. So psych classes prove me right (former psych major).


And in sociology homosexuality has not been found to inhibit social cohesion, so in sociology no dice either. (current sociology major).

Guess that makes your point... false.

NT

I'm done with this particular argument. You keep spouting off the same garbage, just with different wording.
First intelligent thing I've heard all night.

And why would the emperor be power hungry? It's a personality condition, sure, but what is it's root cause?
And, I sincerely apologise that I, a performer and creative writer, lack extensive knowledge regarding the Roman Empire.

No apology needed. Just don't debate about the matter then. It's a pretty obvious answer to your question. Why wouldn't a man with the most powerful army in the entire known world lust for more power, more control for his place in history?

grow and multiply is the word for any decent church having a positive part in history.
The sodomites had anal sex with their enemies to treat them as women... as nothing.
The sodomites abused foreigners in hospitality in raping women and sodomizing men.

That for history.
From that judeo christian culture is against pervert forms of sexuality. Sexuality is reproduction orientated.

Why asking believers to deny the social aspect of their religion ? Any religion has a large part of his goal to rule life of people.
A minority (non-believers) says these rules are bad, man is better and can self decide... hm
It's true man is big enough to make his own wars. Man is very great in killing man.

If the priest is saying homosexuality is bad, let him say, he never ask you to hear him.
If the priest is an homosexual let him say the same thing he's paid for.
You free to choose your religion.

How to mix reality and religion ?
How to deal with your acts and your thoughts ?

Why do you care about a minority expanding by word of pleasure they offer?
Is it real you want that for your kids?

No apology needed. Just don't debate about the matter then. It's a pretty obvious answer to your question. Why wouldn't a man with the most powerful army in the entire known world lust for more power, more control for his place in history?

Fine, I'll stick to human nature. Why would any person want to feel powerful? You can't just say "because he wants to." It's all rooted in that person's deepest, innermost fears about life and the world.

grow and multiply is the word for any decent church having a positive part in history.
The sodomites had anal sex with their enemies to treat them as women... as nothing.
The sodomites abused foreigners in hospitality in raping women and sodomizing men.

That for history.
From that judeo christian culture is against pervert forms of sexuality. Sexuality is reproduction orientated.

Why asking believers to deny the social aspect of their religion ? Any religion has a large part of his goal to rule life of people.
A minority (non-believers) says these rules are bad, man is better and can self decide... hm
It's true man is big enough to make his own wars. Man is very great in killing man.

If the priest is saying homosexuality is bad, let him say, he never ask you to hear him.
If the priest is an homosexual let him say the same thing he's paid for.
You free to choose your religion.

How to mix reality and religion ?
How to deal with your acts and your thoughts ?

Why do you care about a minority expanding by word of pleasure they offer?
Is it real you want that for your kids?

I care about that minority because they are still human beings. If my children become homosexual I would still support them and don't turn them away. The real question is whether I care about you and your intolerance?

Fine, I'll stick to human nature. Why would any person want to feel powerful? You can't just say "because he wants to." It's all rooted in that person's deepest, innermost fears about life and the world.


Wrong again. Perhaps rooted in that person is wanting of acknowledgment, respect, or his place in history. Power can give all those to the right people. Fear can be a part of it, but to go and say fear is the cause of everything is farfetched.

Wrong again. Perhaps rooted in that person is wanting of acknowledgment, respect, or his place in history. Power can give all those to the right people. Fear can be a part of it, but to go and say fear is the cause of everything is farfetched.

Not really, but believing that I can convince a brick wall of the truth is.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-19-03.gif
This is seriously something I've never understood. How is it people make this leap, in their minds, from basic civil rights for gay people, to the downfall of society? How is it that some people can actually feel victimised by the fact that another group is gaining some ground, at no detriment to them? Why is it that gays are so terrible to some people that they feel threatened if they are given the rights accorded to every other citizen of their country?


How about a total dislike for moonbayers?

My position on cultural minorities is very very simple:

'Mr Sparrow, you will consider all the meanings of silent as the grave'
Or, as I saw on a T-shirt the other day: 'Give me head, not grief.'

I don't care who you have relations with - as long as you keep your trap shut.

Not really, but believing that I can convince a brick wall of the truth is.

You're just getting too ridicious to continue on. Your assumptions, wrong ideas, versions of the truth, and persistance through it all has left me tired. I'm off to bed.

You've been beaten.

Why would any person want to feel powerful? You can't just say "because he wants to." It's all rooted in that person's deepest, innermost fears about life and the world.

Why do you assume that a desire for power - which is inately more pleasurable than powerlesness - is necessarily rooted in a nebulous fear?

The diagnostic statistical manual no longer classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder. So psych classes prove me right (former psych major).


And in sociology homosexuality has not been found to inhibit social cohesion, so in sociology no dice either. (current sociology major).

Guess that makes your point... false.

NT

I will accept that arguement as soon as you can explain why behavior modification can end the tendencies in question. My correctness on the science does not take away from my point that why in hell should any of us care. I mean come on how many situtations can you come up with more than 5 million people? 1. People playing Americas Army 2. The NRA has 4.3 million 3. The Red Cross 4. Boy Scouts (by far) 5. You can think of others.

If being homosexual is "protected" why can the media and everyone crack on Boy Scouts......

Oh and about Intolerance....guess what...again there are more "normal" people put here in the world that you are not being tolerant to solely from the lack of not understanding that we dont care or dont need to know how you get your jollies.

You're just getting too ridicious to continue on. Your assumptions, wrong ideas, versions of the truth, and persistance through it all has left me tired. I'm off to bed.

You've been beaten.

No, I haven't, but the argument has come to a stand still. To be honest, I meant to go to bed two hours ago.

If I may interject...

Homosexual practices weren't always linked to having hot, gay sex for mere enjoyment. In Roman times, men would have male partners as intellectual companions. That's where the term, "Platonic", comes from. Why anyone would need to engage in homosexual activity to communicate intellectual material is beyond me, but I'm not going to say that it can't be done.

