NATION

PASSWORD

Homosexuality discussion thread

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Hakons
Senator
 
Posts: 3853
Founded: Jul 14, 2015
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Hakons » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:12 am

Salandriagado wrote:
Hakons wrote:
I have the vaguest sense of rational thought and I put supreme moral authority in the Bible.


Supreme authority and rational thought are entirely incompatible.

Laws and regulations are regularly given supreme authority across all nations and societies. Bylaws and neighborhood codes regulate life every day, unchallenged. Even households have written rules that ate followed. People, across all societies and all histories, have written texts and followed them with zeal.


None of those are given anything resembling supreme authority. You can tell by how often we change said laws and so on.


Rational thought can lead to a conclusion that is supreme. Stop throwing absolutes at a wall and hoping they will stick.

If one breaks the law, they are held under the law. There is no if, ands, or buts. If it is clear they broke the law, then they suffer the consequence. This is authority.
Why lies He in such mean estate, where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christians, fear, for sinners here the silent Word is pleading.
Nails, spear shall pierce Him through, the cross be borne for me, for you;
Hail, hail the Word made flesh, the Babe, the Son of Mary.

User avatar
Fascist Russian Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9267
Founded: Aug 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Fascist Russian Empire » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:12 am

Aillyria wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Islam does not make women slaves to men, nor does it allow them to "abuse" us. Much of the actual meaning is diluted in traslation between English and Arabic, and misunderstanding even occurs in translation between Classical/Quranic and Modern Arabic. Arabic makes many nuances were English doesn't. Also, the point on Sunnis and the hadith means nothing to me.....I'm a Sufi. I follow no hadith, only the Quran.

It's a common lie for Islamic missionaries to claim that the savage teachings in the Qu'ran are a byproduct of bad translations. I guarantee you, the Qu'ran teaches the inferiority of women in both its English and Arabic versions. And, of course, if you want to try going for the argument that the Arabic Qu'ran is unreliable, that would mean that the Qu'ran hasn't been perfectly preserved after all; it would mean that the Qu'ran has been compromised and Islam's most trusted source cannot be trusted.

Surah Four, Verse Thirty Four, of the Qu'ran: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

The Qu'ran very clearly, very explicitly, says that women must unconditionally obey their husband, and gives their husband the power to strike them if they refuse (which is an act of physical abuse). I'd say that you don't know what you're talking about but, quite frankly, I find it far more likely that you know damn well what Islam really teaches and are just spouting the same Islamic propaganda that most Muslims here recite.

الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنفَقُوا مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ ۚ فَالصَّالِحَاتُ قَانِتَاتٌ
حَافِظَاتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللَّهُ ۚ وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ
فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا

Here's the Arabic version of the verse; I assure you, it has the same message as the English one, that a woman belongs to a man who is free to beat her if she refuses to do as he commands. Unlike some people, I know the Qu'ran well enough to know that it's a blatant lie to say that the Arabic Qu'ran contains no immoral teachings. It does, and I know it does; you're not fooling anybody.

Even if you completely reject the teachings of every major Islamic school of jurisprudence in the world, and the beliefs of ninety five percent of all Muslims, and disregard the Hadiths, the second most important sources in Islam, and only follow the Qu'ran, Islam is still a savage and violent religion with savage and violent doctrines.

Hakons wrote:"Muh holy book" probably had a lot to do with the formation of your society and your morality.

The conspicuous antitheism in this thread is annoying and unoriginal. I understand some people harbor some bad views in this thread, but that's no excuse to rip on a religion for half the thread. Actually debate.

An ironic sentiment coming from the side of the debate which has consistently spouted non-sequiturs and the non-argument of "my false god said so, therefore it's true."

Seeing as how religion is the main source of opposition to homosexuality, I think we can all agree that it's a perfectly valid target in a discussion dealing with homosexuality (and opposition to it).

User avatar
Anywhere Else But Here
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5651
Founded: Mar 05, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Anywhere Else But Here » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:13 am

Hakons wrote:
Anywhere Else But Here wrote:If people are going to make religious arguments, they can hardly complain when people engage with those arguments. How would you suggest someone debate when their opposite's argument is "god says so" without taking a contrary view?


