Not a bigot...simply religious

But if it is taught as a doctrine to the religion, then it becomes something more than a mere rationalization.

TheBeardedDude said:

But if it is taught as a doctrine to the religion, then it becomes something more than a mere rationalization.

Click to expand...

On that we agree.

There is a difference between a rationalization aimed at using religion as a cover for bigotry and a religious belief that is actually held as part of the doctrine or dogma of a religion.

Click to expand...

Sure looks the same from where I'm sitting.

If the end result is the same, 3rd parties are denied rights, I don't personally give a flying frogger whether you hold a "genuine" religious dogma or a thinly veiled rationalization.

The very fact that the religious believe that their religious convictions are valid reasons to exert control over other people is the problem.

Lethe said:

Sure looks the same from where I'm sitting.

If the end result is the same, 3rd parties are denied rights, I don't personally give a flying frogger whether you hold a "genuine" religious dogma a thinly veiled rationalization.

Click to expand...

I would think one might find that if they lost their rights because of a lie it would make that loss even less tolerable. It would be to me but that may just be me. Additionally, having a third party denied rights because of a religious belief is chiefly harmful to that third party and only harmful in an ancillary way to the rest of society. Having that party denied rights for what is only a rationalization is as harmful to the religion in question as it is to that third party. It has been slandered by having its belief system misrepresented and having an evil perpetrated against someone by false representation of its doctrine.

paul becke said:

Despite the propaganda of the homosexual lobby, aberrant sexual tastes are not genetically defined in the way that skin pigmentation is. They are very deceitful, unscrupulous people.

Click to expand...

Way to insult us right off the bat. I'm sure we'll listen to you now, right?

Take their arrogation of the beautiful rainbow as a symbol of their pretended love for diversity, posing as they do as champions of it in terms of skin colour, race, etc. 'Diversity' however, means, 'heterogeneity'.

Click to expand...

I hate rainbows. I prefer green and black, myself.
Wait, but that means that I can't follow your stupid stereotype, can I?
So I must not REALLY be gay. Even though I am.

So they want it both ways.

Click to expand...

No, I just want people like you to stop talking and give people like us a chance. Step off.

Why is homogeneity in sexual relations supposed to be wrong? they ask in the next breath. How about that for talking out of both corners of their mouth at the same time! Seemingly, the reality is that they would make the rainbow just one colour. No thanks. We actually like rainbows and heterogeneity. It isn't a pretence.

Click to expand...

Sigh. I've never once argued this point. Ever.

Indeed, although representing a small minority of the population of both the UK and US, they seek to impose teaching aberrant sexual acitivities to young school children, driving it into the mainstream by coercion - in the UK bypassing the whole of the democratic process at Westminster.

Click to expand...

I don't think children should learn about these things at a young age. If I had to teach it (as in I was forced to), I'd want to wait until they were at least in High School, personally. If I had to.

I think that sort of thing should be taught by the parents, though. Not me or anyone else.

At present, in the UK, parents can opt out of allowing their children to attend such classes, so they are trying to bring it under the aegis of science classes - if they have not already succeeded - from which the option of withdrawing their children would be excluded.

Click to expand...

I still don't think that should happen.

It is a lobby funded and driven by extremely rich worldlings, which is why they have the politicians' ears, in defiance of the democratic process.

Click to expand...

I hate politics, I am poor, and I am all for democracy (if it would make any difference at all, anyway).

You have no idea what you are talking about, and your hatred is clear.

Why find the truth when you can just subscribe to every stereotype in existence, or label everyone under the same group whether they agree with that agenda or not?

People like you sicken me. Not because you are so obviously against homosexuals, but because you are just a sheep following the herd over a cliff.

Calm down buddy, it's just folks on the internet. It's totally not worth wasting that much time formatting the reply.

Additionally, having a third party denied rights because of a religious belief is chiefly harmful to that third party and only harmful in an ancillary way to the rest of society but having that party denied rights for what is only a rationalization is as equally harmful to the religion in question as it is to that third party as it has been slandered by having its belief system misrepresented and having an evil perpetrated against someone by false representation of its doctrine.

Click to expand...

That sentence needs some commas, periods, and maybe semicolons before I attempt to figure out what you just said.

Lethe said:

Calm down buddy, it's just folks on the internet. It's totally not worth wasting that much time formatting the reply.

Click to expand...

I am calm. But that doesn't mean I'm going to spare the rod and spoil the child, either.

If you mess up, I want you to KNOW it.

Lethe said:

That sentence needs some commas, periods, and maybe semicolons before I attempt to figure out what you just said.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the poor punctuation and poor attempt at expressing an idea. I was in too much of a hurry. My point was that the religion, whose beliefs are misrepresented in order to deny someone their rights, is also harmed by the rationalizer. Therefore, I do see a vast difference between the two possibilities we were discussing.

lupusFati said:

Way to insult us right off the bat. I'm sure we'll listen to you now, right?



I hate rainbows. I prefer green and black, myself.
Wait, but that means that I can't follow your stupid stereotype, can I?
So I must not REALLY be gay. Even though I am.


No, I just want people like you to stop talking and give people like us a chance. Step off.