An interesting thing that I've found is that in friendship studies, there is a rather large school of thought which believes that the forces which make same-sex friendships connote latent homosexuality. I think that's a stupid thought, since young children tend to stratify into same-sex friendships and exclusions. On the other hand, it probably is viable that there is a degree of latent homosexuality in close friends, possibly due to appreciation of a person's qualities, which relates back to the idea of Platonic love.

Still, it's idiotic to say "Those two guys hang out with each other, therefore they must be gay!". Infantile thoughts like that make me wonder how some of these people ever got published.

Why do you assume that a desire for power - which is inately more pleasurable than powerlesness - is necessarily rooted in a nebulous fear?

Because that's just what I believe. In my short life on this earth, I have seen and understood fear in many ways. I'm an aspiring philosopher, really, and my philisophy is that fear drives life. You must remember, many people that are now reverred as brilliant theorists were once viewed as insane. That being said, I am not dissauded by the number of heretical attacks my ideas have garnered.

Because that's just what I believe. In my short life on this earth, I have seen and understood fear in many ways. I'm an aspiring philosopher, really, and my philisophy is that fear drives life. You must remember, many people that are now reverred as brilliant theorists were once viewed as insane. That being said, I am not dissauded by the number of heretical attacks my ideas have garnered.
Fear of what? If you could sum it up in one root concept as to what all people should fear for, I would be pleased.

I will accept that arguement as soon as you can explain why behavior modification can end the tendencies in question.

With enough "behavior modification," you can get someone to do pretty much anything. Even it it goes against their nature. With enough "behavior modification" you can end someones "tendencies" to eat or drink. That doesn't make it a good thing.

If being homosexual is "protected" why can the media and everyone crack on Boy Scouts......

"Protected" status and "special rights" aren't the same thing as giving someone basic human rights allowed everyone else. Learn the difference. It's simply about equality.

Because that's just what I believe. In my short life on this earth, I have seen and understood fear in many ways. I'm an aspiring philosopher, really, and my philisophy is that fear drives life. You must remember, many people that are now reverred as brilliant theorists were once viewed as insane. That being said, I am not dissauded by the number of heretical attacks my ideas have garnered.


This pretty much sums up the humor in your argument:

Frank Dixon: I'm talking about bombs. I'm talking about human dignity. I'm talking about human rights. Viktor, please don't be afraid to tell me that you're afraid of Krakhozia.
Viktor Navorski: Is home. I am not afraid from my home.
[pause]
Viktor Navorski: So?
Frank Dixon: [whispering] All right.
Viktor Navorski: I go to New York City now?
Frank Dixon: No.
Viktor Navorski: No? Uh... Okay. I'm uh... I'm uh... I'm afraid from ghosts.
Frank Dixon: Okay, thanks very much!
Viktor Navorski: I'm afraid from, uh... Dracula!
Frank Dixon: Thanks a lot. Thanks, Viktor!
Viktor Navorski: [as he is escorted outside] Afraid from Wolfmens, afraid from sharks!
Frank Dixon: It's okay. Thank you Viktor! Thanks a lot!

Fear is not the source of all things. Fear is only stemed by certain things. I'm really only afraid of spiders...that's all. Now, I'm going to bed.

Because that's just what I believe. In my short life on this earth, I have seen and understood fear in many ways. I'm an aspiring philosopher, really, and my philisophy is that fear drives life. You must remember, many people that are now reverred as brilliant theorists were once viewed as insane. That being said, I am not dissauded by the number of heretical attacks my ideas have garnered.

You assume it because it's what you believe? Those are synonymous, you haven't answered the question at all. Anyway, I don't think you're insane, sugar, just pretentious and lacking substance, although the appelation of "heretical" to opinions which contradict you certainly does give you an edge...

Because that's just what I believe. In my short life on this earth, I have seen and understood fear in many ways. I'm an aspiring philosopher, really, and my philisophy is that fear drives life. You must remember, many people that are now reverred as brilliant theorists were once viewed as insane. That being said, I am not dissauded by the number of heretical attacks my ideas have garnered.


Few people here will care a great deal about your ideas.
*shrug*
Sayonara.

Fear of what? If you could sum it up in one root concept as to what all people should fear for, I would be pleased.

Different people fear different things. It's very natural to fear starvation, or being killed by predators, or anyone other thing along the same lines. But humans have stepped up further than other animals in the sense of fear, and we now fear other things, namely rejection, embarassment, lonliness, and even success. Everyone fears different things. Those who do not fear suffer from a dangerous disorder limiting the emotion.
Really, fear is very intrinsic in our lives. If not for our natural, instinctive fears about death, we would not lock our doors, or see a doctor when we are sick, or refuse to walk alone at night. If not for our fear of other people, and the damage they can do to us, we would have a perfect, utopian society. Nobody would be a dictator, because nobody would be insecure about his/her beliefs and abilities. Nobody would develop nuclear weapons because nobody would be scared of what other countries could do to us if we remain unarmed. Nobody would have political disscusions late into the night because nobody would worry that his or her beliefs were incorrect. Roller coasters and drag races would stop being fun. Love would be futile, because the main principle of love is vulnerability. Taking a stand and arguing for truth would no longer be exhilirating. Life would be peaceful and dull, as a society of automatons craving nothing and achieving no great means. Fear, you see, may not be the blood that nourishes our cells or the evolutionary process that brought us hear, but it is what defines human nature and life as we know it.

Different people fear different things. It's very natural to fear starvation, or being killed by predators, or anyone other thing along the same lines. But humans have stepped up further than other animals in the sense of fear, and we now fear other things, namely rejection, embarassment, lonliness, and even success. Everyone fears different things. Those who do not fear suffer from a dangerous disorder limiting the emotion.
Really, fear is very intrinsic in our lives. If not for our natural, instinctive fears about death, we would not lock our doors, or see a doctor when we are sick, or refuse to walk alone at night. If not for our fear of other people, and the damage they can do to us, we would have a perfect, utopian society. Nobody would be a dictator, because nobody would be insecure about his/her beliefs and abilities. Nobody would develop nuclear weapons because nobody would be scared of what other countries could do to us if we remain unarmed. Nobody would have political disscusions late into the night because nobody would worry that his or her beliefs were incorrect. Roller coasters and drag races would stop being fun. Love would be futile, because the main principle of love is vulnerability. Taking a stand and arguing for truth would no longer be exhilirating. Life would be peaceful and dull, as a society of automatons craving nothing and achieving no great means. Fear, you see, may not be the blood that nourishes our cells or the evolutionary process that brought us hear, but it is what defines human nature and life as we know it.
Well put. I'll consider that in my philosophy of preservation.

