Messages

811

Off Topic / Re: Gay rights opinions?

« on: August 01, 2012, 07:12:59 PM »

I never implied that all.

812

Off Topic / Re: Gay rights opinions?

« on: August 01, 2012, 07:10:44 PM »

America is not atheist.... America is known as the "Great melting pot" for a reason because its everything in one.

I'm not talking about demographics at all.

-bla bla bla-

federal: Having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs.
You're the one who has no idea what you're talking about.

813

Off Topic / Re: Gay rights opinions?

« on: August 01, 2012, 06:52:58 PM »

America is atheist. The law should in no way take into account any sort of religion or religious laws, or religious texts such as the bible. This is why the Separation of Church and State exists - everyone is free to believe what they want but the law should be impartial. Influenced in no way by religion. I'm sure there's a better word than atheist but I can't remember it.

814

Off Topic / Re: Gay rights opinions?

« on: August 01, 2012, 06:50:03 PM »

except our money says in god we trust and our pledge is under god and etc.

Our money and pledge are unconstitutional. It was changed in 1953 because America was afraid of Soviet Russia, who was also an atheist state. So by 'affirming' our belief in one God (which is illegal mind you because money is federal property) we would be better than them.

815

Off Topic / Re: Gay rights opinions?

« on: August 01, 2012, 06:47:23 PM »

The federal government recognizes the institution because the federal government was founded on christian principles, as was the whole of western civilization.

Also, because I missed this loving idiocy:

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in the United States.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

America was not, and never will be a Christian nation. We are an atheist state.

816

Off Topic / Re: Gay rights opinions?

« on: August 01, 2012, 06:38:56 PM »

It's not second-class citizenship. It's called something different because calling it marriage is blasphemous and outright offensive to a majority of westerners, as homoloveuality is sacrilegious to the RELIGIOUS institution of marriage. The federal government recognizes the institution because the federal government was founded on christian principles, as was the whole of western civilization.

A civil union is secular, unadulterated by religion and unoffensive to rational religious folk. What exactly is the problem with allowing gay people to spend their lives together without recognition by a world religion?

The benefits are there to encourage population growth and the formation of classical family units. Gay people cannot naturally have children. Gay people who adopt get benefits regardless of whether or not they're married, as do heteroloveuals.

Oh, no, it's second-class citizenship. 'Blasphemy' (as defined as: The act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.) shouldn't even come into the equation because religion has zero place in the American government. There are laws (separation of church and state - for good reason) specifically prohibiting the kind of bullstuff you're blabbering about from being taken into consideration. Also, once again, federal marriage =! religious marriage. If you can't grasp this concept, I'm not even going to bother you.

Here's something for you to think on: Why is it, when two atheists are married, it's referred to as 'marriage'? That's offensive to all the western religious folk! They don't believe in God, how dare they take part in a FEDERAL, GOVERNMENTAL, NON-RELIGIOUS ceremony? Marriage may have been a religious thing in the past but it is no longer.

Welcome to why 'civil unions' are born from nothing but intolerance. Muslims can get married here, and atheists, and all these non-Christians and it's marriage but because gay people want to get married they have to call it something entirely different because gay people aren't 'good enough'. That's the only reason. Refer to the brown townogy regarding white/black fountains and you'll understand just how you're coming off. "Why are you complaining that you get a colored-folk only restroom? It's just the same as the white restroom! Get over it! It's offensive to white people!"

Also, for the last loving time - IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING RECOGNIZED BY A RELIGION. Federal marriages DO NOT have to be recognized by a religion to be legitimate. You with me on this? Federal. Government. Not religious. Religion does not enter the equation because it is NOT A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY BEING PERFORMED. Still with me? Good.

817

Off Topic / Re: Gay rights opinions?

« on: August 01, 2012, 06:16:44 PM »

Marriage is historically a religious institution. While many ancient cultures allowed gay love, not one of them allowed gay marriage.

Irrelevant. I don't give a damn what the Church says about who can get married in it's own congregation. The issue here is federal marriage, which supplies federal benefits that the government has no right to deny to anyone.

Now we have civil unions, which by all account make both partners liable for either's debt and wealth, as does marriage, but the biggest complaint against civil unions is the lack of tax benefits that heteroloveual couples receive.

There's no reason to blaspheme and piss off every major religious group in the world in the name of "equality." You can't just ask the majority population of the world to do away with thousands of years of tradition because you want a religion to recognize the legitimacy of your marriage. Civil unions are fine.

No they aren't. Civil Unions are even more insulting than denying homoloveuals the prospect of marriage entirely, and for you to suggest that we should accept it is laughable. Second-class citizenship. If it was 'fine' they wouldn't have to call it a separate term. That's like going back into the fifties, leaning against the wall by a black-only fountain and then saying 'well at least you /have/ a fountain'. That doesn't really loving matter, because, you know... they had to call it something different, had to separate it from the 'normal' stuff. It's insulting, and no one should accept half of the glass of water.

