I think, in this case, someone who isn't a bigot is the best person to be making "charges" while they frantically perform mental masturbation to tell themselves how special and smart and wonderful they are by arguing with other people. You're as bad as Daganev, you're just at the opposite end of the scale.

You're cute.

Darn straight I'm hard on people who deserve it, and excuses like "it's my religion and my right lolol" or "its a free country noobz so i does not need u!!!" earn the boot, and you'll never, ever hear me apologize for that. That there's the marketplace of ideas. "God and Caesar said marriage is between one man and one woman, therefore, you are not married" is perhaps the worst argument ever contrived, and it deserves to be called such. Insisting that it is a good argument because the people who don't contribute to the world said so is tantamount to voluntary brainwashing. I can put on a linen dress, wear a hat that looks like three stacked crowns, sit in an oversized chair with an audience, and make uninformed proclamations all day. It's life on easymode. Too bad there's no RL PvP easymode, no?

There is a fundamental difference between supporting minority rights and doing as you're told by someone you've never met, or between calling a spade a spade and repeating stale arguments from bronze-age literature and dead guys. I solidly reserve the right to call out idiots when the argument can be supported. For Dag, it's pretty easy, and you might go back and notice that all of these things come with supporting arguments that go a bit beyond "but this is what it is!!" They are likewise welcome to make their counterclaims. Frankly, I know Dag's never going to change his mind. He's a lost cause. There's a whole community of people with reading comprehension skills who deserve something better than being fed his drivel without rebuke.

I'm sure you mean well, Yrael, but you're way out of your league.

You still expect others to apologise and mend their ways, though, for being religious. You don't say it, (Well, not more than once that I've seen, but I don't troll too often), but it's the same as Daganev. He does not like gay people, or the idea of gay people, and wants them to either mend their wicked ways or go away and never come back.


Then call it that, but don't call someone a bigot when you're trying to weave it into your argument that religion is terrible and bad without admitting exactly what you are. Incidentally, there is. It's called "Global politics". I seem to remember it going on in the middle east for the last few years. It certainly shut those people up. At least, after those non-existent tanks rolled right over the Iraqi Information Minister. Of course, in real life at this point a brawl would typically ensue. Unless, of course, everyone was hellbent on calling themselves "civilized, new age man".


You're an idiot. There is a fundamental difference between attacking the rights of another group you disagree with and.. oh, wait, what you two do is exactly the same thing! Isn't that interesting? You're using the same arguments as Daganev with words swapped out. Were you both issued, perhaps, "My first religious argument" by Fisher Price? Or sent one by Verithrax? , if you want an example of Grade A Anti-Religious , I'd suggest looking up some of his posts.

Come to think of it, I'm doing the same thing. Mostly because every post on this topic is just the same thing with different words. I don't agree with athiests, but I certainly don't spend all my time bellowing about how evil they are.


How many times must pot be called black by the kettle? At least have the balls to stand up and say "I, too, am a bigot.". Even have the balls to admit you might be wrong, rather than just saying "Oh, I can be wrong, but here are a million reasons why I am not in this instance or that instance." There's a whole community of people with reading comprehension skills who deserve something better than being fed your drivel without end. Here's a hint, though, you're not going to finally achieve your much lusted for "victory" and neither will Daganev. Nothing you or anyone else will do here will ever make a difference except to a few 1's and 0's, biological or otherwise. You will never start some sort of globe spanning campaign to wipe out the evils of religion. You will never somehow convince everyone on this forum that your way is right. You will never - well, I don't really need to go on there. See below for a continuation of this particular fact.


I SEZ I R SMRTR AND MRE MATURER DAN UUU. I'm sure you mean well, Xavius, but you're way out of your league and more than a touch sheltered. I'd settle for you just admitting exactly what you are doing without dressing it up. For example - I don't like whatever personality traits you've shoved forward to comprise the entity "Xavius". In addition to that, I'm disagreeing with you, and the fundamentally flawed opinion that all religion is evil, that you know who "deserves" it, and that what you are doing is of any relevance or usefulness to anyone except taking up space. Of course, when we get into that we get into this thread and the entire forum. It is not "entertainment" or "reasoned debate" it's two fundamentally opposed ideologies spewed by two people who are just as blindly idiotic about their positions.