I believe that all human concepts, all the way down to politics and drugs, stems from the human drive to procreate. In the wild, before we developed higher levels of thinking, sex was made pleasurable to insure the continuation of our species. After all, who would shag if it weren't fun?

Anyway, social orders developed as a result of many individuals sharing a common trait, and these orders were aimed at the preservation of this trait. Over time, this has been blown up immensely. Now, millions at a time are encompassed in this propagation scheme, whether they agree with it or not, thus forming massive political bodies and nations. Think about it: what is the "American Dream"? Be successful, basically. Success instills power, and power is all the better when you're trying to keep your genes in the pool. Dominance, some might call it. Such behaivour is quite evident in the animal kingdom. Salamanders frequently terminate other salamanders which don't contain their own genetic sequences in order to make their family's numbers larger in proportion to the rest of the society. It's really pretty simple when you get down to it.

Gay marriage would be like putting hot sex oil on the slippery slope of society's genitals.

We have a slippery slope THERE?! :eek:

Why am I the last one to be told?

yeah, but they (generally) don't like having gay sex, so it's easier to vilify it.

they're having too much fun with the horses and cattle?

I wonder if the homosexual agenda comes in folder or binder form?

Questions to ponder...

you've ignored the book, you've missed the movie, wanna try for the DVD?

or you could just download it illegally from a P2P.

they're having too much fun with the horses and cattle?
No, that's imposible, if not illegal. I already ate all of the horses and cattle.

grow and multiply is the word for any decent church having a positive part in history.
The sodomites had anal sex with their enemies to treat them as women... as nothing.
The sodomites abused foreigners in hospitality in raping women and sodomizing men.

That for history.
From that judeo christian culture is against pervert forms of sexuality. Sexuality is reproduction orientated.

Why asking believers to deny the social aspect of their religion ? Any religion has a large part of his goal to rule life of people.
A minority (non-believers) says these rules are bad, man is better and can self decide... hm
It's true man is big enough to make his own wars. Man is very great in killing man.

If the priest is saying homosexuality is bad, let him say, he never ask you to hear him.
If the priest is an homosexual let him say the same thing he's paid for.
You free to choose your religion.

How to mix reality and religion ?
How to deal with your acts and your thoughts ?

Why do you care about a minority expanding by word of pleasure they offer?
Is it real you want that for your kids?

well, Babel Fish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/) couldn't help me. anyone else have any ideas?

Fear of the unknown is a driving force in human existence but to assume that it is the exclusive or premier driving force is an untested hypothesis at best and unadulterated hogwash at worst.



Institutionalized beliefs are very hard to deal with, and this has absolutely nothing to do with how afraid people are of one thing or another. To sum up about a couple hundred years of sociology in a few sentences: societal norms are a power unto themselves; people come to rely upon these behavioral standards as a way of interacting with and understanding the world around them.

That is what makes changing institutionalized beliefs hard, not some primordial fear of the unknown.

NT

Porktwine?

see, you had to pour water on Baking Soda. now look at him. he's foaming. :p

well, Babel Fish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/) couldn't help me. anyone else have any ideas?
Sorry, all I can give you is quotes from Rhapsody's MySpace to further confuse you.

Sounds Like: Orgasms of length and Secrecy only relinquishing themselves when my cockring has been loosened. Life's Juices breathing the freshest of nutrients upon golden sceptor of your dragon flame.

About rhapsody:
Favourite kind of movies: action, fantasy, epic, storic. Favourite science fiction movie: Alien. Favourite horror movie: The church (Dario Argento) Favourite dramatic movie: Braveheart. Favourite comic movie: Naked Gun (Leslie Nielsen) Favourite fantasy movie: The lord of the rings.... Favourite action movie: Danko (A.Schwarzenegger) Favourite actors: Al pacino: Scarface Arnold Schwarzenegger: Conan the Barbarian Russel Crowe: Gladiator Mel Gibson: Braveheart Favourite actresses: Sharon Stone: The specialist (with S.Stallone) Jodie Foster: Silence of the Lambs Angelina Jolie: Gone in 60 seconds. Favourite directors: Peter Jackson, Ridley scott, Tim Burton. Favourite soundtracks composer: Hans Zimmer, Basil poledouris, Danny elfman. Favourite hobbies: cinema, cars, buying cd's, music gears. Favourite foods: pizza, season food, fruits. Favourite drinks: water, juices, beer. Favourite sports: body building, run, ski. Favourite book: books from Rudolf Steiner and Omraam Mikael Aivanhov. Favourite colors: blue. Favourite season: summer. Favourite flower: crimson glory. Favourite animals: all. Owner of animals: no. A message to the human beam: we have to take care of what we are doing, cause, if we'll not stop to be so fool Mother Heart will everybody's pay!!! A message to heart: Will be enough the love that we have for you? Will be enough the big respect that we have for you? We can just trust in your "natural" selections! A message to the stars: watching the stars it's everytime an experience for me.Thinking that we are part of them, makes me feel good, but also mystically scared... A message to our fans: THANK YOU for beeing so great and special! Every time your roar will raise in the sky, we will be brothers of steel!!! I will not talking towards any Fat Chicks

You know, because there's nothing more metal than ending all that crap with "Every time your roar will raise in the sky, we will be brothers of steel!!! I will not talking towards any Fat Chicks."

Because black people are stinky, smelly, dirty and criminal. Hasn't this already been addressed in my "Let's Blame Everything on Black People" Thread ?

addressed? maybe, but I notice it's marked "Return To Sender". are you getting the feeling we're trying to tell you something - yet?

see, you had to pour water on Baking Soda. now look at him. he's foaming. :p
You'd be amazed at some of the vocal emissions I make.