Sigh. I've never once argued this point. Ever.



I don't think children should learn about these things at a young age. If I had to teach it (as in I was forced to), I'd want to wait until they were at least in High School, personally. If I had to.

I think that sort of thing should be taught by the parents, though. Not me or anyone else.



I still don't think that should happen.



I hate politics, I am poor, and I am all for democracy (if it would make any difference at all, anyway).

You have no idea what you are talking about, and your hatred is clear.

Why find the truth when you can just subscribe to every stereotype in existence, or label everyone under the same group whether they agree with that agenda or not?

People like you sicken me. Not because you are so obviously against homosexuals, but because you are just a sheep following the herd over a cliff.

Click to expand...

Most homosexual people seem to be quiet, gentle souls who just want to get on with their life; the issue is the tyrannical militants, who are doing their darnedest to rule the roost via utterly deceitful, wall-to-wall propaganda.

You've conceded what an outrage it is for the homosexual activists to try to force parents to have their young children indoctrinated with homosexual material. All credit for that. But you then just swan along, as if that's covered now. Not too important, nothing to very seriously gripe about.

Mind you. I wouldn't say paganism was harmless. Pagans had a taste for sacrificing other people, the most favoured being the weakest, i.e. women and children.

When Charlemagne was conquering Europe, the first question put by a Christian bishop to the the Pope was, how should the selling of a slave for human sacrifice be treated. The reply was, 'As murder'.

Christianity has had its uses. Of course, the foot-dragging of my church, the Catholic church over abolishing slavery many centuries later was a scandal of the first order; as the pioneering efforts to free the slaves by smaller Protestant denominations was a glorious enterprise.

paul becke said:

Most homosexual people seem to be quiet, gentle souls who just want to get on with their life; the issue is the tyrannical militants, who are doing their darnedest to rule the roost via utterly deceitful, wall-to-wall propaganda.

Click to expand...

I see no militants. I see people who want the government to change. And I agree with them. Now, I'm not condoning certain methods some of the more 'activist' groups are engaging in (For instance, there's really no need to disrupt religious services in churches). But I don't see homosexuals rallying an army to 'take down the government and our way of life hurrr'.

You've conceded what an outrage it is for the homosexual activists to try to force parents to have their young children indoctrinated with homosexual material. All credit for that. But you then just swan along, as if that's covered now. Not too important, nothing to very seriously gripe about.

Click to expand...

So how am I supposed to change things, eh? I just cry out "OUENDAN!" and have three japanese cheerleaders help me out along to some awesome music? Sorry, but real life doesn't work that way.

Mind you. I wouldn't say paganism was harmless. Pagans had a taste for sacrificing other people, the most favoured being the weakest, i.e. women and children.

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem you understand what a pagan is these days. Pagans aren't one religious group. The ones you're talking about, while possibly under a pagan label (that the Catholic Church gave them, I might add) were probably some other religion.

So if you're done judging me based on your misconceptions, do some research sometime.

When Charlemagne was conquering Europe, the first question put by a Christian bishop to the the Pope was, how should the selling of a slave for human sacrifice be treated. The reply was, 'As murder'.

Click to expand...

This is irrelevant. Also, you're losing a bit of credibility. Need I remind you of the Indulgences? And other such things as orgies held by a certain clergyman.

Christianity has had its uses. Of course, the foot-dragging of my church, the Catholic church over abolishing slavery many centuries later was a scandal of the first order; as the pioneering efforts to free the slaves by smaller Protestant denominations was a glorious enterprise.

Click to expand...

I still don't see how this is relevant. We're not talking about slaves. We're not talking about abolition. This never came up, stop going off on a tangent and actually address the issues.

Talk about injecting your own opinions on gays, fat people, etc. etc.

Plow your own fields people! Leave such matters to someone way more qualified!

Why by the way is not me. If I was in charge everyone would be in TROUBLE! hahaha

Which*** dang I can not do two things at once

What a novel concept, a gay witch hunt! Nothing like leaving your own dirty house to tell your neighbour he needs to clean his dirty house and then partitioning the government to make him clean it.

I've said it who knows how many times on here...

Not agreeing with something based on religious views does not make you a bigot. However, certain actions and words can make you look like a bigot.

ChrisLeishy said:

What a novel concept, a gay witch hunt! Nothing like leaving your own dirty house to tell your neighbour he needs to clean his dirty house and then partitioning the government to make him clean it.

Click to expand...

Well, no.

But it would certainly put the boot on the other foot, no?

Gadarene said:

Well, no.

But it would certainly put the boot on the other foot, no?

Click to expand...

The lord has a much bigger foot than us, I guess you don't want to encourage him to put it somewhere you wouldn't like it to go.

ChrisLeishy said:

The lord has a much bigger foot than us, I guess you don't want to encourage him to put it somewhere you wouldn't like it to go.

Click to expand...

I am yet to see a finger tip, let alone a foot.

ChrisLeishy said:

The lord has a much bigger foot than us, I guess you don't want to encourage him to put it somewhere you wouldn't like it to go.

Click to expand...

The Lord?

The guy who spoke about planks in the eye, right?