Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:56 pm  

Dally wrote:

So religion is not relevant today to the world's most advanced country (the USA)?

You talk nonsense.

I have 11 American cousins my generation, numerous Aunts and Uncles and an 85 year old American Grandmother.

Guess which one out of all of those is the only church goer?

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:57 pm  

Dally wrote:

So religion is not relevant today to the world's most advanced country (the USA)?

You talk nonsense.

A nation which locks up youngsters for 30 years for shoplifting, has little to no social welfare programme and still has and uses the death penalty is not the worlds most advanced country.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:57 pm  

Dally wrote:

So religion is not relevant today to the world's most advanced country (the USA)?

You talk nonsense.

In what way is America more advanced than China/Japan?

The very thing holding back America from becoming truly a "land of the free" is the religous zealots in the souther states.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 12:58 pm  

Gareth1984 wrote:

He advocates denying gay people the same rights as others based on his religious beliefs. He also compared homosexuals to rapists and murderers earlier in this thread. Such a comparison which does nothing other than dehumanise gay people and it is such language which contributes to the situations in which young gay people take their own lives and in which other people think it is okay to bully people and discriminate against other for being gay.

It is also completely untrue that you have to advocate violence against a group of people yourself to be intolerant of that group of people.

This is a red herring nobody has mentioned anything about what is the norm and what isn't. I'd also like to add that it isn't for instance the norm to have ginger hair, that however does no mean that we should discriminate against people who have ginger hair.

If you wish to use the fact that homosexuality isn't the norm as an argument against allowing rights to gay people then you fall into serious problems in other areas as a large number of people have something about them (ie skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, handedness) which isn't the "norm".

Once again this is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. The success of societies such as Sweden, Norway & Denmark etc however should show that we do not require religion to form a stable society, these countries seem to be getting along just fine despite having high levels of non belief.

So the validty of a belief now falls on whether such a belief advocates violence? Given that no one else has expressed violence towards the OP I faill to see how your particular train of "logic" could arrive at the conclusion that his views are more valid than those of us who disagree.

Given that many of us have been willing to support our position with the use of reasonl and logically sound arguments (and admittedly some insults) and the OP has demonstrated a clear rejection of reason and has resorted to using his particular interpretation of religious doctrine for support as well as ignoring many posts, I would suggest that it is the OP's views which are less valid than others expressed in this thread.

The point I am trying to make is that the OP expressed his beliefs. Others then insulted them. So, as both sides see the world in diammetrically opposed ways then perhaps the way to look at things is what is the natural way before complex, arbitrary and fleeting concepts such as "rights" came into being? That being the case, the OP's views clearly have more validity at least on the subject of homosexuality.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 1:00 pm  

Dally wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

What a massive amount of crap. Of course most human societies were founded under the influence of some sort of religion. When we started to become civilised as a species, we didn't have access to the vast amounts of scientific knowledge that are at our disposal today. That doesn't mean to say that religion is still relevant in modern society, which has altered immeasurably from its early form. The majority of people in this country are not religious (at least not in anything other than a box-ticking sense), and the majority do agree with same sex marriage being legalised.

So religion is not relevant today to the world's most advanced country (the USA)?

You talk nonsense.

It's not relevant in that it's no longer a necessary or desirable condition for any society to remain stable.

I notice that's the one tiny point you've chosen to contest from my last two posts.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 1:00 pm  

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 1:02 pm  

Standee wrote:

is the religous zealots .

In your terms, is a religious zealot better or worse than a religious bigot?

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 1:04 pm  

Dally wrote:

In your terms, is a religious zealot better or worse than a religious bigot?

Yeah, that answers the questions. Sweeerrve!

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 1:07 pm  

Dally wrote:

Gareth1984 wrote:

He advocates denying gay people the same rights as others based on his religious beliefs. He also compared homosexuals to rapists and murderers earlier in this thread. Such a comparison which does nothing other than dehumanise gay people and it is such language which contributes to the situations in which young gay people take their own lives and in which other people think it is okay to bully people and discriminate against other for being gay.

It is also completely untrue that you have to advocate violence against a group of people yourself to be intolerant of that group of people.

This is a red herring nobody has mentioned anything about what is the norm and what isn't. I'd also like to add that it isn't for instance the norm to have ginger hair, that however does no mean that we should discriminate against people who have ginger hair.

If you wish to use the fact that homosexuality isn't the norm as an argument against allowing rights to gay people then you fall into serious problems in other areas as a large number of people have something about them (ie skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, handedness) which isn't the "norm".

Once again this is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. The success of societies such as Sweden, Norway & Denmark etc however should show that we do not require religion to form a stable society, these countries seem to be getting along just fine despite having high levels of non belief.

So the validty of a belief now falls on whether such a belief advocates violence? Given that no one else has expressed violence towards the OP I faill to see how your particular train of "logic" could arrive at the conclusion that his views are more valid than those of us who disagree.

Given that many of us have been willing to support our position with the use of reasonl and logically sound arguments (and admittedly some insults) and the OP has demonstrated a clear rejection of reason and has resorted to using his particular interpretation of religious doctrine for support as well as ignoring many posts, I would suggest that it is the OP's views which are less valid than others expressed in this thread.

The point I am trying to make is that the OP expressed his beliefs. Others then insulted them. So, as both sides see the world in diammetrically opposed ways then perhaps the way to look at things is what is the natural way before complex, arbitrary and fleeting concepts such as "rights" came into being? That being the case, the OP's views clearly have more validity at least on the subject of homosexuality.

Sickening. You are a terrible person.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Wed May 23, 2012 1:09 pm  

He typifies their angle of debate, cherry picking and goal post moving aplenty.