You would, you Nazi bastard.

aww, don't blame him for being a bastard. he can't help being born out of wedlock.

as for him being a Nazi, well, that could be his fault, unless maybe his parents just dropped him on his head while they were trying to conceive more bastards.

No, that's imposible, if not illegal. I already ate all of the horses and cattle.

*looks down at the beast between legs. NO, NOT AT THAT! looks beneath saddle*

well, then what's this beast I've been riding?

*looks down at the beast between legs. NO, NOT AT THAT! looks beneath saddle*

well, then what's this beast I've been riding?
Take a wild guess, sailor.

Sorry, all I can give you is quotes from Rhapsody's MySpace to further confuse you.





You know, because there's nothing more metal than ending all that crap with "Every time your roar will raise in the sky, we will be brothers of steel!!! I will not talking towards any Fat Chicks."

Am I missing something here? Why are you quoting Alex Staropoli or Rhapsody in a request for a translation of Jesuites' ... errr ... "English"?

As for the quotes from Alex Staropoli themselves, I'm awestricken at the ... well, that is ... what I mean to say is that ... uh ... well ... errrrr ... em, uhh ...

W-W-WH-A-A-A-T-T???
:confused:

You'd be amazed at some of the vocal emissions I make.

under what circumstances?

Take a wild guess, sailor.

*looks down, more closely*

YA-A-HAGH!

*gets off and steps back*

I'm so sorry!

Am I missing something here? Why are you quoting Alex Staropoli or Rhapsody in a request for a translation of Jesuites' ... errr ... "English"?

As for the quotes from Alex Staropoli themselves, I'm awestricken at the ... well, that is ... what I mean to say is that ... uh ... well ... errrrr ... em, uhh ...

W-W-WH-A-A-A-T-T???
:confused:
Rhapsody is an Italian power metal band. They're cheesy beyond all belief, and their keyboardist (Alex Staropoli) has some superiority complex thing going on because the singer of the band is obviously infinitely more perfect than him in every respect. How does that tie into this? Well...

Italians and English don't mix well. I once tried to translate "Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars" into Italian on an online translator and when I passed it back through the filter into English, here's what I got:
Not to pass to go, do not to collect thirteenth century dollars.

under what circumstances?
Why, under all circumstances, sire.

*looks down, more closely*

YA-A-HAGH!

*gets off and steps back*

I'm so sorry!
Damn right! Next time you so much as get near my shark-elephant, I'll get my boomstick!

Why, under all circumstances, sire.


Damn right! Next time you so much as get near my shark-elephant, I'll get my boomstick!

I'm a little lost here... Is shark-elephant some kind of euphemism I'm not aware of? What the hell has mork been riding? And I don't want to even know how your "Vocal emissions" ties into the overall topic of this thread especially if it has anything to do with what Mork has been riding for the passed hour.

NT

Rhapsody is an Italian power metal band. They're cheesy beyond all belief, and their keyboardist (Alex Staropoli) has some superiority complex thing going on because the singer of the band is obviously infinitely more perfect than him in every respect. How does that tie into this? Well...

Italians and English don't mix well. I once tried to translate "Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars" into Italian on an online translator and when I passed it back through the filter into English, here's what I got:


Ah! I think I'm beginning to catch your drift. And immediately I'm put in mind of all those printer manuals from the 1980s we had to wade through, trying to guess what the Chinese original really meant. Some of them were absolutely award-winning.

[OT I know, but does anyone know if someone has ever put some of those delightful examples of "Chin-glish" on a web-site somewhere? Sad to say, I threw all mine out.]

Why, under all circumstances, sire.


Damn right! Next time you so much as get near my shark-elephant, I'll get my boomstick!

boomstick?!

I'm a little lost here... Is shark-elephant some kind of euphemism I'm not aware of? What the hell has mork been riding? And I don't want to even know how your "Vocal emissions" ties into the overall topic of this thread especially if it has anything to do with what Mork has been riding for the passed hour.
It's a reference to a thread I was in yesterday. It was about animals or something, and another poster said something about the most dangerous animal in the world being a shark riding an elephant's back, eating and trampling everything in its path.

Ah! I think I'm beginning to catch your drift. And immediately I'm put in mind of all those printer manuals from the 1980s we had to wade through, trying to guess what the Chinese original really meant. Some of them were absolutely award-winning.

[OT I know, but does anyone know if someone has ever put some of those delightful examples of "Chin-glish" on a web-site somewhere? Sad to say, I threw all mine out.]
My friend, you've just made my day.

http://www.engrish.com/
http://www.enaajia.com/English%20Frameset.htm
http://skunklabel.com/

I have endless examples of Italians trying to make sense of English, too.

I'm a little lost here... Is shark-elephant some kind of euphemism I'm not aware of? What the hell has mork been riding? NT
what indeed! I thought it was a horse until he told me he'd eaten them all. it was very comfy though. ;)

And I don't want to even know how your "Vocal emissions" ties into the overall topic of this threadNT ...
I do!

... especially if it has anything to do with what Mork has been riding for the passed hour.
NT
but that would be the vocal emissions of his shark-elephant, not him. right?

I do!
-says "I do" simultaneously- What? Damnit, I guess we're married.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-19-03.gif
This is seriously something I've never understood. How is it people make this leap, in their minds, from basic civil rights for gay people, to the downfall of society? How is it that some people can actually feel victimised by the fact that another group is gaining some ground, at no detriment to them? Why is it that gays are so terrible to some people that they feel threatened if they are given the rights accorded to every other citizen of their country?


Where did this cartoon come from, what is it's history, is for real, or is it lampooning conservative types?

At the end of the day also I'm a firm beliver in comerdy being the last bastion of true free speech.
So I ask is it real, the message in this cartoon, or was it done for comic effect? Coz it seems so ludicrus, I am having problems beliveing it is real.

...
My friend, you've just made my day.

http://www.engrish.com/
http://www.enaajia.com/English%20Frameset.htm
http://skunklabel.com/

I have endless examples of Italians trying to make sense of English, too.

Nice, but I see they're all recent. It's good to know the joy lives on, but I'm looking for those old computer and printer manual translations that look as though they were produced by an alpha version of something like "Babel Fish", or by a 7-year-old with a lexicon and no concept of syntax and grammar. One of the old magazines of the 80s (early PCUser, perhaps?) even invited readers to send in their favourites and vote on the best/worst.