I'll edit this as soon as I puzzle out any mistakes in it through clumsy phrasing.

This has logic holes I could drive a truck though, but it's a good point.

I do. The orthodox religious are a blight on the Earth. People's ability to do good in this world is inversely proportional to how seriously they take that book over there. You see it all over. Look back a few pages for a much in depth coverage of this one, or peek at Raan's article about how civilly-minded Catholics voted unanimously to continue gay adoption, but orthodox Catholic leaders stepped in and shut it down. More importantly, orthodox religious folk are an active, ongoing strain on their community. Gay people sorta...just are. I'm not gay, and the only gay man in my family is happily in the closet. Aside from a rather interesting encounter with sergeant Lance and a sexually confused friend of mine, homosexuality really doesn't impact my life. Lance doesn't count because Lance fails for reasons completely unrelated to his homosexuality, like "get a clue and stop trying to touch me, you perv." Religious folk, though, do, and it shows in a systematic negation of minority rights and secular values, like education.

Majority rule with minority rights. Say it with me. Majority rule with minority rights. Read: you do not have the freedom to vote away rights granted to people who do not willingly surrender them. Unless God disagrees with you, because our Founding Fathers were devout Christians who intended us to be lead by religious values.

I'm a lot of things, but hypocritical has never been one of them. You have a right to your strongly held opinions right up to the point that it infringes on someone else's. (Que Dag's "But we gave them rights!" here, rehash of previous argument will ensue.) If you would like to see how that looks in practice, I'm pro-life. I support parental notification, paternal notification, mandatory waiting periods, state funding of adoption centers, the whole nine yards. I believe that peaceful protests and demonstrations are awesome, and I believe that people should be more proactive in education campaigns and putting themselves on the line to help people who're in a bad place. Know what I don't support? Outlawing abortion. Why? Ain't my call. My job is to convince them not to have an abortion before they need one, and it's fine to expect them to have to at least make a show of making a reasoned decision regarding their child. It's not my job to threaten them with jail time, or support people who would.

Same deal with religion. You want to convince people that the basic truths of the world were written back in the bronze age? Go for it. You want to mandate that public school curricula reflect your bronze age literature? Go away.


You've gotten that analogy wrong twice now. It's the pot calling the kettle black. The pot is usually black all over, or burnt in more places, whereas the kettle only has the little char mark at the bottom.

Anyways, as to the argument that dialogue in the public eye, no matter how cool or heated, doesn't matter: you couldn't be more wrong. History has repeated that a hundred times over. Even in terms of religion. Religious arguments are invariably beaten back. Blacks have freedom, women can vote, you can work overtime on Sunday, and you can get drunk with friends. They don't go away by people twiddling their thumbs, though.

My earth-shattering confession: excuses are excuses, and every major American religious group is a crutch carved out of excuses and placebos. Anyone who leans too heavily on that crutch is a waste, and I have absolutely no issue calling it such so that you and those around you will avoid doing so in the future. I don't seek an end to religion so much as I do religious orthodoxy, because if you're a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Hindu, your orthodoxy is dangerous and corrupting, and by embracing such values, you yourself become a corrupting influence. (See previous pages for supporting detail.) The fact that there are more of you than there are racists left in America does not mean you're somehow a kinder, gentler version of bastard.

To those of you who read the Bible as a guideline on how to be nice to people, carry on. Try not to feed the bastards, though!

@Yrael: You're really defusing your own point by these attacks, just a little.

@Xavius: I don't agree fully with your views, particularly on religious as a cancerous blight and whatnots. Though, in broad terms? Thumbs up.

