(October 15, 2013 at 5:28 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The human race proceeds by Darwinian sex selection in the form of OPPOSITE gender mating.
Don't blame deep-seated heterosexism on Christians.

I like free speech. Can I post views which the Mods here might find homophobic?

Of course. And others are free to express their opinions on your views, of course.

(October 15, 2013 at 5:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 15, 2013 at 5:28 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The human race proceeds by Darwinian sex selection in the form of OPPOSITE gender mating.
Don't blame deep-seated heterosexism on Christians.

I like free speech. Can I post views which the Mods here might find homophobic?

Do you think that the 1 to 5% of homosexuals in the world are going to contribute to some decline of the human race?.... considering the rate at which it has been growing... I'd say that they're welcome.
I'm in the remaining 95%, but let them be happy in their quirky ways...

Quirky?

(October 15, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(October 15, 2013 at 5:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Do you think that the 1 to 5% of homosexuals in the world are going to contribute to some decline of the human race?.... considering the rate at which it has been growing... I'd say that they're welcome.
I'm in the remaining 95%, but let them be happy in their quirky ways...

Quirky?

yep...

quirk
noun
1. a peculiarity of action, behavior, or personality; mannerism: He is full of strange quirks. this looks appropriate
2. a shift, subterfuge, or evasion; quibble. not this one
3. a sudden twist or turn: He lost his money by a quirk of fate. also not this one
4. a flourish or showy stroke, as in writing. this one... maybe

(October 15, 2013 at 2:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I was under the impression that, in the US, marriage IS the legal union of one man and one woman. I don't like it and I don't agree with it, but isn't that the law?

Boru

No. he Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional.

(October 15, 2013 at 5:00 pm)John V Wrote: Here's some more discrimination!!!
http://atheistforums.org/thread-21262.html

Quote:I need to make a logo for my atheist meetup group, but don't know what the hell I'm doing. Any good logo maker apps or sites you like? I beg you for ideas!

hock:
Oh the horrors - people deciding what other people they'd like to hang out with!

By that definition every church ever founded is a discriminatory organization.

(October 15, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: So I was signing to a christian forum, because I have some questions that I want answered by christians, when I found this in there registration page

Marital Status
Choose an option that best describes your marital status (The Married icon is for access to the Marriage Ministry forum which is available to those who are married, defined as a legal union between one man and one woman).

http://www.christianforums.com/regnow.php?do=register

I dont think any homosexual would actualy feel hurt or even offended by this.

The wiill probably just make a little grin and mumble in a sarcastic tone to themselves "Oh what a suprise".

So since this only cements the stereotyps one has about those types of christians it hurts them more than anyone else.

First, thanks to everyone for the correction. Much appreciated.

Second, a reply to Lion:

Quote:The human race proceeds by Darwinian sex selection in the form of OPPOSITE gender mating.
Don't blame deep-seated heterosexism on Christians.

But there has ALWAYS been homosexuality and always will be, yet the human population on this planet continues to grow apace.

This is the sort of smoke-screen your ilk always put up: Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they cannot produce children. That's a big, steaming load of hypocritical shyte and you know it. It is hypocrisy because you and your feeble-minded, bigoted co-religionists never, EVER rail against marriage between two people infertile with each other, or between two people past child-bearing years.

Furthermore, you claim to be against gay marriage since it cannot produce children, yet you seem to forget that marriage isn't necessary for procreation.

Face it, mate - it's the homosexual act that bothers you, nothing else. Your lot don't want to ban gay marriage, you want to ban gay sex, a practice which cannot possibly do YOU any harm whatsoever. Feckwit.

Boru

(October 15, 2013 at 6:59 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: First, thanks to everyone for the correction. Much appreciated.

Second, a reply to Lion:

Quote:The human race proceeds by Darwinian sex selection in the form of OPPOSITE gender mating.
Don't blame deep-seated heterosexism on Christians.

But there has ALWAYS been homosexuality murder, rape, pedophilia and always will be, yet the human population on this planet continues to grow apace.

See what I did to your logical fallacy?

(October 15, 2013 at 6:59 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ...
Furthermore, you claim to be against gay marriage since it cannot produce children, yet you seem to forget that marriage isn't necessary for procreation.

Thats not the reason I am against gay "marriage". I have never made that argument against SSM. Try using the quote function instead of the sock puppet ventriloquism routine.

See? Strawman argument all gone now. Bye bye.
Next?
Oh wait....it's ANOTHER strawman argument.