But I'll start with these. Thanks.

Where did this cartoon come from, what is it's history, is for real, or is it lampooning conservative types?

At the end of the day also I'm a firm beliver in comerdy being the last bastion of true free speech.
So I ask is it real, the message in this cartoon, or was it done for comic effect? Coz it seems so ludicrus, I am having problems beliveing it is real.
It's real as data, and I'm sure that at least one clot out there has spent precious printer paper and ink printing out a copy for his cubicle before getting fired by his conservative boss, so yes, I would chance to say that it is tangible as well.

The publication from which this cartoon has arisen appears to be a group which consistently takes shots at conservatism, namely the Bush administration. The main page is found here: http://thismodernworld.com/

-says "I do" simultaneously- What? Damnit, I guess we're married.

so does this mean I'm allowed back on the shark-elephant?



I'm still worried about that "boomstick" though ...

It's real as data, and I'm sure that at least one clot out there has spent precious printer paper and ink printing out a copy for his cubicle before getting fired by his conservative boss, so yes, I would chance to say that it is tangible as well.

The publication from which this cartoon has arisen appears to be a group which consistently takes shots at conservatism, namely the Bush administration. The main page is found here: http://thismodernworld.com/


Ahhh cheers,

So in effect it is a spoof on conservative thinking. That is what I though.

so does this mean I'm allowed back on the shark-elephant?



I'm still worried about that "boomstick" though ...
I'm fine with you going back on the shark-elephant, but we might have to check our individuals states' legislation to see if you're entitled to that.

As for the boomstick... I lost it when I was collect to thirteenth century dollars.

Ahhh cheers,

So in effect it is a spoof on conservative thinking. That is what I though.


I thought conservative thinking was the spoof on conservative "thinking" ...

I'm fine with you going back on the shark-elephant, but we might have to check our individuals states' legislation to see if you're entitled to that.

As for the boomstick... I lost it when I was collect to thirteenth century dollars.


once I'm riding the shark-elephant I'm sure I can find it again. ;)

They make the leap in their minds because they're afraid of the dark. Especially if a gay guy is standing behind them in said darkness :D

But seriously, it is reaffirmed ignorance through a long, long time that has led us to these intolerant conditions. I'm only happy that people like you exist to point out the unfairness of it all.

I thought conservative thinking was the spoof on conservative "thinking" ...
Can one really contemplate conservatism? The definition of conservatism is rather limiting in nature, having already established principles. I consider myself quite conservative, if only because I don't agree with liberal ideology, but I do think that we need some reform. Mainly, the kind where everybody in the entire world dukes it out with each other and then devours everybody as they go along. It's natural selection to the extreme.

once I'm riding the shark-elephant I'm sure I can find it again. ;)
This sounds so wrong, once you let your mind wander... but it feels so right!

well folks, gotta go. I've learned so much, and acquired a spouse (how will I explain this to Mindy?) see you again.

Can one really contemplate conservatism? The definition of conservatism is rather limiting in nature, having already established principles. I consider myself quite conservative, if only because I don't agree with liberal ideology, but I do think that we need some reform. Mainly, the kind where everybody in the entire world dukes it out with each other and then devours everybody as they go along. It's natural selection to the extreme.

Been there, done that. It was a movie --- in an allegory, of course.

Remember the phrase, "There can be only ONE!"?

They never show you where the bodies really end up do they?

As for all these labels like conservative and liberal, they've lost meaning anyway. They're just swear-words now, used by certain groups to pillory others. Makes me yawn.

Hmmm. So did typing the phrase, "Makes me yawn".

There it goes again. It's recursive. Recursive yawning. Ah, something to while away some time instead of getting back to work. "Yawn". Yep! It works!

Recursive yawning. Just as useful as the recursive misunderstanding and alienation that arises from calling one another labels like "conservative" and "liberal".

Ooh! Typing that makes me yawn too.

I really shouldn't have stayed up so late last night....

Why do you silly breeders always assume the homosexual agenda has anything to do with you? Our agenda, naturally, focuses on us.

Why do you silly breeders always assume the homosexual agenda has anything to do with you? Our agenda, naturally, focuses on us.


Maybe because there are those among you (I'll refrain from saying "you non-breeders") who call us things like "you silly breeders"?

I can understand your irritation, but I don't see how it helps to get so ratty about it.

Been there, done that. It was a movie --- in an allegory, of course.

Remember the phrase, "There can be only ONE!"?

They never show you where the bodies really end up do they?

As for all these labels like conservative and liberal, they've lost meaning anyway. They're just swear-words now, used by certain groups to pillory others. Makes me yawn.

Hmmm. So did typing the phrase, "Makes me yawn".

There it goes again. It's recursive. Recursive yawning. Ah, something to while away some time instead of getting back to work. "Yawn". Yep! It works!

Recursive yawning. Just as useful as the recursive misunderstanding and alienation that arises from calling one another labels like "conservative" and "liberal".

Ooh! Typing that makes me yawn too.

I really shouldn't have stayed up so late last night....



Heheh labels, huh you gota love em, look there's one right there ohh and another shit, arn't all words labels?

Go go get on with ya and remain silent ohhh ye label haters!

Why do you silly breeders always assume the homosexual agenda has anything to do with you? Our agenda, naturally, focuses on us.


Shit did you not read the bit where it was decided that the cartoon was a spoof then, actualy a joke on people that think that way, a parody if you want?

Why do you silly breeders always assume the homosexual agenda has anything to do with you? Our agenda, naturally, focuses on us.

Excellent, excellent!
Now please make sure you stay outside of the range of our nukes.

I have nothing against minorities, as long as they are very silent and humble.
Children are to be seen, not to be heard.

Why do you silly breeders always assume the homosexual agenda has anything to do with you? Our agenda, naturally, focuses on us.
It's not so much the homosexual agenda as it is the gay agenda. There's a difference. For instance, somebody keys your car. Not like a little scratch, they fucking key it with a combination belt-sander/MIG welder. What do you say to that? "Dude, that is so homosexual"? Of course not. It's not nearly as catchy, much less concise, as "Dude, that is so gay". Me, I just find a thread and cling onto it for the night, occasionally preaching cannibalism or Blackie Lawless, rarely calling for the oppression of left-handed people. Speaking of which, it is getting quite early now. I'm out.

