NationStates

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:51 pm**

Califghanistan wrote:
Heloin wrote:Blaming HIV/AIDS on the victims isn't going to win you over a lot of followers.

I'd rather read the Apple terms of services.

So you did not read it, and you are going to criticize it? Way to invalidate any claim you have made and will make.

Because when someone goes out of there way to pretend they're not homophobic while at the same time calling for the death of LGBT people, what ever "evidence" they bring to the argument has become irrelevant.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:51 pm**

Califghanistan wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Not only bi men are promiscuous sinners - I'm a woman and I'm a very promiscuous sinner, so check your sources, pleb.

Did I SAY that was the case? I said that the spreaders of the disease were promiscuous sinners.

Glad to know that your issue with that post was me misreading your post and not the fact that I'm a promiscuous sinner. Now we know where your priorities truly lie.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:51 pm**

Califghanistan wrote:
Othelos wrote:Gay marriage is good for society. More potential parents for those unwanted children forced to be born by pro-lifers. Plus, it de-stigmatizes homosexuality, which is good for the roughly 5% of people who would otherwise suffer from minority stress and higher rates of suicide.

Yeah, no, because it would encourage homosex, which is a crime.

Lol what a waste of taxpayer money tbh

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:51 pm**

Califghanistan wrote:
Othelos wrote:Gay marriage is good for society. More potential parents for those unwanted children forced to be born by pro-lifers. Plus, it de-stigmatizes homosexuality, which is good for the roughly 5% of people who would otherwise suffer from minority stress and higher rates of suicide.

Yeah, no, because it would encourage homosex, which is a crime.

My problem with your argument against homosexuality is that, of what I can see, you say it is bad because, "God says so". I respect your religion and that you have a different opinion and all, but as someone who doesn't believe in a God of any kind, this argument means virtually nothing to me. Why exactly should I, as an atheist, believe that it is wrong because someone, who I don't believe in, said so? And for what reason does he hate homosexuality so much?

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:52 pm**

I believe in gay supremacy /s

But hell yeah lgbt+ peeps do what u want.
Pedophiles can die in a meat grinder.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:52 pm**

Califghanistan wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
Considering that the man you are using as an authority on the matter also advocated for the execution of gay people (and you didn't make that fact immediately clear), I would say he doubts the sincerity of that saying.

Which, yeah. Unless you're also going to argue that murder is somehow loving.

Homosexuality is indeed a sin that warrants the death penalty.

Did I not ask you, politely, not to do this?

*** 1 day ban for advocating death. ***

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:53 pm**

Califghanistan wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
That's a rather ignorant comment.

Again, how is the Qur'an accepting of science and yet your "genius" says belief in evolution is by people who are against Religion? Never mind Darwin was very religious. Then again your "genius" would like to see Darwin excluded since he wasn't a Muslim.

So what is your point? Because remember, the evolution is the theory that animals evolved on their own, which is against religion. Islam states that everything follows the laws of God. Animals evolved, but why? Because of the laws of nature. And who created the laws of nature? God. Also, the first person to write about the idea of natural selection wasn't Darwin, but rather Al-Jahiz, an Islamic scientist.

I will admit I did not know of him. I had a look and I don't think you read him or is book as his comments go against what you just wrote.

From what I just read; his tome "The Book of Animals" isn't really a straight science book. It mentioned many things and some of his prose was risque in nature. I doubt you know he used pigeons as an analogy and discussed the forms of sexuality. Homosexuality in males and females as well as varying preferences regarding domination.

Anyway; he listed and mentioned over 100 animals with is rather impressive for a person in that age.

I don't know if he was first on evolution; I would have to see his writings.

I will look for a copy and for that thank you!

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:56 pm**

Llalta wrote:
Califghanistan wrote:Yeah, no, because it would encourage homosex, which is a crime.

My problem with your argument against homosexuality is that, of what I can see, you say it is bad because, "God says so". I respect your religion and that you have a different opinion and all, but as someone who doesn't believe in a God of any kind, this argument means virtually nothing to me. Why exactly should I, as an atheist, believe that it is wrong because someone, who I don't believe in, said so? And for what reason does he hate homosexuality so much?

I always find it interesting how religious people claim that we can't question God, but they somehow can speak for him. If you're not allowed to understand the motivations of someone (God), you can't understand how they operate or what they believe.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:00 pm**

Freedom is important. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Freedom to marry whomever you wish is important as well.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:01 pm**

Farnhamia wrote:
Califghanistan wrote:
Homosexuality is indeed a sin that warrants the death penalty.

Did I not ask you, politely, not to do this?

*** 1 day ban for advocating death. ***

That's not advocating death. That's freedom of religion, expression, and speech.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:02 pm**

The Capitalist Era wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:Did I not ask you, politely, not to do this?

*** 1 day ban for advocating death. ***

That's not advocating death. That's freedom of religion, expression, and speech.

Okay, one: NS is Australian, so your American constitution doesn't count
Two: it's still advocating death even if that's true
Three: since NS is a private company, they don't have free speech, nor are they legally required to

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:03 pm**

It was a mistake.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:04 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:
The Capitalist Era wrote:
That's not advocating death. That's freedom of religion, expression, and speech.

