What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?

[Communal concils]

I have not justified my beliefs with Deities or a historically important religious text, I am using secular arguments. I don't hate religion, but I'm anti-Clerical. However, I can agree with religious conservatives on various things. I Think that prostitution should be banned, and pornography should be banned, and that I value gigantic families. Also, I don't believe people are born Homosexual.

Funny you can agree with religious conservatives when just a few pages ago you were vehemently hateful of conservatives.

I think you should be banned, rather than all those other things. Also gigantic families are gross.

Also people are born homosexual, but go off I guess.

1. To agree with someone on something does not mean that they believe exactly in the same things.

2. Sexuality is obviously a result of puberty. Only a Freudian believes that babies have those feelings.

[Kannap]

Don't let Concils see you're trying to sell religious arguments to make your point, he hasn't been liking that route so far.

Councils has the right to his own opinions, but unlike him, I am a Christian, and my argument rests on understanding how best to obey God's will.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm also a Christian.

[Kannap]

Funny you can agree with religious conservatives when just a few pages ago you were vehemently hateful of conservatives.

I think you should be banned, rather than all those other things. Also gigantic families are gross.

Also people are born homosexual, but go off I guess.

1. To agree with someone on something does not mean that they believe exactly in the same things.

2. Sexuality is obviously a result of puberty. Only a Freudian believes that babies have those feelings.

1. Agreeing with somebody does insist you believe some of the same things - otherwise there would be nothing to agree about.

2. Your sexual awakening happens during puberty, of course. You're genetically preset to be heterosexual, homosexual, or anything in between.

[Communal concils]

I did a good job separating the two, but rest assured the point didn't connect, Concils still thinks both are gross Hedonism.

Not sure if Councils actually argued this, but I am not sure why anyone would consider love in general to be hedonistic. And Jesus Christ said that the first commandment is that we should love God and love our neighbors as ourselves. Although I know some theologians have cautioned that our common notion of love in modern western society is too focused on sentiment and eroticism, whereas the Biblical concept of "agape" is more a moral principle of universal benevolence.

I thought that we were only talking about romantic relationships. In western society, Love is getting more associated with this. I have no problems with brotherhood, or friendship between people. I believe that a mother and Father should love each other, but shouldn't base their relationship solely on sex. I hate those that act that lustful behaviors are the only true love, I don't like people that base their whole existence on pleasure. I now that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was advocating for harmony between individuals and communities. None of this has to be about the decadence of libertines.

[Bienenhalde]

Councils has the right to his own opinions, but unlike him, I am a Christian, and my argument rests on understanding how best to obey God's will.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm also a Christian.

Okay? But how do you reconcile you views on sexuality with your religious beliefs?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

A conservative can simply adapt by giving up their beliefs.

I will have the Inquisition bomb your location with cyclonic torpedoes and relativistic kill engines from orbit if you don't mind.

Anyhow, you now suddenly agree with us conservatives, for some reason. Lol.

Some may question your right to destroy an ideology meant to oppress billions of people. Those who understand know that you have no right to let them live.

[Zordennox]

Pretty sure there are probably 3 people that consider banning people from loving someone and enjoying sex and reading Harry Potter to be fun. Nevermind the fact that apparently feeling the emotion of love or just wanting to be able to enjoy things is hedonist.

"I'm not superior to anyone"
"Anyone who has fun that isnt my idea of it is a petty hedonist"

1. My views of sexuality are a syncretism of Radical Feminism, remnants of my own social conservative views and the Marxist will to abolish the Bourgeoisie Family.

2.I couldn't care at this point.

In the Marxist dialectic, there's no exclusive bourgeois family, all families are seen as bourgeois entities because women and children are somehow "oppressed" and need emancipation. Families, in the traditional non-hedonistic definition, share wealth and prosperity as each member has a specific task to perform for the preservation of the entity. Nothing oppressive about that.

[Communal concils]

A conservative can simply adapt by giving up their beliefs.

I will have the Inquisition bomb your location with cyclonic torpedoes and relativistic kill engines from orbit if you don't mind.

