One Judge vs 7 million votes

Aramike · 08-15-10, 10:17 AM

This is rich ... it's now some sort of "Nazi intolerence" to point out that Muslims follow a religion who's primary text is the epitome of intolerent? Really?

All religions aren't created equal and if you can't understand the difference between one which calls for its followers to turn the other cheek and one which calls for its followers to destroy the infidel, that says more about you than it makes Skybird some sort of Nazi supplicant.

Tchocky · 08-15-10, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

All religions aren't created equal and if you can't understand the difference between one which calls for its followers to turn the other cheek and one which calls for its followers to destroy the infidel, that says more about you than it makes Skybird some sort of Nazi supplicant.

Turn the other cheek? Don't see much of that. Neither do we see much destruction of infidels.

Aramike · 08-16-10, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Turn the other cheek? Don't see much of that. Neither do we see much destruction of infidels.

Then you clearly have little understanding of either religion's texts and therefore should exit the debate gracefully rather than continuiing to make a fool of yourself with blanket statements referencing absolutetly nothing other than an ignorant belief that what you WANT to believe is true.

08-16-10, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Then you clearly have little understanding of either religion's texts and therefore should exit the debate gracefully rather than continuiing to make a fool of yourself with blanket statements referencing absolutetly nothing other than an ignorant belief that what you WANT to believe is true.

So a simple reference to prove his first point would be the number of crazy wars christian nations have had over silly issues about real or imagined slights and to prove the second point a reference to the amazing number of infidels in the world.

Agiel7 · 08-17-10, 12:27 AM

The biggest laugh I've got out of the entire issue is that the religious groups were pushing for Prop. 8 on the basis of "promoting responsible procreation."

Ummm... If a gay couple is incapable of conceiving a child via natural means, doesn't that mean they -are- procreating responsibly? I mean, they're not conceiving a child they may or may not have the means to care for, nor are they exacerbating our human-to-resources ratio problems.

Aramike · 08-17-10, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agiel7

The biggest laugh I've got out of the entire issue is that the religious groups were pushing for Prop. 8 on the basis of "promoting responsible procreation."

Ummm... If a gay couple is incapable of conceiving a child via natural means, doesn't that mean they -are- procreating responsibly? I mean, they're not conceiving a child they may or may not have the means to care for, nor are they exacerbating our human-to-resources ratio problems.

Okay, I'll bite - if they have no benefit to society via raising strong families for the future, why should society extend them any benefits whatsoever?

They are not going to procreate either way, right?

mookiemookie · 08-17-10, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Okay, I'll bite - if they have no benefit to society via raising strong families for the future, why should society extend them any benefits whatsoever?

They are not going to procreate either way, right?

Then go ahead and take the first step. Start telling people who are unable to have kids for one reason or another that their marriage has been declared null and void.

frau kaleun · 08-17-10, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Okay, I'll bite - if they have no benefit to society via raising strong families for the future, why should society extend them any benefits whatsoever?

I dunno, maybe for the same reason we extend the benefits of legal marriage to heterosexual couples who lack either the ability or the desire and intention to procreate?

The inability and/or unwillingness to procreate and raise a family can't be cited as a legally valid reason to deny two individuals the right to be legally married, unless the ability and willingness to do so is a legal requirement for marriage in the first place. It isn't.

08-15-10, 01:43 PM

Quote:

This is rich ...

Another one from the list of ignorance....how telling.

Quote:

it's now some sort of "Nazi intolerence"

its the racial hygiene that makes the nazi link, if Aramike can take skybirds ideas and match then to any ideology apart from the fruitcake nazis or fundys he is free to try.
but Skys civilisation saving ideas have only one path...which is why he is always backing away from the "how?" as he knows the answer was given before and was sicker than a plague ridden hovel.

BTW Aramike in case you can read it now....have you learnt the meaning of the word context yet?

08-15-10, 10:17 AM	#1
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	This is rich ... it's now some sort of "Nazi intolerence" to point out that Muslims follow a religion who's primary text is the epitome of intolerent? Really? All religions aren't created equal and if you can't understand the difference between one which calls for its followers to turn the other cheek and one which calls for its followers to destroy the infidel, that says more about you than it makes Skybird some sort of Nazi supplicant.

08-17-10, 12:27 AM	#5
Agiel7 Gunner Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 97 Downloads: 16 Uploads: 0	The biggest laugh I've got out of the entire issue is that the religious groups were pushing for Prop. 8 on the basis of "promoting responsible procreation." Ummm... If a gay couple is incapable of conceiving a child via natural means, doesn't that mean they -are- procreating responsibly? I mean, they're not conceiving a child they may or may not have the means to care for, nor are they exacerbating our human-to-resources ratio problems.