Excellent, excellent!
Now please make sure you stay outside of the range of our nukes.

I have nothing against minorities, as long as they are very silent and humble.
Children are to be seen, not to be heard.

I always though it was 'children are to been seen, to be herded' Is that no longer tha case then?

I always though it was 'children are to been seen, to be herded' Is that no longer tha case then?


Meh. I spent too much time amongst dutch-speakers.

Who said: Hou je kop, of we meppen hem dicht.
( shut mouth, or we beat it shut. )

Kinderen die vragen worden inmekaarsgeslagen.

( kids who ask, get beaten up)

Heheh labels, huh you gota love em, look there's one right there ohh and another shit, arn't all words labels?

Go go get on with ya and remain silent ohhh ye label haters!

Congratulations for not managing to the whole sentence and get the context:

As for all these labels like conservative and liberal, they've lost meaning anyway. They're just swear-words now, used by certain groups to pillory others.

To put it nice and simply for you, the words "these" and "like..." should have tipped you off that I was referring to a very particular sub-set of the language. The rest of the text I've just quoted stated more specifically how I regard their more ordinary function to have been distorted in use.

Sorry you didn't grasp it.

Congratulations for not managing to the whole sentence and get the context:



To put it nice and simply for you, the words "these" and "like..." should have tipped you off that I was referring to a very particular sub-set of the language. The rest of the text I've just quoted stated more specifically how I regard their more ordinary function to have been distorted in use.

Sorry you didn't grasp it.


Shit man and many many congratulations for mistaking my post for anything other that a lil joke. Lighten up man.

Maybe because there are those among you (I'll refrain from saying "you non-breeders") who call us things like "you silly breeders"?

I can understand your irritation, but I don't see how it helps to get so ratty about it.
My intent was rather more light hearted than you seem to have read.

Everybody in the world should just duke it out. And then eat each other. Not like in the "Tee-hee, he means 'eat' like oral sex!" kinda way that you sickos always seem to jump to, but more like "He means 'eat' as in consume, devour, digest, absorb, ruminate, feast, gormandize. Like a cannibal. That's weird."

I personally think that it would solve all of this nonsensical arguing.


I totally agree. I know this was from more than a century ago.. But I think it needs to be looked at again.

The Homo-sex should be outlawed. Not that I have a moral objection or I think it's gross, But If it continues, the world will run out of petrolem-jelly before 3012.


of course none of us will ever see they day but think of our future generations.

I totally agree. I know this was from more than a century ago.. But I think it needs to be looked at again.

The Homo-sex should be outlawed. Not that I have a moral objection or I think it's gross, But If it continues, the world will run out of petrolem-jelly before 3012.


of course none of us will ever see they day but think of our future generations.


Heheh won't somebody pul-ease think of the children!

Anyhow thats not such a bad thing, i understand that wather based lubrication cream is better anyway. Umm err so my gay freinds tell me anyhoo!

I have nothing against minorities, as long as they are very silent and humble.

Why should they be silent and humble to the likes of assholes like you?

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-19-03.gif
This is seriously something I've never understood. How is it people make this leap, in their minds, from basic civil rights for gay people, to the downfall of society?

Because the structure of their society is based upon inequity. Their system will not be able to thrive if homosexuals (and women, and minorities) are recognized as full and equal human beings.


How is it that some people can actually feel victimised by the fact that another group is gaining some ground, at no detriment to them?

Because there IS a detriment to them, in that they will not longer enjoy the excessive power and privaledge of being white, male, and heterosexual. They don't like the idea of being equal, because then they will not have the same amount of power and luxury as they've enjoyed in the past.


Why is it that gays are so terrible to some people that they feel threatened if they are given the rights accorded to every other citizen of their country?
A lot of it has to do with their gender role system. If marriage is allowed to be about love, mutual respect, and an egalitarian relationship between two independent individuals, then "traditional" marriage will die out.

because of Black people.
Blame black people.
Black People.
Because black people are stinky, smelly, dirty and criminal. Hasn't this already been addressed in my "Let's Blame Everything on Black People" Thread ?
I blame black people.
Ceia, this is an Official Warning to stop the spamming/trolling.

Erastide
~Forum Moderator

I have nothing against minorities, as long as they are very silent and humble.

Me, I likes my minorities loud and uppity.

But shouldn't legalizing, say, alchohol, or unmarried sex, or numerous other things held by christianity as "immoral" stand on the same grounds?
Or the towering elephant in the room, divorce.

Or the towering elephant in the room, divorce.

We should stone adulterers too.

Why does everyone love homosexuality, porn, and sex so much that they hate Christianity? Why was America settled by European Pilgrims and Puritans in the first place? "To advance Christianity," as they put it.

This whole gay marriage thing has nothing to do with marriage. It has to do with welfare. The only reason why gays want marriage is so they can get the same government privileges as heterosexuals. I'm against gay marriage, but it's a religious institution, so the government has no authority to ban or legalize gay marriage. If the government would just stay out of marriage altogether, without handing out ridiculus "privileges," we wouldn't be fighting about marriage because our tax dollars wouldn't be paying for its legalization/illegalization.

And why do people think Southerners are a bunch of ignorant hicks? Haven't you ever read the League of the South's intelligent, pro-freedom, anti-George Bush blog (http://leagueofthesouth.net/blog/weblog.php)? You don't have to believe the movies and TV that always negatively portray the South.

Why does everyone love homosexuality, porn, and sex so much that they hate Christianity?
They don't hate Christianity, they just love the freedom to choose to live by its doctrines, or not.

It has to do with welfare. The only reason why gays want marriage is so they can get the same government privileges as heterosexuals.

What's wrong with this?

Gay marriage would be like putting hot sex oil on the slippery slope of society's genitals.

Sig'd!

Why does everyone love homosexuality, porn, and sex so much that they hate Christianity?

