NationStates

Sorratsin wrote:

Nidaria wrote:If you understood morality, you would understand that it cannot change or else it will descend into chaos and eventual oblivion.

Then why didn't we dissolve into oblivion when women started owning property and we began paying the negro?

Holy shit, what if we did? What if we did and we're dead, and the last years have just been a dream like in Jacob's Ladder or that stupid church afterlife thing from Lost?

FUCK MAN FUCK






Ok, I'm sorry. I'm terribly high.

Nidaria wrote:

Buffett and Colbert wrote:By the way, Nidaria, there is no way you are libertarian.

I do believe that the government should keep out of private lives; however, it is the government's duty to legislate just laws and carry them out. The government must enforce morality, or else there would not be any morality.

I just cringed. Hard.

I'm beginning to think that browsing NSG is unhealthy. So much intolerance..

Ifreann wrote:

Nidaria wrote:Explain to me how I am hypocritical. I may be a sinner, but I am certainly not homosexual.

Why does the law have to stop their sins, but not yours?

Yup.

Jesus: All have fallen short of the glory of god.

Christians: My sins are forgiven. Yours deserve death.

Sorratsin wrote:

Nidaria wrote:If you understood morality, you would understand that it cannot change or else it will descend into chaos and eventual oblivion.

Then why didn't we dissolve into oblivion when women started owning property and we began paying the negro?

We're working on it.

150 years isn't a long time, you know.

Galloism wrote:

Sorratsin wrote:
Then why didn't we dissolve into oblivion when women started owning property and we began paying the negro?

We're working on it.

150 years isn't a long time, you know.

When the Universe is only 6000ish years old it is.

Ifreann wrote:

Nidaria wrote:Explain to me how I am hypocritical. I may be a sinner, but I am certainly not homosexual.

Why does the law have to stop their sins, but not yours?

Yeah, it would be more convincing if you were a homosexual, but refrained from homosexual acts due to your morality. Or had some other form of sexuality that is socially or morally questionable.

When the Universe is only 6000ish years old it is.

I think you forgot to add a billion after the 6000.

Ifreann wrote:

Galloism wrote:We're working on it.

150 years isn't a long time, you know.

When the Universe is only 6000ish years old it is.

In Bible Believing Universe, you can make a diamond with a bag of charcoal, a vice grip, and three years.

Galloism wrote:

Sorratsin wrote:
Then why didn't we dissolve into oblivion when women started owning property and we began paying the negro?

We're working on it.

150 years isn't a long time, you know.

Then why hasn't it happened since we allowed the plebeians to pass their own laws, or since we started paying the Jews?

You know, if we're going to fall into total societal collapse we should at least be timely about it.

Sorratsin wrote:

Galloism wrote:We're working on it.

150 years isn't a long time, you know.

Then why hasn't it happened since we allowed the plebeians to pass their own laws, or since we started paying the Jews?

You know, if we're going to fall into total societal collapse we should at least be timely about it.

These things take time. Rome wasn't built in a day. It can't be destroyed in one either.

Galloism wrote:

Sorratsin wrote:
Then why hasn't it happened since we allowed the plebeians to pass their own laws, or since we started paying the Jews?

You know, if we're going to fall into total societal collapse we should at least be timely about it.

These things take time. Rome wasn't built in a day. It can't be destroyed in one either.

Looks up from tablet. We are a bit behind schedule for destroying Western morality. We were focusing on the Middle East...makes note get back to destroying Western morality when convenient...

Neutraligon wrote:

Galloism wrote:These things take time. Rome wasn't built in a day. It can't be destroyed in one either.

Looks up from tablet. We are a bit behind schedule for destroying Western morality. We were focusing on the Middle East...makes note get back to destroying Western morality when convenient...

There's really only so much morality you can destroy at any given time. It starts getting into a sort of "Too many cooks" kind of thing.

Ifreann wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Looks up from tablet. We are a bit behind schedule for destroying Western morality. We were focusing on the Middle East...makes note get back to destroying Western morality when convenient...

There's really only so much morality you can destroy at any given time. It starts getting into a sort of "Too many cooks" kind of thing.

Indeed, destroying Western Morality wasn't very high on our list of things to do anyway, since we started seeing results as soon as that cult popped up about 2000 years ago.

Sorratsin wrote:

Nidaria wrote:If you understood morality, you would understand that it cannot change or else it will descend into chaos and eventual oblivion.

Then why didn't we dissolve into oblivion when women started owning property and we began paying the negro?

^this. Is getting fucking sigged.