Argue that what they perceive as God's morality is not binding under a secular government.

People, we can debate without immediately resorting to insulting religious groups and holy texts.

This argument has, I daresay, been made repeatedly. Indeed, the very post you were responding to made the point that there are multiple religions, and that there's no particularly good reason to use any one as a basis for law.

I can't help but think you just don't like seeing your religion receive valid and reasoned criticism when people expose it to such by using it as the premise of their argument. You may hold god sacred, but that's not a compelling reason for others to do so.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16969
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:15 am

Hakons wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Supreme authority and rational thought are entirely incompatible.



None of those are given anything resembling supreme authority. You can tell by how often we change said laws and so on.
0

Rational thought can lead to a conclusion that is supreme. Stop throwing absolutes at a wall and hoping they will stick.


No, it literally can't. If you have anything that you don't question, what you are doing isn't rational thought.

If one breaks the law, they are held under the law. There is no if, ands, or buts. If it is clear they broke the law, then they suffer the consequence. This is authority.


It is, however, not supreme. Because it can be changed.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
The Xenopolis Confederation
Minister
 
Posts: 2629
Founded: Aug 11, 2017
Anarchy

Postby The Xenopolis Confederation » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:15 am

Sorry, I'm an individualist. I don't give a shit about societal norms. To say that homosexuality is bad because of societal norms is a transparent appeal to social contract, a fallacy, not an argument.
Pro: Liberty, Liberalism, Capitalism, Secularism, Minarchism, Equal opportunity, Direct Democracy, Windows Chauvinism, Psychedelic Rock, Live and let live tbh.
Against: Authoritarianism, Traditionalism, Socialism, Autocracy, (A)Theocracy, Macs, "The ends justify the means," Collectivism in all its forms.
Economic: 4.0
Social: -8.0
If you support liberal democratic capitalism, paste this into your sig: $LFD
NS Stats should be taken with a pinch of salt, but they're not too far off. Policies are way off though.
I'm a 17 year old Australian male who tries to think intelligently about things but fails, as we all do. I'll regret this in 2 years tops.

User avatar
Thermodolia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 45677
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Thermodolia » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:16 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
Hakons wrote:
I guess before Western secularization, no one ever debated at all. One simply can't debate a religious person. No one ever resolved an argument pre-1900.

Well, the Church often did employ a "final solution"...

Get your pogroms here!!
Male, centrist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, loves dogs particularly German Shepherds, give me any good Irish or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA:
Ambassador to the GA Jon Æthr
Ambassador to the SC Eve Šanœ

RIP Dya

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15897
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:16 am

Thermodolia wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Please can that belittling attitude. You don't feel sorry for homosexuals at all, you feel threatened by them...


Nonsense. There is no truth to that statement, at all. All your previous arguments have failed, and now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in a desperate attempt to find justifications for your irrational homophobia. I dread to think what you are going to accuse homosexuals of next...

Well it can't be much worse than the FRC claiming that all Nazis were gay


You mean the nazis who put gays in concentrationcamps " because they were not breeding for the Fatherland" ?
Those nazis ?

Intruiging ideas this FRC has.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Topoliani
Diplomat
 
Posts: 793
Founded: Aug 19, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Topoliani » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:17 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
Hakons wrote:
I guess before Western secularization, no one ever debated at all. One simply can't debate a religious person. No one ever resolved an argument pre-1900.

Well, the Church often did employ a "final solution"...

Well, no

Maybe up til the 1800's, yeah. During the Victorian age, nations started to rapidly secularize though
We don't use NSstats, those are for normies
If you go to war with us and you hear this, be afraid... be very afraid
A 128-ish civilization, according to this index.
Topoliani Times or some crap: After a weird plague caused most of the nation to hibernate for almost a month, the people of Topoliani have finally woken up to find nothing has changed. Roses, a flower thought extinct, found blossoming in mass in an abandoned field

IC Year: 1220 AD
Unfortunately, not dead

User avatar
Thermodolia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 45677
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Thermodolia » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:20 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Well it can't be much worse than the FRC claiming that all Nazis were gay


You mean the nazis who put gays in concentrationcamps " because they were not breeding for the Fatherland" ?
Those nazis ?