Because, my boy, Christianity frankly sucks. It tells us not to do all of those wonderful things nature installed in us and, well, I say, "Fuck no".

I will fuck. I will drink booze. I will enjoy anal sex. I will do whatever the bloody hell I please as long as it isn't hurting someone else and Jesus will just have to suck it up and take it.

This whole gay marriage thing has nothing to do with marriage.

You're right. It has to do with the right to choose. Something you'd prefer certain people who offend your tender sensibilities not to have. I say to that, "Piss off".

I'm against gay marriage, but it's a religious institution

Then explain how it is that atheists get married.

Wars happen. They've happened for millenia on end. Worse atrocities than the ones our world experiences today have been committed. As far as we know, it's human nature, so don't be a **** about it.

Yeah! Great arguement! Why don't we get rid of all hospitals? Diseases have been around for millenia too.

What's wrong with this?
The government has no authority or jurisdiction over marriage, so it should bestow "privileges" neither to gays nor to heterosexuals. The welfare system is just a way for the government to butt into our lives in the false name of "equality." Gays have no "right" to get married to each other, but then again, the government has no "right" to stop them from going inside a church and having a guy read to them from a book and telling them to kiss. All I can do is stand outside and hold a peaceful protest.

Passing any gay marriage legislation, to legalize or illegalize it, would violate the first amendment in that it respects an establishment of religion by creating a pro-homosexual, anti-Christian government. The government's only purpose is to enforce the Law, not to reinvent law.

Then explain how it is that atheists get married.

Atheists get married so that they have a nice legal document giving them certain rights, tax exemptions etc. I don't know about other places, but in France you sign two marriage contracts, a religious one and a state one. Atheists just sign the state one.

Passing any gay marriage legislation, to legalize or illegalize it, would violate the first amendment in that it respects an establishment of religion by creating a pro-homosexual, anti-Christian government. The government's only purpose is to enforce the Law, not to reinvent law.
You think that the homosexuality issue is important enough to turn the government anti-Christian? What about divorce? Jesus spoke much more against that than against homosexuality, yet because the government allows divorce they are not anti-Christian?

Atheists get married so that they have a nice legal document giving them certain rights, tax exemptions etc. I don't know about other places, but in France you sign two marriage contracts, a religious one and a state one. Atheists just sign the state one.

Well last I looked, this ain't France.

Marriage was around long before any religion was ever invented.

It's not a religious institution and, in the US, all marriage licenses are issued by the State, not by a church.

Because, my boy, Christianity frankly sucks. It tells us not to do all of those wonderful things nature installed in us and, well, I say, "Fuck no".

I will fuck. I will drink booze. I will enjoy anal sex. I will do whatever the bloody hell I please as long as it isn't hurting someone else and Jesus will just have to suck it up and take it.
Exactly the type of response I'd expect from Christ-haters...

You're right. It has to do with the right to choose. Something you'd prefer certain people who offend your tender sensibilities not to have. I say to that, "Piss off".
Republicans hate Democrats more than they love their country, and you are no better: you hate Christians more than you love freedom.

Then explain how it is that atheists get married.
I don't know; it's none of my business what they do, as long as they're not breaking laws.

Exactly the type of response I'd expect from Christ-haters...


I cannot hate that which never has existed.

you hate Christians more than you love freedom.

I hate Christians because they want to take away my freedom.

I don't know; it's none of my business what they do, as long as they're not breaking laws.

Sorry, kid, your argument breaks down in the face of the fact that America is a secular nation. Gays will get marriage rights here. If you don't like it, move to a theocracy. Maybe Saudi Arabia. They hate gays there too.

But shouldn't legalizing, say, alchohol, or unmarried sex, or numerous other things held by christianity as "immoral" stand on the same grounds?

Ever hear of Prohibition?

Where there was an amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting alcohol sales in the whole USA?

Ever hear of the Temperance Movement?

Well last I looked, this ain't France.

Marriage was around long before any religion was ever invented.

It's not a religious institution and, in the US, all marriage licenses are issued by the State, not by a church.
Well you're right nowadays in that the government has socialized marriage, but it wasn't always that way.

You think that the homosexuality issue is important enough to turn the government anti-Christian? What about divorce? Jesus spoke much more against that than against homosexuality, yet because the government allows divorce they are not anti-Christian?
Actually, the government wouldn't be turned anti-Christian if they passed certain legislation... it already is. Think Bush is a Christian? No, I wrote on my (rather extremist) blog that Bush is a "nonbelieving, nonChristian, cowardly moron" (but this was because he didn't stop the murder of Terri Schiavo, which Federalist 43, §6 demanded that he do). But it's still true in the context of our socialistic, sometimes fascist, Big Business, anti-Christian, big, bloated, unconstitutional government.

Well you're right nowadays in that the government has socialized marriage, but it wasn't always that way.

It was always that way in the US. Always. From day one.

We have always been a secular nation. We tried being a moral nation with the Volstead Act (prohibition) and, well, as you can see ... it didn't work.

If you want to see how religions run a country, look no further than Saudi Arabia. Do you really want to live in that kind of society?

i'm sorry, but what does this have to do with fictious digital nations and fictious digital decisions?

i don't think Christ will judge your digital nation if you digitally allow homosexual marriage.

plus, if a 0 wants to marry a 0 and a 1 marries a 1...then all you end up with is 00, 11 instead of 01, 01.

Actually, the government wouldn't be turned anti-Christian if they passed certain legislation... it already is.
I can see that you hate socialism, yet you think that the government should be influenced by what the Bible says. Would you be against socialist policies inspired by Acts? I imagine you'll say no, which leads me to question whether you love your money more than God.