The Republican Tea Party wrote:

Buffett and Colbert wrote:Because he's definitely the authority on the subject.

Well he signed DOMA into law so i thought it appropriate he is somewhere in the discussion.

IIRC, he left messages in NC telling people to vote against Amendment One. Therefore, he's pro-LGBT rights.

Nidaria wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
1. Yes. Calling us immoral and denying us our rights with bullshit reasons for doing so IS cruel.

2. You certainly are making it look like that.

3. First, define perversion. Secondly, as long as its not depriving somebody of their rights without informed consent, its not illegal. We are committing no crime. You, therefore, have no reason to discriminate against us by denying our rights.

4. No, its not. Why would somebody choose to be non-heterosexual with people like you oppressing us? Its like choosing to be black in 1950s Mississippi.

5. You can't face the consequences of a choice that doesn't exist.



6. Proof? People are beginning to realize just how stupid it is to discriminate against LGBTs. Don't like it? Move to Iran.

7. Right, because teh gays are going to destroy America.

You've been severely misinformed. So, do yourself a favor, and get educated.

1. Placing reasonable restraints on how people should act is not cruel.
2. How? By your logic liberals look the same as well, if not worse.
3. A sexual perversion is a relationship other than that between one man and one woman. "Informed consent" should go only so far. Two people should not be allowed to torture each other if they both consent to it. A perversion could be considered a crime.
4. Some people simply want to go against the rules of society, however just they are. Homophobia bears no resemblance with racism. It is evil to discriminate against someone for how they are born. However, until concrete evidence is provided to the contrary, one cannot be born homosexual, and thus it is a conscious choice. Of course, the alternative is that homosexuality is a mental illness, which just makes it worse for you.
5. See what I just said.
6. Cannibalism did not exist in the West for several hundred years, and now, in our much more liberal society, there is a sudden wave of it. I believe it is no just coincidence. Also, the crime rate has gone up and people are more violent. Rapes and child molestations have also increased. Why is stopping a perversion "stupid"? Harm can only come to us if we allow just one perversion to be legal. Homosexuality one day, pedophilia the next.
7. Perhaps not suddenly, but America will be severely compromised. As people are more sexually open, sex crimes and perversions will invariably increase (see my note on rapes and child molestations).

8. In any case, you would be sharing my point of view if you had even a basic understanding of history and social studies.

1. How is it reasonable to discriminate against somebody for loving somebody who just so happens to be of the same sex?

2. First, I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian, thank you very much. Secondly, by denying people basic rights you are torturing them.

3. Ok, that's your opinion. Now, why is it perverted for anything outside of 1 man 1 woman? Why should there be a limit to informed consent? What right do you have to say what two or more people should and shouldn't do if everybody involved knows whats going on and is ok with it? Why should what YOU consider to be a perversion be considered a crime? What if somebody tried to stop you from marrying somebody because they felt it was wrong? Would that be right? NO. Then why is it right for you to stop others from getting married?

4. Actually, you have it totally fucking wrong. NOBODY chooses their sexual orientation. This has been shown scientifically. If you would like to challenge it, tell me when you decided not to be gay. Then choose to be gay temporarily and enjoy it (even then, you'd have to prove that you're not bisexual).

Now. As for this bit about it being a mental illness, that has also been proven to be false. No reputable institution considers homosexuality to be either a choice or a mental illness. Now, if, by the slimmest of chances (there's a greater chance of you getting struck by lightning, then making first contact with an alien civilization tomorrow) homosexuality is a mental illness, that's still no reason to discriminate against the LGBT community. You wouldn't discriminate against somebody who had ADHD, would you? Then why discriminate against somebody who is LGBT?

5. See what I said.

6. Correlation does not equal causation. That violence, in most cases, is related to drug gangs. Could it be that rape and child molestation is just as common as it was in the past, except that now its reported more often? Pedophilia is not homosexuality. The two are different. Yes, there are many cases of man on boy and woman on girl, but there are just as many cases of man on girl and woman on boy.

Its stupid to discriminate against LGBTs because its not a choice, and it doesn't deprive people of their rights. If you could somehow conclusively show that me kissing another man causes somebody anywhere in the world to go through something as minor as a hangnail, then you might be justified in your discrimination. Otherwise, your position has as much justification as trying to stop interracial couples from getting together does.

7. Do you have any unbiased, undeniable proof of this? I doubt it.

8. I'm sorry, I didn't know that you knew me that well to judge whether or not you knew more than I did in certain subjects that have no relevance to the topic at hand. [/sarcasm]

That, my good sir, is a form of personal attack. An ad hominem. What is called a logical fallacy, something that I only notice ignorant people and those whose arguments are on their last legs use. Resorting to such a tactic only proves to me that I am successfully countering every argument you can come up with.