Anyhow, you now suddenly agree with us conservatives, for some reason. Lol.

1.Robespierre did nothing wrong, also the "Stalinist" were very good at making their enemies vanish.

2. I agree with today's conservatives on some issues. I doubt that any conservative wants a centralize socialist state base on social engineering and central planning.

[Tsuki]

I do not like gay and the only expection is when it isn't happening or things trying to support it.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I will have the Inquisition bomb your location with cyclonic torpedoes and relativistic kill engines from orbit if you don't mind.

Anyhow, you now suddenly agree with us conservatives, for some reason. Lol.

1.Robespierre did nothing wrong, also the "Stalinist" were very good at making their enemies vanish.

2. I agree with today's conservatives on some issues. I doubt that any conservative wants a centralize socialist state base on social engineering and central planning.

What Chapter was Robespierre the Primarch of?

[Kannap]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm also a Christian.

Okay? But how do you reconcile you views on sexuality with your religious beliefs?

Took years to get to where I am, it's a long story and I might get around to telling later - but I worked a ten hour shift today and I'm honestly too tired to type up a novel.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I do not like gay and the only expection is when it isn't happening or things trying to support it.

Huh?

[Bienenhalde]

Okay? But how do you reconcile you views on sexuality with your religious beliefs?

Took years to get to where I am, it's a long story and I might get around to telling later - but I worked a ten hour shift today and I'm honestly too tired to type up a novel.

Okay...Also, if you do not want to go to the trouble of arguing about it in a public forum, you could message me about it privately.

[Kannap]

2. Imagine thinking all conservatives are homophobic bigots. Wow.

2. I have no problems with discriminating against conservatives. They are stuck to a fake God. A sense of never wanting to adapt, they want o stay with a perceived status quo.

That isn't adapting; that's capitulation...

that's the point.

Just reminders that Concils was vehemently shitting on conservatives just a few pages ago, I'm taking the "I agree with them on some issues" line with a grain of salt.

[Communal concils]

1. My views of sexuality are a syncretism of Radical Feminism, remnants of my own social conservative views and the Marxist will to abolish the Bourgeoisie Family.

2.I couldn't care at this point.

In the Marxist dialectic, there's no exclusive bourgeois family, all families are seen as bourgeois entities because women and children are somehow "oppressed" and need emancipation. Families, in the traditional non-hedonistic definition, share wealth and prosperity as each member has a specific task to perform for the preservation of the entity. Nothing oppressive about that.

I would argue that Capitalism has Degenerated the Family. Like you, I am a Pro-Natalist. I value the ethics of reproductive sex. The Family should share the wealth and hard work of each other. To me , a Non-Bourgeoisie Family would be an extended Family. A Family that is very collectivist and is controlled by a strict authority figure

[The Rich Port]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm also a Christian.

Okay? But how do you reconcile you views on sexuality with your religious beliefs?

By not being narrow-minded?

I do not like gay and the only expection is when it isn't happening or things trying to support it.

Su gini omae wa, "I wasn't trying", toyu?

1. My views of sexuality are a syncretism of Radical Feminism, remnants of my own social conservative views and the Marxist will to abolish the Bourgeoisie Family.

2.I couldn't care at this point.

In the Marxist dialectic, there's no exclusive bourgeois family, all families are seen as bourgeois entities because women and children are somehow "oppressed" and need emancipation. Families, in the traditional non-hedonistic definition, share wealth and prosperity as each member has a specific task to perform for the preservation of the entity. Nothing oppressive about that.

Considering that what he thinks are proper Christian morals do not fit any known paradigms beyond those of the Unabomber, Charles Manson, and Paula Deen, you're wasting your time appealing to logic.

[Kannap]

I do not like gay and the only expection is when it isn't happening or things trying to support it.

What?

[Zordennox]

In the Marxist dialectic, there's no exclusive bourgeois family, all families are seen as bourgeois entities because women and children are somehow "oppressed" and need emancipation. Families, in the traditional non-hedonistic definition, share wealth and prosperity as each member has a specific task to perform for the preservation of the entity. Nothing oppressive about that.

