Schools in tennessee k-8 not allowed to discuss gays.

[DaWoad]

That's full of fruit. I won't believe you can be fruitful until I see you with a bunch of fruit growing on you, you evil deceiver!

You're going to go bananas even before he has a chance to explain himself, orange you?

Look Dazchan, it's not that I don't think it's possible, but I'd have to be a coconut to not be de-mandarin some tangerine-ible evidence, all the same. Just pear with me here. I'm sorry, but you know you gotta draw the lime somewhere.

eh heh heh heh heh heh heh

man I can't believe I read all that.

[Vellosia]

So they can't discuss me...

Oh well. No great loss.

It is sad that some places in the US are so backward.

[Melkor Unchained]

Demen, Draconian Races

No, my morality says dont even listen to my religion: Just slay the homosexuals in their homes. Destroy all trace of them.

My religion is what makes me as moderate as I am.

Wow, seriously, fuck you.


I hate to say it, but NOTHING you say is liked. You should post on F7 or roleplay, and not spread religious bullshit. Maybe there, people might give a shit.

Demen has posted in the report thread in Moderation, so he is likely to anticipate his pretty clear-cut *** warning for flaming ***.

However, Draconian Races' post isn't much better, and advocating the death/extermination of groups of people (or, in many cases, an individual) is a good way to get you *** warned for trolling ***. Please bear in mind that I'm not warning you necessarily for arguing against homosexuality, since you are otherwise participating in the discussion to a nominal extent. However, you should generally stop short of saying "all x should be killed and all trace of them destroyed."

That said, the other responses to Draconian Races' posts have been a lot more productive than I expected. I think this was (mostly) a good example of how I/we think the community should handle statements like that: report it, but if you must respond (e.g., you have a really good argument, or the guy is just pro trollan and got you), do so without responding in kind.

[Kobeanare]

B. We obviously dont understand morals if they are relative. Animals live by a pretty 'relative' moral ground. Why should we be better? Unless, gasp, we have objective standards?

"Objective morals" is an oxymoron. They cannot exist.

C. Life has no sanctity. Not according to the views of the Left.... pro-abortion, often no death penalty for murderers

Wait, what? Not killing people is a bad thing because life is sacred?

What are you smoking?

[Izandai]

In the side bar it says "Schools in tennessee k-8 not allowed ... (1879)". Hi-larious.

As to the thing, they're being homophobic bigots and doing nothing more than supporting the opinion that homosexuality is strange or unnatural.

[Draconian Races]

In the side bar it says "Schools in tennessee k-8 not allowed ... (1879)". Hi-larious.

As to the thing, they're being homophobic bigots and doing nothing more than supporting the opinion that homosexuality is strange or unnatural.

People say I havent put forth logical arguments as to why its evil. Well, no one has put forth logical arguments as to why its *ok*.

"Its natural" or "They love each other" or "It wouldnt hurt you" seem to be the justifications for it... non of that makes it 'good' or 'ok'.

And I dont consider it trolling to speak my truly held beliefs about a group of people.... but, ah well.

[Geniasis]

People say I havent put forth logical arguments as to why its evil. Well, no one has put forth logical arguments as to why its *ok*.

"Its natural" or "They love each other" or "It wouldnt hurt you" seem to be the justifications for it... non of that makes it 'good' or 'ok'.

And I dont consider it trolling to speak my truly held beliefs about a group of people.... but, ah well.

The burden is on you to prove why it should be banned, or mass-murdered, or whatever nonsense you're on about now.

[The Corparation]

So was:

1. Talking back to parents
2. Working on the Sabbath
3. Lying
4. Being non-Jewish and walking near a place of Jewish worship.

Let the stoning begin!

I think planting two crops in the same plot of land, too. And wearing clothes woven from two different threads? They had a lot of stones in the ancient Middle East.

And mixing meat and dairy products, and also eating shellfish.

[Kobeanare]

In the side bar it says "Schools in tennessee k-8 not allowed ... (1879)". Hi-larious.

As to the thing, they're being homophobic bigots and doing nothing more than supporting the opinion that homosexuality is strange or unnatural.

People say I havent put forth logical arguments as to why its evil. Well, no one has put forth logical arguments as to why its *ok*.

"Its natural" or "They love each other" or "It wouldnt hurt you" seem to be the justifications for it... non of that makes it 'good' or 'ok'.

And I dont consider it trolling to speak my truly held beliefs about a group of people.... but, ah well.

There's a reason for that.

[Cilistia Novaren]

I think planting two crops in the same plot of land, too. And wearing clothes woven from two different threads? They had a lot of stones in the ancient Middle East.

And mixing meat and dairy products, and also eating shellfish.

Did it not say somewhere that if someone is raped, you need to either wed the victim and rapist, or kill them both?

[Draconian Races]

People say I havent put forth logical arguments as to why its evil. Well, no one has put forth logical arguments as to why its *ok*.

"Its natural" or "They love each other" or "It wouldnt hurt you" seem to be the justifications for it... non of that makes it 'good' or 'ok'.

And I dont consider it trolling to speak my truly held beliefs about a group of people.... but, ah well.

The burden is on you to prove why it should be banned, or mass-murdered, or whatever nonsense you're on about now.

Ive already said why. People keep saying "But thats wrong, its ok" etc etc. Noone has proven why its ok.

[Geniasis]

Ive already said why. People keep saying "But thats wrong, its ok" etc etc. Noone has proven why its ok.

Again, the burden of proof is on you. And no "argument" you've made has fulfilled that obligation.

