Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fair enough Nurglitch. I don't look down on people for their views (unless they are liberal or a child rapist) but at least you put forth a reason for not liking Christians and unlike some, I accept your reason.

GBF, don't worry. Between Dogma and Shuma and MGS we have 3 people who all think they should be the next "World Savior". I'm surprised Shuma is absent from this thread. Normally he is in every thread I post trying to flame bait me.

Fateweaver:

Excellent, I look forward to seeing you at the Circus.

The Green Git wrote:
Doesn't saying his reasons aren't "good enough" makes you intolerant? Isn't that really saying "You have no right to hold certain beliefs"?

Not unless Fatweaver's position is also intolerant. You can comment on the beliefs of another in a negative fashion without being intolerant. If that were not true, then everyone who "doesn't agree with homosexuality" (which is itself an odd notion, how do you 'agree' with a behavior?) would also be intolerant.

You can hold whatever belief you wish, and any given person can comment in instances where that belief is advertised. So long as violence is not involved there is no intolerance.

Fateweaver wrote:
Between Dogma and Shuma and MGS we have 3 people who all think they should be the next "World Savior".

World savior? No, not really. I don't generally moralize things. Mostly I point out fallacies while demonstrating the difference between the minimal commitments required by logic, and grandiose commitments that are required by ideology and emotion.

You make a lot of fallacious argument, which is why I frequently reply to you.

I gave my reasons for not tolerating gay marriage. I don't have to tolerate everything.

To a pedophile you are intolerant because you don't believe 8yo boys should be poked in the butt (well I hope you don't anyway). If a pedophile asked you why you don't tolerate it you would give the same response I do about not tolerating gay unions. It isn't natural and it's not what God intended (even 8yo girls can't physically have children so again it wasn't intended by God or nature for males old enough to breed to have sex with 8yo girls) hence why it is immoral and illegal.

You could say it was against the law but the law was passed many, many decades ago protecting children because at that time a lot of laws were passed based on religious beliefs. Had it not been immoral in Gods eyes to have sex with children there would not have been laws made making that stuff illegal.

But really Dogma, go on thinking you are superior. I don't agree with gay marriage or gay unions. I gave both of my reasons for feeling that way and both are acceptable to anyone out there who isn't gay or isn't a liberal. I don't need to explain my views on why I'm against gay unions anymore. Don't like my view to effin' bad.

End. Of.

Or you could just stop responding?

End? Of? M'Kay?

I agree with Fatweaver: you have to tolerate our intolerance whether you like it or not!

My opinion of gay unions is not fallacy. It's not based on lies or made up. It's based on facts as presented to me. Again, putting aside the religious intolerance, physically man was not meant to breed with another man or woman with another woman. That is not fallacy. If God had designed men to get pregnant and reproduce from the sperm of another man he would have made us that way (or nature would have if you are an evolutionist). Same goes for women.

If you can show me anywhere or prove to me anywhere that 2 men can reproduce without help from a female or two women can reproduce without help from another man than I will start possibly accepting the fact that gay unions are natural. The thing is they are not natural in regards to why we are here on this Earth in the first place.

You can't find fallacy in that statement. If you can than you have proven something that scientists have not been able to ever and I'll tip my hat to you but I know you can't so my view on gay unions has as much merit and weight as your view does.

There's more to life than just breeding.

Fateweaver wrote:I gave my reasons for not tolerating gay marriage. I don't have to tolerate everything.

No you don't, and I never said you did. Personally, I'm more than willing to recognize that much of the pro side of the gay marriage debate is constructed on the notion of punishing conservative Christians. I can understand this, as much of the con side of the larger gay rights debate has historically been about punishing homosexuals. Of course, that doesn't make the repetition of a negative paradigm acceptable.

Fateweaver wrote:
To a pedophile you are intolerant because you don't believe 8yo boys should be poked in the butt (well I hope you don't anyway).

Wanting to do something, and believing that something should be done are two entirely different things. I want a drink right now, but I don't believe that I should drink because I'll be drinking all night (huzzah, New Years Eve!).

Fateweaver wrote:
If a pedophile asked you why you don't tolerate it you would give the same response I do about not tolerating gay unions. It isn't natural and it's not what God intended (even 8yo girls can't physically have children so again it wasn't intended by God or nature for males old enough to breed to have sex with 8yo girls) hence why it is immoral and illegal.

I wouldn't give that answer, as I don't consider invocations of divinity to be particularly strong reasons for action (I see them as dressed up forms of "I feel X is right/wrong"). Nor am I particularly interested in the notion of procreation as the only reason for sex (instinct and desire are just as 'natural' as procreation). Instead, I would argue that pedophilia has significant, negative consequences for all involved parties (and, by extension, society) such that it should be heavily policed (because eradication is impossible).

Fateweaver wrote:
Had it not been immoral in Gods eyes to have sex with children there would not have been laws made making that stuff illegal.

Do you feel that sodomy is now acceptable because God permitted the repeal of all laws which prohibited it?

Fateweaver wrote:
But really Dogma, go on thinking you are superior.

You're reading an awful lot into my post. I've not claimed to be generally superior to you, or even specifically so.

Fateweaver wrote:
I don't agree with gay marriage or gay unions. I gave both of my reasons for feeling that way and both are acceptable to anyone out there who isn't gay or isn't a liberal.

Well, that's not really true. They're acceptable to anyone who believes that "I believe X" is sufficient to justify one's intent to determine social policy in a nation which is supposed to value freedom.