The government has no authority or jurisdiction over marriage, so it should bestow "privileges" neither to gays nor to heterosexuals.
On the contrary, the government is a reflection of the society it represents, and thus it forms a secular code of ethics (which takes a good deal more scrutiny and rational though, and thus has the opportunity to be far more inteligent and sensible than what the leaders of the religious right have cobbled together from a smattering of levitican law and new testament remarks). The battle to repeal racist legislations was never just about the horrors of having to drink from a particular drinking fountain, but rather the social endorsement of racism which those laws represented, and the social recogntion of equality which their repealment would precipitate. The laws of the land constatly form this unifying voice of what - as a society - we find acceptable, and this has been going on a lot longer than your religion (hell, the Xia dynasty was making laws over a thousand years before Moses was even born).
The welfare system is just a way for the government to butt into our lives in the false name of "equality."
The "benefits" which married couples recieve are hardly welfare. Next of kin status for medical decisions, easier access to dual custody of children, tax recognition of household dependancy, recognition of family status for imigration... These are simply practical considerations recognising the realities of living as a married couple, and since gays have as much of a legitimate claim to these considerations it seems only sensible that no division be made between one kind of marriage and another, when neither entail anything bad.
There are changes I'd like to make to the structure of legal marriage, but as it stands it is certainly not a wholly heterosexual concept.
Gays have no "right" to get married to each other, but then again, the government has no "right" to stop them from going inside a church and having a guy read to them from a book and telling them to kiss.
If the church is willing, I suppose (the Anglican cathedral for my diocese performs gay marriages, certainly) but that's the church's choice, and very few of my married gay friends were even interested in having a religious wedding. It's really only interesting to religious people, the rest of us have our own communities, and our own ceremonies.
Passing any gay marriage legislation, to legalize or illegalize it, would violate the first amendment in that it respects an establishment of religion by creating a pro-homosexual, anti-Christian government.
That ship has sailed, with the legal prohibitions against murder and the legal recognition of divorce, the government has already sided either with or against the church on countless issues, mainly because the church sees fit to take up sides on just about any issue (as a side-bar, "the church" itself is a massive simplification, and when you take into consideration all the disputes and kibitzing within christianity, it's a wonder anyone take "the church"'s stance on anything seriously).

I imagine you'll say no, which leads me to question whether you love your money more than God.

In the end, all Americans do. The ones who wear their religion like a badge are far more likely to be so because it is clear they are compensating for something.

Atheists get married so that they have a nice legal document giving them certain rights, tax exemptions etc. I don't know about other places, but in France you sign two marriage contracts, a religious one and a state one. Atheists just sign the state one.
In the US, a marriage contract between atheists carries precisely the same amount of weight (legally speaking) as one between religious individuals. This is because we recognize that marriage exists independent of religion, and so does our government.

Atheists get married so that they have a nice legal document giving them certain rights, tax exemptions etc. I don't know about other places, but in France you sign two marriage contracts, a religious one and a state one. Atheists just sign the state one.


Fuckin' hell, I can't belive nobody yet has talked about marriage being a romantic institution.

My wife is atheist, I'm religious, both of us saw/see(heheh sawsee hehe umm sorry) marriage as neither religious or legal, we got married because we love each other, and that was 16 years ago now, in a registary office.

So marriage for love, what about it, it may be old fashioned, may be that means I am, but if you ask me atheists like gays, like hetro's, like black white and all people everywhere get married for love first.

Fuckin' hell, I can't belive nobody yet has talked about marriage being a romantic institution.

Because it's not, you godless heretic.

Marriage is about a man acquiring a FemBot to clean his house and bear his heirs. That's how it worked in the Bible, and that's how it's supposed to work in practice, dagnabbit! What's love got to do with it?


My wife is atheist, I'm religious, both of us saw/see(heheh sawsee hehe umm sorry) marriage as neither religious or legal, we got married because we love each other, and that was 16 years ago now, in a registary office.

So marriage for love, what about it, it may be old fashioned, may be that means I am, but if you ask me atheists like gays, like hetro's, like black white and all people everywhere get married for love first.
But that's just the thing: the really revolutionary idea is the very concept of marriage for love. That's damn new concept, historically speaking. Throughout most of history, marriage was an economic transaction, not a romantic pair-bond entered into by two equal individuals.

As opposed to what, arranged marriages? I don't think the validity of love-matches in the modern wetsern world is being questioned, but in a discussion of who is allowed to marry, it's taken as read that those seeking marriage are usually in love and want to get married.

As opposed to what, arranged marriages? I don't think the validity of love-matches is being questioned, but in a discussion of who is allowed to marry, it's taken as read that those seeking marriage are usually in love and want to get married.
Love-matches are absolutely being questioned! We've got a TON of people insisting that marriage isn't marriage unless it's entered into for the purpose of procreation. We've got people insisting that marriage isn't marriage unless it's entered into in accordance with the Will of God. Whether or not a couple loves each other is shoved aside without a moment's consideration.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-19-03.gif
This is seriously something I've never understood. How is it people make this leap, in their minds, from basic civil rights for gay people, to the downfall of society? How is it that some people can actually feel victimised by the fact that another group is gaining some ground, at no detriment to them? Why is it that gays are so terrible to some people that they feel threatened if they are given the rights accorded to every other citizen of their country?

It's the cornerstone of conservative politics. Other people must be hurt because if you are hurt less than others, then you're better off. It's easier to trust that a politician will hurt others than that he will help you.

It's easier to trust that a politician will hurt others than that he will help you.
That's really, really creepy, because it makes too much sense...

We should stone adulterers too.


While we're at it, let's remember the people who fudge their expense accounts, steal the company pens, slander the people they consider their enemies, gossip, tell lies, wish somebody dead, cheat on exams, etc.

While we're at it, let's remember the people who fudge their expense accounts, steal the company pens, slander the people they consider their enemies, gossip, tell lies, wish somebody dead, cheat on exams, etc.
Plant beans and tomatos in the same kitchen garden plot, wear cotton-poly blends, say "Dammit!" when they stub their toe...

Plant beans and tomatos in the same kitchen garden plot, wear cotton-poly blends, say "Dammit!" when they stub their toe...

...make fun of the handicapped, neglect the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the widowed, the helpless, the victims of injustice ...

...make fun of the handicapped, neglect the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the widowed, the helpless, the victims of injustice ...
...poke fun at dudes who are losing their hair, covet somebody's oxen...

We could totally make an entire thread out of this.

...poke fun at dudes who are losing their hair, covet somebody's oxen...

We could totally make an entire thread out of this.


*eggs you on* :D

...steal lice, look cross-eyed at hairballs...

... Annoying children & rape victims.