@Daganev: You're like...the krin of this thread. So I'm done arguing.

*sigh*

Please show me where I have ever said or implied this.... It is just pure nonsense, that is not my view and never has been my view.

What I would like however, is for people who have equal rights to recognize that they have equal rights. And I would like them to recognize that people are allowed to have definitions of marriage that are stable and consistant, and that wishing to keep marriage to mean the union of a Husband and Wife, is not an act of biggotry or hate.


Seriously, when did the right to use the word Marriage (instead of civil union, or domestic partner) == right to vote == right to a fair trial == right to fair compensation for work.

These things are not on the same playing field, and should not be acted upon as such.

Why? Exactly what is it about them that makes them responsible for all the worlds ills? Exactly what is it about them that would make the world so much better if they were, right this second, removed? Everyone said "Whoops. Okay, guys. Seriously, this guy, Xavius? He was right. religion, let's go have an orgy in the church like we were always saying those atheists did.". Then what? Does war end? Does famine end? Does disease end? Does.. well, I don't need to go on. Again. You might think the world would mysteriously be a better place, but the massive upheaval would cause enormous damage. Then, afterwards, people are still going to fight, diseases are still going to kill people, people are still going to be hungry, corps will still split up the world into extraterritorial nation states and fight over the worlds nuyen despite their ability to cause the world to enter a post scarcity society. Capitalism is a :censor:heap. Religion is a :censor:heap. Atheism is a :censor:heap. Communism is a :censor:heap. Every single method that humanity has come up with to build a society around is flawed because not everyone agrees. Communism would work PERFECTLY if the governments were not abused and people who did not wish to be there were allowed to leave.


The nicest people I have ever met has been one incredibly devout Sufi lady and one incredibly devout catholic man. They volunteered. They donated to charities. They went overseas with secular organisations to do good works. Whoops! Guess they're part of the evil empire too. Exactly what proof do you have that every devout member of organised religion is a time bomb waiting to happen? What resources does that bible thumper consume that that man in the arseless chaps doesn't? Barring leather and paper. I'm not gay either, and I'm sure as hell not comfortable with them. At least, the male ones. If I watch, say.. Amarysee and Shayle busy groping each other and making out at a table across from me in the pub tonight, I'm going to give them the thumbs up and watch discreetly. If I see you and Daganev doing it, I'm going to be uncomfortable. I'm also going to wonder how all four of you arrived at my watering hole.


That's funny. I thought they already HAD been voted away. Oops! Guess prop 8 was just a fantasy state and it didn't exist. Freedom is exactly what the people in charge dictate it to be. What should be isn't what is. Get over your non existent rights and wake up to the real world. Just because you want it to be a fantasy land doesn't make it so. Just because I want to see evangelicals of both stripes, atheist and religious, made to answer for their useless , doesn't make it so.


No, no, my rights extend exactly as far as practical society lets them. If I'm part of a group that is a bigger voting block than another group, then bang, my rights are more important to the law.


Here's a hint - it's their decision until the law says otherwise. Right now, you're in the biggest voting block. Congratulations! Your rights infringe on someone elses, and because of your membership in that block are more valid to the law. If it's legal to get an abortion, though, you're still infringing on their rights.


The basic truths of the world were written when writing was first developed. Maybe even represented abstractly in cave paint - oops. There's that english language argument again. We'll save it for the next thread about people become illiterate in favour of iconography. Shall I sum them up for you?
1) You're going to die.
2) Life isn't going to be pleasant.
3) You can attempt to build a society through peace and love and joy, but basic human instincts are going to make it so you will never achieve more than lukewarm success.


You know what I mean, don't you? Then it's a valid analogy. Which raises questions on the english language. If you know what I mean, then it's now a word. PLus kettles are often made all from blackened iron due to the process of creation.