Intruiging ideas this FRC has.

Yes that would be those Nazis. The FRC or Family Research Council, which ironically doesn't do any research nor do they protect families, is full of wackos and is a known hate group the wiki
Male, centrist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, loves dogs particularly German Shepherds, give me any good Irish or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA:
Ambassador to the GA Jon Æthr
Ambassador to the SC Eve Šanœ

RIP Dya

User avatar
Fascist Russian Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9267
Founded: Aug 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Fascist Russian Empire » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:20 am

Hakons wrote:People, we can debate without immediately resorting to insulting religious groups and holy texts.

When your worthless religion is the basis for unlawful imprisonment and genocide of people all around the world, it's fair game to be insulted as much as people want. Honestly, do you think that you people can go around spreading lies about homosexuality, spend almost your entire religious history committing genocide against homosexuals, advocate for the deprivation of rights for or even the outright imprisonment of homosexuals, and make the absurd claim that there's an all-powerful creator of the universe who tells you to advocate against homosexuality, and not have your precious religion insulted in return?

Religion has done everything in the world to deserve disrespect and insults, and absolutely nothing to deserve respectful treatment. It isn't immune from harsh criticism, no matter how much theocracy-loving zealots want to make it so.

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15897
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:21 am

Hakons wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Supreme authority and rational thought are entirely incompatible.



None of those are given anything resembling supreme authority. You can tell by how often we change said laws and so on.


Rational thought can lead to a conclusion that is supreme. Stop throwing absolutes at a wall and hoping they will stick.

If one breaks the law, they are held under the law. There is no if, ands, or buts. If it is clear they broke the law, then they suffer the consequence. This is authority.


Only a mere 100 years ago lefthandedness was considered to be a sign that someone was in league with Satan. Lefthanded people were to be avoided and shunned. Corporeal punishment was encouraged to learn children to not write with the sinister hand.

Are we not glad that the Churches have forgotten all about that and are now supportive of lefthanded people - without the supreme autority ever opening the skies to boom "hey, stop being a dick to lefties" ?
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Hakons
Senator
 
Posts: 3853
Founded: Jul 14, 2015
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Hakons » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:23 am

Salandriagado wrote:
Hakons wrote:0

Rational thought can lead to a conclusion that is supreme. Stop throwing absolutes at a wall and hoping they will stick.


No, it literally can't. If you have anything that you don't question, what you are doing isn't rational thought.

If one breaks the law, they are held under the law. There is no if, ands, or buts. If it is clear they broke the law, then they suffer the consequence. This is authority.


It is, however, not supreme. Because it can be changed.


Rational - bases on or in accordance with reason or logic

Any thought that is based on reason or logic is considered rational. I answered a math problem based on reason and logic. Therefor, I'm at least a vaguely rational person. Rational thought doesn't mean question everything. Mathematics is ruled by rationality and defined by rigid laws. Very rarely do those laws change. For the overwhelming majority of the time, they are left unquestioned, as is just because they are overwhelmingly likely to be correct.
Why lies He in such mean estate, where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christians, fear, for sinners here the silent Word is pleading.
Nails, spear shall pierce Him through, the cross be borne for me, for you;
Hail, hail the Word made flesh, the Babe, the Son of Mary.

User avatar
Dylar
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5229
Founded: Jan 07, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Dylar » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:27 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Well it can't be much worse than the FRC claiming that all Nazis were gay


You mean the nazis who put gays in concentrationcamps " because they were not breeding for the Fatherland" ?
Those nazis ?

Intruiging ideas this FRC has.