Okay, one: NS is Australian, so your American constitution doesn't count
Two: it's still advocating death even if that's true
Three: since NS is a private company, they don't have free speech, nor are they legally required to

Rather, it is not advocating death. I disagree with her religion too(die-hard Protestant myself), but that is STILL not advocating death. She is merely saying what her religion entitles is the punishment for something(which should have no punishment). But that is not advocating death.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:06 pm**

The Capitalist Era wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Okay, one: NS is Australian, so your American constitution doesn't count
Two: it's still advocating death even if that's true
Three: since NS is a private company, they don't have free speech, nor are they legally required to

Rather, it is not advocating death. I disagree with her religion too(die-hard Protestant myself), but that is STILL not advocating death. She is merely saying what her religion entitles is the punishment for something(which should have no punishment). But that is not advocating death.

Posting past a ban by using one of your puppets loses you both the banned nation and the puppet. If want to appeal the ban, file a GHR.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:12 pm**

Totaler Krieg Division wrote:It was a mistake.

How? Why?

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:18 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:
The Capitalist Era wrote:
That's not advocating death. That's freedom of religion, expression, and speech.

Okay, one: NS is Australian, so your American constitution doesn't count
Two: it's still advocating death even if that's true
Three: since NS is a private company, they don't have free speech, nor are they legally required to

One: I'm pretty sure that the Australian Constitution has similar protections.
Two: That I can agree with. This is intolerable behavior.
Three: Just because they aren't legally obligated too doesn't mean it's right for them to do so. Why should corporations be allowed to censor and suppress speech any more than the government?

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:21 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Okay, one: NS is Australian, so your American constitution doesn't count
Two: it's still advocating death even if that's true
Three: since NS is a private company, they don't have free speech, nor are they legally required to

One: I'm pretty sure that the Australian Constitution has similar protections.
Two: That I can agree with. This is intolerable behavior.
Three: Just because they aren't legally obligated too doesn't mean it's right for them to do so. Why should corporations be allowed to censor and suppress speech any more than the government?

What is not the topic of this thread for 500, Alex.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:23 pm**

Totaler Krieg Division wrote:It was a mistake.

How exactly?

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:23 pm**

tbh I think it's pretty gay

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:24 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Okay, one: NS is Australian, so your American constitution doesn't count
Two: it's still advocating death even if that's true
Three: since NS is a private company, they don't have free speech, nor are they legally required to

Three: Just because they aren't legally obligated too doesn't mean it's right for them to do so. Why should corporations be allowed to censor and suppress speech any more than the government?

Because the speech is only on their platform. What they're doing here is about as inconsequential as getting banjected for breaking a region's posting rules on this site.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:25 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Okay, one: NS is Australian, so your American constitution doesn't count
Two: it's still advocating death even if that's true
Three: since NS is a private company, they don't have free speech, nor are they legally required to

One: I'm pretty sure that the Australian Constitution has similar protections.
Two: That I can agree with. This is intolerable behavior.
Three: Just because they aren't legally obligated too doesn't mean it's right for them to do so. Why should corporations be allowed to censor and suppress speech any more than the government?

1) It doesn't say it explicitly; the high court ruled it more on freedom of government restraint rather then a right conferred directly.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work ... expression

2) Indeed.

3) Actually it is as you agree to the rules to join. I am censored from speaking about my company in a public setting. I am not an officer and do not have the right to speak for the company. Just about every company on the planet has this.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:29 pm**

Highever wrote:
Totaler Krieg Division wrote:It was a mistake.

How? Why?

It furthered a long running moralistic decline in western society. I'm also old enough to remember how gay marriage advocates in the early-mid 2000's insisted all they wanted was gay marriage and how they would never go further than that and how they would proudly exclaim "No! I'll never support those trannies and how dare you think I would!" if you brought up the prospect of it not ending there. If only more of us had the foresight to shut down the slippery slope before it started.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:31 pm**

Totaler Krieg Division wrote:
Highever wrote:How? Why?

It furthered a long running moralistic decline in western society. I'm also old enough to remember how gay marriage advocates in the early-mid 2000's insisted all they wanted was gay marriage and how they would never go further than that and how they would proudly exclaim "No! I'll never support those trannies and how dare you think I would!" if you brought up the prospect of it not ending there. If only more of us had the foresight to shut down the slippery slope before it started.

Lmao, you are talking complete nonsense here in literally every way.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:31 pm**

Totaler Krieg Division wrote:
Highever wrote:How? Why?

It furthered a long running moralistic decline in western society. I'm also old enough to remember how gay marriage advocates in the early-mid 2000's insisted all they wanted was gay marriage and how they would never go further than that and how they would proudly exclaim "No! I'll never support those trannies and how dare you think I would!" if you brought up the prospect of it not ending there. If only more of us had the foresight to shut down the slippery slope before it started.

Yeah not old enough because that was never a thing.

You do know what the T in LGBT stands for, right. It's not tuna, ffs.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 1:32 pm**

The Rich Port wrote:
Totaler Krieg Division wrote:
It furthered a long running moralistic decline in western society. I'm also old enough to remember how gay marriage advocates in the early-mid 2000's insisted all they wanted was gay marriage and how they would never go further than that and how they would proudly exclaim "No! I'll never support those trannies and how dare you think I would!" if you brought up the prospect of it not ending there. If only more of us had the foresight to shut down the slippery slope before it started.

Yeah not old enough because that was never a thing.

You do know what the T in LGBT stands for, right. It's not tuna, ffs.

Is it... totalitarians? Totally lost, I have no idea what it could possibly be.

NationStates

What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?