Nidaria wrote:

Raeyh wrote:
Must be a chaos butterfly argument.

9. No, it is because the legalization of homosexuality dissolves the moral code (which liberals call unfair and barbaric) which protects the people from crime and other evils.

9. How is that, exactly?

Nidaria wrote:

Raeyh wrote:
So your solution is to treat homosexuals as social pariahs so that they aren't accepted into society and cause it to change?

10. No, they should be rehabilitated. Our society has degraded far enough already, it is time to reverse the process.

10. No LGBT has been successfully "rehabilitated" for any long term period of time. Try again.

Nidaria wrote:

Free South Califas wrote:Nidaria, it is your desire to exclude people from civic participation which erodes the moral standard. That you claim to be a self-righteously moral being degrades it further.

11. If you understood morality, you would understand that it cannot change or else it will descend into chaos and eventual oblivion.

11. Didn't it used to be moral to kill a slave for trying to run away? Didn't it used to be moral to be killed for speaking out against the government?

Nidaria wrote:

Hammurab wrote:
Its the best defense to the hypocrisy fork.

Pioneered by Paul Eemic, a young debater from Eastern Europe.

12. Explain to me how I am hypocritical. I may be a sinner, but I am certainly not homosexual.

12. You may be a homosexual or bisexual in denial (even on a subconscious level), or you may be completely heterosexual. We can't do anything but take your word for it. Now, I can't bring myself to believe that a rational, loving God would endorse half the shit you're calling for. For the very simple reason that its simply NOT rational or loving to do what you call for.

Nidaria wrote:

Raeyh wrote:
Then you also have to hold heterosexuals to the same moral standard.

I do. The rates of adultery and divorce nowadays is shocking.

The rates of divorce are actually lower in 'gay' marriages.Don't know about adultery, but since the main argument against marriage equality is that it 'destroys the sanctity of marriage', you're not actually doing your side any favors.

Nidaria wrote:I do believe that the government should keep out of private lives; ... The government must enforce morality...

These two things actually contradict.

Nidaria wrote:

Free South Califas wrote:Nidaria, it is your desire to exclude people from civic participation which erodes the moral standard. That you claim to be a self-righteously moral being degrades it further.

If you understood morality, you would understand that it cannot change or else it will descend into chaos and eventual oblivion.

And if you understood slippery slopes, you'd know why you're all wet now.

Nidaria wrote:If you understood morality, you would understand that it cannot change or else it will descend into chaos and eventual oblivion.

and sodomy.

glorious, glorious sodomy.

Nidaria wrote:

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Thank you for making it clear to us all that you're not a Christian, that you're an enemy of freedom, and that you prefer depravity and perversion to civilization and culture.

Your habit of copying what I said and using it against me becomes annoying fast.

I'm sure the cognitive dissonance of pretending to be a libertarian while attempting to force the government into everyone's bedrooms got annoying fast, and that's how you adopted this crazy-ass philosophy. Unless you don't believe in all this and you're just here for a laugh...?

Nidaria wrote:4. Some people simply want to go against the rules of society, however just they are. Homophobia bears no resemblance with racism. It is evil to discriminate against someone for how they are born. However, until concrete evidence is provided to the contrary, one cannot be born homosexual, and thus it is a conscious choice. Of course, the alternative is that homosexuality is a mental illness, which just makes it worse for you.

Tell me, when did you chose to be heterosexual?

6. Cannibalism did not exist in the West for several hundred years, and now, in our much more liberal society, there is a sudden wave of it. I believe it is no just coincidence.

Prove it.

Rapes and child molestations have also increased.

Prove it.

Why is stopping a perversion "stupid"?

Because what two consenting adults do is none of your fucking business?

Harm can only come to us if we allow just one perversion to be legal.

Slippery slope theory doesn't hold true in reality.

Homosexuality one day, pedophilia the next.

Paedophilia is legal.

Galloism wrote:

Sorratsin wrote:
Then why hasn't it happened since we allowed the plebeians to pass their own laws, or since we started paying the Jews?

You know, if we're going to fall into total societal collapse we should at least be timely about it.

These things take time. Rome wasn't built in a day. It can't be destroyed in one either.

Challenged accepted!

Zeppy wrote:

Nidaria wrote:If you understood morality, you would understand that it cannot change or else it will descend into chaos and eventual oblivion.

and sodomy.

glorious, glorious sodomy.

This how Ninth Gate should've ended.