Well, there was the SA...until Hitler had the SS kill them...
St. Albert the Great wrote:"Do there exist many worlds, or is there but a single world? This is one of the most noble and exalted questions in the study of Nature."
You can call me Josh if you want.
Pro: Life, Catholic, religious freedom, guns
Against: gun control, abortion, militant atheism, decriminalization of narcotics
Interests: video games, Crusade/WW1/WW2 History, rock, Polish polka, WW2 German military marchespls don't judge me ;-;, Slavic Hardbass, Catholic theology
Am a Polish Slav by blood.
Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: 6.38|Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.77
Sexiest/Cutest Under 18 NS'er for 2017

User avatar
Conserative Morality
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 73986
Founded: Aug 24, 2007
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:31 am

Hakons wrote:Rational - bases on or in accordance with reason or logic

Any thought that is based on reason or logic is considered rational. I answered a math problem based on reason and logic. Therefor, I'm at least a vaguely rational person. Rational thought doesn't mean question everything. Mathematics is ruled by rationality and defined by rigid laws. Very rarely do those laws change. For the overwhelming majority of the time, they are left unquestioned, as is just because they are overwhelmingly likely to be correct.

Unquestioned? You kidding? Mathematicians don't even agree with one another on whether it's an art or a science; whether its fundamental principles are created or discovered.

The thing about fields of study in the modern day is that there is nothing that is unquestioned. There are things that are sometimes accepted as axioms in the discussion of higher concepts, but none of those axioms, if questioned, have absolute authority in the field; they're conveniences for discussion's sake.
Last edited by Conserative Morality on Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
On the hate train. Choo choo, bitches. Bi-Polar. Proud Crypto-Fascist and Turbo Progressive. Dirty Étatist. Lowly Humanities Major. NSG's Best Liberal.
Caesar and Imperator of RWDT
Got a blog up again. || An NS Writing Discussion

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 123801
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:33 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
Hakons wrote:
Rational thought can lead to a conclusion that is supreme. Stop throwing absolutes at a wall and hoping they will stick.

If one breaks the law, they are held under the law. There is no if, ands, or buts. If it is clear they broke the law, then they suffer the consequence. This is authority.


Only a mere 100 years ago lefthandedness was considered to be a sign that someone was in league with Satan. Lefthanded people were to be avoided and shunned. Corporeal punishment was encouraged to learn children to not write with the sinister hand.

Are we not glad that the Churches have forgotten all about that and are now supportive of lefthanded people - without the supreme autority ever opening the skies to boom "hey, stop being a dick to lefties" ?

More recently than 100 years ago, I should think. I think it's still within living memory that nuns would give people a slap with the wooden ruler if they wrote with their sinister hand.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm.
It be feelin' like the life that I’m livin' man out of control
Like every day I’m in a fight for my soul


It’s likely that one or two of you who’ll listen to this enjoy the liberal administration of a social lubricant in it’s many wonderful forms. I can tell by the head on ya. A drop o’ Buckfast, a bump a’ Marvyn K, a cup o’ psilocybin scald, an opium suppository or whatever you’re havin’ yourself. And we’re right there with ya, rubbin’ in the commotion lotion and chasing blue ghosts. Fuck it, d’ya know what I mean?

User avatar
Kannap
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51755
Founded: May 07, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kannap » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:36 am

Ifreann wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
Only a mere 100 years ago lefthandedness was considered to be a sign that someone was in league with Satan. Lefthanded people were to be avoided and shunned. Corporeal punishment was encouraged to learn children to not write with the sinister hand.

Are we not glad that the Churches have forgotten all about that and are now supportive of lefthanded people - without the supreme autority ever opening the skies to boom "hey, stop being a dick to lefties" ?

More recently than 100 years ago, I should think. I think it's still within living memory that nuns would give people a slap with the wooden ruler if they wrote with their sinister hand.


My friend - who is currently 20 - went to a Lutheran school as a kid - they treated her horribly as because she was left handed. She's Catholic and ambidextrous now - and still hates Lutherans because of her experience.
21 years old, gay male, Presbyterian, North Carolinian. Pumpkin Spice everything.
TET's resident ostrich
Political Party: Not affiliated/Independent
Luna Amore wrote:Please remember to attend the ritualistic burning of Kannap for heresy
Feel free to call me Catnip
Political Compass: Economic -8.5 // Social -8.62

User avatar
What R Ye Doin in Muh Swaomp
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Dec 30, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby What R Ye Doin in Muh Swaomp » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:36 am

Fascist Russian Empire wrote:
Hakons wrote:People, we can debate without immediately resorting to insulting religious groups and holy texts.