You don't seem to understand what federal marriage is. It has nothing to do with religion. It's a government institution. Religion has no place and is not in the government. No one's asking any religion to accept anything, and I could give less of a stuff if they do. It's asking the GOVERNMENT to recognize it.

818

Off Topic / Re: Gay rights opinions?

« on: August 01, 2012, 03:41:15 PM »

Similarly, it should also be said that there is no legitimate reason to not approve of it, either.

819

Off Topic / Re: Gay rights opinions?

« on: August 01, 2012, 03:27:51 PM »

There is no legitimate reason, not a single one, to be against it.

820

Off Topic / Re: so chick-fil-a is packed today

« on: August 01, 2012, 03:22:23 PM »

all of those except the nuclear family went with the old testament, and modern christians are *supposed* to operate on the new testament

Shhh, don't say that - after all the only passage condemning homoloveuality was in Leviticus! We can't have the sole, irrational reason for our stance on marriage taken away!

821

Off Topic / Re: so chick-fil-a is packed today

« on: August 01, 2012, 03:14:14 PM »

Haha, conservatives. 'Double standards' my loving ass. Petty racial/loveuality intolerance shouldn't deserve tolerance, or any sort of positive recognition.
Furthermore:

Why are they making it such a big deal?

He believes in traditional marriage. There is nothing wrong with that.

Yeah, there's a lot wrong with it.

822

Off Topic / Re: Steam Chatlogs v2

« on: August 01, 2012, 02:45:20 PM »

Regulith is now playing Borderlands
9:15 PM - Regulith: so I just opened a locker and there was a locker inside
9:15 PM - Regulith: great game
11:07 PM - Sue: ...wh... what
11:08 PM - Regulith: opened a locker, found a locker
11:08 PM - Sue: how
11:08 PM - Regulith: hell if I know

And my number is BEechwood 4-5789, you can call me up and have a chat any old time.

823

Drama / Re: Mr. NoBody and Jerkface - Partners in stupid.

« on: July 31, 2012, 06:05:24 PM »

Mr.NoBody is a respected user and doesn't equal to a piece a garbage like some users here.

I guess unfunny immaturity is respected around here? Guess it hasn't changed.

824

Drama / Re: Mr. NoBody and Jerkface - Partners in stupid.

« on: July 31, 2012, 10:11:30 AM »

I have the feeling if it was anybody else the majority of the people in this thread would be condemning them.

825

Off Topic / Re: abortion: for or against?

« on: July 31, 2012, 09:46:40 AM »

No, really, Planr, that is loving disgusting thinking and people like you make me ashamed to be a human being. Do you have any idea what it's like to be raped, or loveually abused? Well I do, you cunt, and it's a horrible emotional trauma. I don't have a uterus, though, and so I don't know how it could possibly feel to be made to bear the child of some sick man who forced himself on you without your consent. I'll never be able to understand it, either, since I am incapable of experiencing it - however it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it isn't a pleasant feeling.

Just thinking about it makes my skin crawl, because I know in some part how terrible it would be. And I wouldn't want to wish that on any innocent woman no matter how much I disliked her. Your pitiful argument can be made to work both ways: Why should the mother suffer through nine months of pain and agony on top of a life time of shame just so her bastard child can 'live'? What right do you have, as a man who has never experienced the trial of childbirth or the emotional turmoil coupled with conceiving a child from rape, to force to her to suffer? You have no idea how their life would turn out.

Some women are strong enough to care for that child on  their own and that's perfectly fine. Others aren't, though - and who are you to say she'll look on that child with love or affection? The bastard child some stranger gave her? Life isn't your thousand-year-old biblical stories. There is no such thing as unconditional love, and in that case abortion is a better alternative. You talk about shelters and orphanages as if they're some haven for tossed away children but have you ever even been in one? They're underfunded and I'm pretty damn sure children who grow up with no parents start to wonder why mom and dad left them, leading to more emotional trauma. Human life is a burden, don't romanticize it. You're a burden on the state, on your parents, and a burden on rationally-thinking people everywhere. A child is a burden, and if it's not a burden on it's parents it's a burden on the state. That's not a life to live.

Conservatives like you really loving piss me off, not only because of your handicappedly outdated ideals but also because as soon as that baby plops out of his mom's pusillanimous individual you all turn your heads because now it's not an issue anymore, not your problem. You're content to let that child suffer through a life of turmoil and pain just so you can get the point of your thousand year old book of toilet paper across the general public's noses. You're so concerned with life that you ignore whether or not the quality of that life is worth living.

Disgusting. Nothing makes me more upset than hearing people talk like this about raped women.