I would argue that Capitalism has Degenerated the Family. Like you, I am a Pro-Natalist. I value the ethics of reproductive sex. The Family should share the wealth and hard work of each other. To me , a Non-Bourgeoisie Family would be an extended Family. A Family that is very collectivist and is controlled by a strict authority figure

That's a very traditionalist statement. Are you sure you're a Marxist? Based on what you've been saying, I don't think you are.

[Bienenhalde]

Considering that what he thinks are proper Christian morals do not fit any known paradigms beyond those of the Unabomber, Charles Manson, and Paula Deen, you're wasting your time appealing to logic.

Are you confusing me with Communal Councils? Also, I never said I sympathized with any of those people, so I am not sure where you are getting this from.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

In the Marxist dialectic, there's no exclusive bourgeois family, all families are seen as bourgeois entities because women and children are somehow "oppressed" and need emancipation. Families, in the traditional non-hedonistic definition, share wealth and prosperity as each member has a specific task to perform for the preservation of the entity. Nothing oppressive about that.

I would argue that Capitalism has Degenerated the Family. Like you, I am a Pro-Natalist. I value the ethics of reproductive sex. The Family should share the wealth and hard work of each other. To me , a Non-Bourgeoisie Family would be an extended Family. A Family that is very collectivist and is controlled by a strict authority figure

Yeah I think I'll take the "degenerate" loving family of capitalism over yhe Comrade Dugger model that beats me if I didnt make enough money.

[Des-Bal]

Two gay guys, a black transgender woman, and a pair of intersex twins walk into a bar
They buy it!
And then nothing funny happens because we don't even sort of care who you form contracts with.


Marriage is an issue exclusively because of the benefits and responsibilities associated with it. As long as thats the case its a contract, a legal status with legal considerations everybody needs to be allowed in.

[Communal concils]

2. I have no problems with discriminating against conservatives. They are stuck to a fake God. A sense of never wanting to adapt, they want o stay with a perceived status quo.

that's the point.

Just reminders that Concils was vehemently shitting on conservatives just a few pages ago, I'm taking the "I agree with them on some issues" line with a grain of salt.

I hate Conservatives because they are extremely fluid . They usually fail keep the old order, and they eventually become the force they once oppose. So I agree with today's conservatives on some issues. However, I see the conservatives of today as a Liberal of old. I also want a revolution to abolish the old order, which is already anti-Conservative.

[The Rich Port]

Considering that what he thinks are proper Christian morals do not fit any known paradigms beyond those of the Unabomber, Charles Manson, and Paula Deen, you're wasting your time appealing to logic.

Are you confusing me with Communal Councils? Also, I never said I sympathized with any of those people, so I am not sure where you are getting this from.

I get the distinct feeling I'm not, but that's neither here nor there.

He thinks like Paula Deen cooks and the Unabomber writes, was my point.

Also, for not being a Christian, he sure thinks like one.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Just reminders that Concils was vehemently shitting on conservatives just a few pages ago, I'm taking the "I agree with them on some issues" line with a grain of salt.

I hate Conservatives because they are extremely fluid . They usually fail keep the old order, and they eventually become the force they once oppose. So I agree with today's conservatives on some issues. However, I see the conservatives of today as a Liberal of old. I also want a revolution to abolish the old order, which is already anti-Conservative.

So.....you hate them because they fail to preserve the old order but want to destroy the old order...you hate conservatives as of a few pages ago but now agree with them. Is this just ad libs?

[Zordennox]

Just reminders that Concils was vehemently shitting on conservatives just a few pages ago, I'm taking the "I agree with them on some issues" line with a grain of salt.

I hate Conservatives because they are extremely fluid . They usually fail keep the old order, and they eventually become the force they once oppose. So I agree with today's conservatives on some issues. However, I see the conservatives of today as a Liberal of old. I also want a revolution to abolish the old order, which is already anti-Conservative.

Again, sort of traditionalist. The Old Order meaning what? Liberalism is not "the Old Order". Traditional societies did not have capitalism and communism.