[Draconian Races]

Ive already said why. People keep saying "But thats wrong, its ok" etc etc. Noone has proven why its ok.

Again, the burden of proof is on you. And no "argument" you've made has fulfilled that obligation.

Ive already pointed out that it doesnt produce children, is religiously immoral, and I believe is immoral in general.

[Cilistia Novaren]

The burden is on you to prove why it should be banned, or mass-murdered, or whatever nonsense you're on about now.

Ive already said why. People keep saying "But thats wrong, its ok" etc etc. Noone has proven why its ok.

It is a fact that people do not choose their sexuality, and it is indeed not a choice. I believe this has been proven a few times, but I am no professional. Now, if that is true, then giving someone less rights, killing, jailing, etc. simply because they have some 'undesirable' (not my words) trait that they cannot change, is generally seen as a bad thing.

Your turn

[The Black Forrest]

Which isn't common sense, but your morality, which isn't universally accepted.

No, my morality says dont even listen to my religion: Just slay the homosexuals in their homes. Destroy all trace of them.

My religion is what makes me as moderate as I am.

Interesting so your "ethics" says to commit murder but your religion says otherwise.

If you still have the feeling to kill them then you are a hypocrite since you are only going through the motions of what your "religion" says to do.

You have to believe it and feel it for it to be true.

[The Corparation]

And mixing meat and dairy products, and also eating shellfish.

Did it not say somewhere that if someone is raped, you need to either wed the victim and rapist, or kill them both?

OH yeah there was that too.

[Greater Tezdrian]

Again, the burden of proof is on you. And no "argument" you've made has fulfilled that obligation.

Ive already pointed out that it doesnt produce children,

So?

is religiously immoral

Only by Abrahamic standards.

and I believe is immoral in general.

Again, so? Your idea of morality doesn't fit everyone.

[Geniasis]

Ive already pointed out that it doesnt produce children

You have yet to prove why that matters, or why IVF or future technologies that don't use male seed don't produce children.

is religiously immoral

According to one interpretation of an individual religion that not everybody believes in.

and I believe is immoral in general.

Which is a personal opinion easily countered by at least one other person saying "I disagree".

For instance, I disagree.

[Cilistia Novaren]

Again, the burden of proof is on you. And no "argument" you've made has fulfilled that obligation.

Ive already pointed out that it doesnt produce children, is religiously immoral, and I believe is immoral in general.

By this logic, pretty much every married couple- gay or straight- is 'religiously immoral' as I would like you to introduce me to one that had sex only for the production of offspring, and no other reason.


Also, if you have sex on a day the woman is not in ovulation, that's immoral as well?

[The Black Forrest]

Again, the burden of proof is on you. And no "argument" you've made has fulfilled that obligation.

Ive already pointed out that it doesnt produce children, is religiously immoral, and I believe is immoral in general.

Production of children is not a measurement. You should be happy they pair up and remove themselves from the breeding pool.

Religiously immoral is a matter of opinion.

Your beliefs are immoral.

[Draconian Races]

Ive already pointed out that it doesnt produce children

You have yet to prove why that matters, or why IVF or future technologies that don't use male seed don't produce children.

When a man can fully turn into a female, or vice versa (not just a transgender operation. I mean fully. Chemically, physically, everything) I wont complain so much. And because they still wouldnt be breeding by themselves. Animals in nature cant breed male-on-male. It still requires a female.

And as for the argument, I can once again post Craig's article, which people will once again deny because they don't like it or say the numbers are 'unfounded'. But I fully believe that he is correct (although he takes a softer view to them)

[Geniasis]

For that matter, what about couples where either the man or the woman is infertile?

[Geniasis]

When a man can fully turn into a female, or vice versa (not just a transgender operation. I mean fully. Chemically, physically, everything) I wont complain so much. And because they still wouldnt be breeding by themselves. Animals in nature cant breed male-on-male. It still requires a female.

Nope. You already dismissed the Appeal to Nature earlier on. You don't get to fall back on it now.

And as for the argument, I can once again post Craig's article, which people will once again deny because they don't like it or say the numbers are 'unfounded'. But I fully believe that he is correct (although he takes a softer view to them)

Unfortunately, belief does not truth make. His numbers are unfounded (I take a softer view to them) and no amount of pixie dust will change that.

[Cilistia Novaren]

Ive already said why. People keep saying "But thats wrong, its ok" etc etc. Noone has proven why its ok.

It is a fact that people do not choose their sexuality, and it is indeed not a choice. I believe this has been proven a few times, but I am no professional. Now, if that is true, then giving someone less rights, killing, jailing, etc. simply because they have some 'undesirable' (not my words) trait that they cannot change, is generally seen as a bad thing.

Your turn


By this logic, pretty much every married couple- gay or straight- is 'religiously immoral' as I would like you to introduce me to one that had sex only for the production of offspring, and no other reason.


Also, if you have sex on a day the woman is not in ovulation, that's immoral as well?

*cough*

[The Black Forrest]

You have yet to prove why that matters, or why IVF or future technologies that don't use male seed don't produce children.

When a man can fully turn into a female, or vice versa (not just a transgender operation. I mean fully. Chemically, physically, everything) I wont complain so much. And because they still wouldnt be breeding by themselves. Animals in nature cant breed male-on-male. It still requires a female.

And as for the argument, I can once again post Craig's article, which people will once again deny because they don't like it or say the numbers are 'unfounded'. But I fully believe that he is correct (although he takes a softer view to them)

Production of children is not an issue.

You do understand gays can have children right?