When your worthless religion is the basis for unlawful imprisonment and genocide of people all around the world, it's fair game to be insulted as much as people want. Honestly, do you think that you people can go around spreading lies about homosexuality, spend almost your entire religious history committing genocide against homosexuals, advocate for the deprivation of rights for or even the outright imprisonment of homosexuals, and make the absurd claim that there's an all-powerful creator of the universe who tells you to advocate against homosexuality, and not have your precious religion insulted in return?

Religion has done everything in the world to deserve disrespect and insults, and absolutely nothing to deserve respectful treatment. It isn't immune from harsh criticism, no matter how much theocracy-loving zealots want to make it so.


Well, God is dead and you have killed him. Not only that but you dug up his corpse and smacked him around the face.
Pro: free speech, right to own land, hermitism, solitude, pornographic expressionism
Anti: trespassers, god squad peeps, "we are all equal" peeps, big business fat cats, anyone in my swamp

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 123801
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:44 am

Kannap wrote:
Ifreann wrote:More recently than 100 years ago, I should think. I think it's still within living memory that nuns would give people a slap with the wooden ruler if they wrote with their sinister hand.


My friend - who is currently 20 - went to a Lutheran school as a kid - they treated her horribly as because she was left handed. She's Catholic and ambidextrous now - and still hates Lutherans because of her experience.

There you have it, left-handedness is a choice. How long will society tolerate this degenerate sin?
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm.
It be feelin' like the life that I’m livin' man out of control
Like every day I’m in a fight for my soul


It’s likely that one or two of you who’ll listen to this enjoy the liberal administration of a social lubricant in it’s many wonderful forms. I can tell by the head on ya. A drop o’ Buckfast, a bump a’ Marvyn K, a cup o’ psilocybin scald, an opium suppository or whatever you’re havin’ yourself. And we’re right there with ya, rubbin’ in the commotion lotion and chasing blue ghosts. Fuck it, d’ya know what I mean?

User avatar
Hakons
Senator
 
Posts: 3853
Founded: Jul 14, 2015
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Hakons » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:47 am

Fascist Russian Empire wrote:
Hakons wrote:People, we can debate without immediately resorting to insulting religious groups and holy texts.

When your worthless religion is the basis for unlawful imprisonment and genocide of people all around the world, it's fair game to be insulted as much as people want. Honestly, do you think that you people can go around spreading lies about homosexuality, spend almost your entire religious history committing genocide against homosexuals, advocate for the deprivation of rights for or even the outright imprisonment of homosexuals, and make the absurd claim that there's an all-powerful creator of the universe who tells you to advocate against homosexuality, and not have your precious religion insulted in return?

Religion has done everything in the world to deserve disrespect and insults, and absolutely nothing to deserve respectful treatment. It isn't immune from harsh criticism, no matter how much theocracy-loving zealots want to make it so.


Absurdities. Generalizations. Falsehoods. Ad hominems. Insults.

Such wonderful debate form, such prose.

Have a wonderful day. Thank you for demonstrating how entirely toxic antitheism is and how utterly bankrupt it shall remain.
Why lies He in such mean estate, where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christians, fear, for sinners here the silent Word is pleading.
Nails, spear shall pierce Him through, the cross be borne for me, for you;
Hail, hail the Word made flesh, the Babe, the Son of Mary.