Slavery wasn't caused by religion. Women not voting was not caused by religion. If you go down to the basic root of paternalism you'll find it evolved from RUFF. I AM BIGGER AND TOUGHER THAN TINY. SHE HAS THINGS I WANT. I SHALL TAKE THEM AND HER AND USE HER TO MAKE CHILDREN. THANK YOU, BIOLOGICAL INSTINCTS. If we went on that, then I'm more worthy for whatever I say than most members (if not all, I'm well trained and almost as arrogant as people posting regularly in this thread) simply due to my impressive musculature and ability to run with heavy weights for long periods at speed. There is not a passage in the bible that says "THEM THAR Edit: Fine, BE YOURS, OH WHITE PEOPLE." There is not a passage in the bible that says "WOMEN ARE INFERIOR." There are several passages which stress their submissive role in a marriage. There are also several religions. If I had a choice, I'd prevent women from voting. Why? They might disagree with me, which takes away from the validity of my rights. For that matter, I wouldn't let anyone else vote who didn't agree with me. Perhaps a screening program. Not because those oh so interesting dual thoric hindrances make them somehow less eligible. There is a passage in the bible that states 'Laying with a man as you would a woman is an abomination.'. It is also part of a code for jewish priests and it does not apply to the rest of the congregation.



Just because you define someone as a waste does not mean they are. I'd think the people at the church are less of a "waste" than someone like you. If people need religion to get going, then they need it. If they need to make it very orthodox religion, then they need it. There may be other options, but this is what works for them and you do not have the right to take it away until you manage to convince a larger block of people that all religion is wrong and should be banned. You are not being as altruistic as you think. You want everyone to conform to your worldview so that your rights are more valid; to be chooser of the slain. Not every orthodox member of a religion is bad, and you cannot seem to accept this or any viewpoint aside from your own. Do not think you are any different from those you profess to despite. You have the same viewpoint with different objects inserted.

Might want to censor that bad word you used, Yrael. Progressive and loving as Lusternians are, it might get you kicked out of the clubhouse.

Now why would I do that? It's using it as an example and anyone who does it infringes on my rights!

Besides, I didn't post the picture based on that. Thanks, 4chan. I'm sure someone will use it to raise my warning level for whatever hideous crime I've performed this week. They might even tell me this time.

I think Yrael just won this thread.

Is there a tl;dr version of what he said? Once I saw "Caps Lock for Cruise Control" I decided to not read it.

Allright, I take back everything I said.

The terms are indeed meaningless now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/1...beatie-pregnant

edit: Well, I don't take back the fact that the gay community in California is over reacting, and behaving like a bunch of teenagers who don't know what it means to have a lack of rights.

Ok, call me intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded or whatever else you want, but this is just creepy.

You should see the vanity shots they have

http://www.eonline.com/

(video is on the right)

I never claimed to make *sense*. Or tell him to be tolerant. Just to stand up and have the balls to admit he's a bigot and a hypocrite and not the CRUSADER FOR GOOD he imagines. Gay men are not disgusting - they don't pander to my personal sexual preference.

..and yeah, the pregnant man is just a wee bit unsettling. You should repeat that last word the way Zasz does in the original Starcraft campaign.

Oh come on, I was a tiny bit creative for the better effect. You did cover some tolerance issues in the last chapter of your essay though.

Can't really watch the video now, and not sure I want to.
Male Mother. How cute. PC all the way.

Damn LDS church and their baby-eating ways.

There really is a lot of overreacting going on. That's not to say the fight shouldn't stop, but beating up someone who disagrees at a gay rights protest is going too far*.

*(Though I really have to question the legitimacy of these claims, hitting someone would cause me to break a nail (zomg) or something. Those poor, suffering, manicure-needing gays.**)

**(In all honesty, it's just surprising of the gay community of CA in general. Never thought we'd do something like that, but I guess it's just further proof we're human too.)

But didn't he plainly say he's anti-Religion and I'm not really sure how that makes him a hypocrite, unless a vote comes up on whether or not to ban orthodox religion and he votes yes.

Who'd they beat up?