(October 15, 2013 at 6:59 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ...Face it, mate - it's the homosexual act that bothers you, nothing else.

Nope. I'm not squeamish. If I closed my eyes, I can probably imagine that a ''blindfolded" human orgasm sensation feels pretty much the same no matter what gender or age or other species is involved. Wanna legalize pet brothels?
Or are you one of those..."animals dont like having orgasms err...I mean...animals cant give consent" type folk?

(October 15, 2013 at 6:59 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ...Your lot don't want to ban gay marriage, you want to ban gay sex, a practice which cannot possibly do YOU any harm whatsoever. Feckwit.

Well, I suppose if you are running that lame... no harm, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS trope, how about the starving people in Africa? Do we say they are none of our business?
Come to think of it, someone was earlier making the "over population argument" for homosexuality.

How about those unmarried moms who got pregnant. Their body. Their choice. Should tax payers, (I should say religious charities,) provide welfare for them? Or is that another MYOB look the other way scenario?

(October 15, 2013 at 6:59 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ...
Face it, mate...

(October 15, 2013 at 6:59 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ...
Feckwit.

Make up your mind.

Quote:See what I did to your logical fallacy?

Right. You equate homosexuality with murder, rape, and paedophila, and accuse ME of faulty logic. You understand that homosexuality isn't inherently harmful, correct?

Quote:Thats not the reason I am against gay "marriage". I have never made that argument against SSM. Try using the quote function instead of the sock puppet ventriloquism routine.

lol, that's EXACTLY the argument you made - the thread began with a definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and you immediately brought up procreation. (see, I'm using the quote function now. Tell your boyfriend, he'll be so proud.)

Quote:See? Strawman argument all gone now. Bye bye. Wink
Next?
Oh wait....it's ANOTHER strawman argument.

Bzzt, sorry - there was no strawman, since I did not parody your POV and then attack the parody. Nice try, though.

Quote:Nope. I'm not squeamish. If I closed my eyes, I can probably imagine that a ''blindfolded" human orgasm sensation feels pretty much the same no matter what gender or age or other species is involved. Wanna legalize pet brothels?
Or are you one of those..."animals dont like having orgasms err...I mean...animals cant give consent" type folk?

See, now THAT'S a strawman, since I never once suggested beastiality. Why do you lot always seem to resort to that - something to hide?

Quote:Well, I suppose if you are running that lame... no harm, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS trope, how about the starving people in Africa? Do we say they are none of our business?
Come to think of it, someone was earlier making the "over population argument" for homosexuality.

You're seriously equating helping hungry people with denying rights to gay people? Seriously? Ok, since this seems to be a block for you, I'll help you out just a smidge:

When you give food to a hungry person, you've done a GOOD thing.

When you seek to deny equal protection under the law to gay people, you've done a BAD thing.

Quote:How about those unmarried moms who got pregnant. Their body. Their choice. Should tax payers, (I should say religious charities,) provide welfare for them? Or is that another MYOB look the other way scenario?

Yes, taxpayers should provide assistance to unmarried mums (those who need it, anyroad). But again, you seem to have trouble grasping the difference between helping someone (unmarried mums) and hurting someone (gay people who want and deserve the same rights as straight people under marriage laws).

Quote:Make up your mind.

I have done. I've decided that, when it comes to compassionate consideration for other people, you couldn't get a clue if you were standing naked in the middle of a herd of clues, at the height of the clue mating season, covered in clue musk, and doing the clue mating dance.

Boru

(October 15, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: So I was signing to a christian forum, because I have some questions that I want answered by christians, when I found this in there registration page

Marital Status
Choose an option that best describes your marital status (The Married icon is for access to the Marriage Ministry forum which is available to those who are married, defined as a legal union between one man and one woman).

http://www.christianforums.com/regnow.php?do=register

Marriage is another invention of religion - is certainly not a biological necessity - and is not even consistent in the bible - where polygamy was the rule BCE. THere are very few species in which pairs stay together for life - and it doesn't even happen often in humans as well.

THere is NOTHING that says that christians invented it - they did not. BUT in a christian forum - a marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what christianity specifies it to be. That does not make them right - but then they do not accept reality anyway!

WHY would it surprise YOU that in a Religious forum - they would define something the way their RELIGION defines it.? Religion has been and always will be a basis for discrimination - if you do not accept their position -= they are ANTI - YOU!