User avatar
Russian Federation white ethnostate
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Nov 29, 2017
Ex-Nation

Homosexuality

Postby Russian Federation white ethnostate » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:49 am

Homosexual activities can lead to drug use, depression, stds and stis as worse as aids, the dissolvement of the normal family, degeneracy, and the death of races. You see homosexuality is fine to a certain extent bisexuals are fine however full on gays have a few screws loose. Another thing is their supposed "oppression" the only reason why they think this is most likely due to their sensitivity which reaches levels of crying and depression because someone criticizes their lifestyle and even disregarding fact and research to move their agenda. Another thing is that despite multiple claims they are not natural seeing as how it is all psychological or caused by experiences as a child which influence a lot of different fetishes for and example my sister would leave her stocking lying around and now I find stockings kinda hot.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21346
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:49 am

Russian Federation white ethnostate wrote:Homosexual activities can lead to drug use, depression, stds and stis as worse as aids, the dissolvement of the normal family, degeneracy, and the death of races. You see homosexuality is fine to a certain extent bisexuals are fine however full on gays have a few screws loose. Another thing is their supposed "oppression" the only reason why they think this is most likely due to their sensitivity which reaches levels of crying and depression because someone criticizes their lifestyle and even disregarding fact and research to move their agenda. Another thing is that despite multiple claims they are not natural seeing as how it is all psychological or caused by experiences as a child which influence a lot of different fetishes for and example my sister would leave her stocking lying around and now I find stockings kinda hot.


Amazing. Every word you just said is wrong.
Last edited by San Lumen on Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15897
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:51 am

San Lumen wrote:
Russian Federation white ethnostate wrote:Homosexual activities can lead to drug use, depression, stds and stis as worse as aids, the dissolvement of the normal family, degeneracy, and the death of races. You see homosexuality is fine to a certain extent bisexuals are fine however full on gays have a few screws loose. Another thing is their supposed "oppression" the only reason why they think this is most likely due to their sensitivity which reaches levels of crying and depression because someone criticizes their lifestyle and even disregarding fact and research to move their agenda. Another thing is that despite multiple claims they are not natural seeing as how it is all psychological or caused by experiences as a child which influence a lot of different fetishes for and example my sister would leave her stocking lying around and now I find stockings kinda hot.


Amazing. Every word you just said is wrong.


Oh, I dunno. Him having a stocking fetish might be true.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Russian Federation white ethnostate
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Nov 29, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Russian Federation white ethnostate » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:54 am

San Lumen wrote:
Russian Federation white ethnostate wrote:Homosexual activities can lead to drug use, depression, stds and stis as worse as aids, the dissolvement of the normal family, degeneracy, and the death of races. You see homosexuality is fine to a certain extent bisexuals are fine however full on gays have a few screws loose. Another thing is their supposed "oppression" the only reason why they think this is most likely due to their sensitivity which reaches levels of crying and depression because someone criticizes their lifestyle and even disregarding fact and research to move their agenda. Another thing is that despite multiple claims they are not natural seeing as how it is all psychological or caused by experiences as a child which influence a lot of different fetishes for and example my sister would leave her stocking lying around and now I find stockings kinda hot.


Amazing. Every word you just said is wrong.

Any proof?
Here's proof for my statement
https://youtu.be/PwVSQ5kGXMA
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/epide ... continue-w

User avatar
Russian Federation white ethnostate
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Nov 29, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Russian Federation white ethnostate » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:55 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Amazing. Every word you just said is wrong.


Oh, I dunno. Him having a stocking fetish might be true.

I can confirm that i have a stocking fetish

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16969
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:55 am

Hakons wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
No, it literally can't. If you have anything that you don't question, what you are doing isn't rational thought.



It is, however, not supreme. Because it can be changed.


Rational - bases on or in accordance with reason or logic



Rational thought has a very specific meaning. A dictionary is not an argument.

Any thought that is based on reason or logic is considered rational. I answered a math problem based on reason and logic. Therefor, I'm at least a vaguely rational person. Rational thought doesn't mean question everything. Mathematics is ruled by rationality and defined by rigid laws.


Rationality yes, laws no.

Very rarely do those laws change. For the overwhelming majority of the time, they are left unquestioned, as is just because they are overwhelmingly likely to be correct.


This is entirely and completely wrong in every single way.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aellex, Attempted Socialism, Dooom35796821595, El-Amin Caliphate, Estanglia, Freezic Vast, Kannap, Novus Wrepland, Ors Might, Rio Cana, Stretchington, Trollzyn the Infinite, Vassenor, Yahoo [Bot]

Advertisement

Remove ads