@ Fateweaver.
I don't consider myself to be liberal or conservative,nor am I gay,however I whole heartedly belive that sexaul interaction between two consenting adults (or 3 or 4 or 10),reguardless of gender is the business of those adults and no one elses,not the church, not the state.
You may personaly disagree with homosexaul life style,and that's your right,however the sexaul behavior of consenting adults should not be legislated.
As to comparing pedophiles to homosexauls,that's nonsence,pedophiles (by and large) are predatory in nature and their activities have nothing to do with mutuall consent.
Also,in an earlier post you stated that one dosen't see male/male relationships in the animal kingdom,wrong,many speacies of animal engage in "homosexual" activity.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrookM wrote:There's more to life than just breeding.

Amen!

Fateweaver:

Your opinion on gay marriage is a fallacy, completely made up whole cloth with no attempt at logic, reason, or due consideration. It's why Christians like yourself should be extirpated from society before you corrupt it further with irrational and specious opinions.

Men can easily have sex with men, it's something that millions of gay men have noticed in their sexual lives. Likewise gay women have discovered that the only way they can have fulfilling and natural sexual lives is with a partner of the same sex. Reproduction has nothing to do with it, as obviously straight people can have gay children, and gay people have can have straight children.

If it was a case of nature, then you need to take off your clothes, sell your house and give everything you own to the poor, because guess what? None of it is natural: it's all 100% artificial, designed and constructed by men often in face of opposition by nature that tries to alternately drown us, freeze us, burn us, and eat us. And your crazy made-up religion demands it of you anyways, like it demands that you not wear clothes of two different fibres, that you stone adulterers to death, that you shouldn't defile yourself with non-kosher food, and so on. You know, all those other rules that you don't follow because cognitive dissonance is one of the symptoms of the mental illness you call a religion.

Let's face it, you wouldn't know a fallacy if one hit you in the face. It's like trying to tell a schizophrenic that the CIA isn't trying to listen in on his brainwaves, because like schizophenia Christianity is a mental illness that impairs cognitive and social function - that's why Christians need to be rounded up and put in camps before they can spread this infectious mental illness to otherwise sane people.

The fact is that's why Christians shouldn't be allowed to marry, hold citizenship, or have voting rights. Just as we disallow the slowed from marrying, deport the terrorist, and prevent the ordinarily mentally ill from voting, we shouldn't allow Christians to disrupt the democratic will of society via appeals to their apocalyptic death-cult.

Your view doesn't have as much merit and weight as the opinions of more rational people because it's incoherent, illogical, based on false premises, and the result of a mental illness that you contracted by engaging in a sickening and depraved lifestyle.

Dolphin have been shown to be very gay from time to time.

edit.

Please stop using the word phallacy guys, it's too much like that dirty word.

You are free to do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt others. Gay men and women don't hurt others (unless they are pedophiles) so while I don't agree with it I tolerate it and I'm not about to rain on anyones parade.

That is why I'm not a homophobe. I don't fear or hate gay people because they might hurt someone.

I have gotten this impression since joining dakka that you are, to put it nicely, extremely arrogant and aloof. If that is not you in real life than I apologize for assuming but you and MGS and Shuma post in such an arrogant matter that it makes me think you are that way in real life.

Sodomy law is a stupid law anyway. Yeah I know it's a law but it's a stupid one, just like the seatbelt and helmet laws.

Fair enough but I posted why I'm against gay unions for the reasons stated. Let's just agree to disagree. My viewpoint is as valid as yours. You can dispute it but you have no facts to back up your claim as to the "rightness" or "naturalness" of gay unions, just opinions.

I love the way Fateweaver retreats into moral relativism. "My viewpoint is as valid as yours". Well, if those two viewpoints are equally valid, then guess what?

You've just admitted that he's right And you also think you're right. And that's incoherent.

Nurglitch wrote:Fateweaver:

Your opinion on gay marriage is a fallacy, completely made up whole cloth with no attempt at logic, reason, or due consideration. It's why Christians like yourself should be extirpated from society before you corrupt it further with irrational and specious opinions.

Men can easily have sex with men, it's something that millions of gay men have noticed in their sexual lives. Likewise gay women have discovered that the only way they can have fulfilling and natural sexual lives is with a partner of the same sex. Reproduction has nothing to do with it, as obviously straight people can have gay children, and gay people have can have straight children.

If it was a case of nature, then you need to take off your clothes, sell your house and give everything you own to the poor, because guess what? None of it is natural: it's all 100% artificial, designed and constructed by men often in face of opposition by nature that tries to alternately drown us, freeze us, burn us, and eat us. And your crazy made-up religion demands it of you anyways, like it demands that you not wear clothes of two different fibres, that you stone adulterers to death, that you shouldn't defile yourself with non-kosher food, and so on. You know, all those other rules that you don't follow because cognitive dissonance is one of the symptoms of the mental illness you call a religion.

Let's face it, you wouldn't know a fallacy if one hit you in the face. It's like trying to tell a schizophrenic that the CIA isn't trying to listen in on his brainwaves, because like schizophenia Christianity is a mental illness that impairs cognitive and social function - that's why Christians need to be rounded up and put in camps before they can spread this infectious mental illness to otherwise sane people.

The fact is that's why Christians shouldn't be allowed to marry, hold citizenship, or have voting rights. Just as we disallow the slowed from marrying, deport the terrorist, and prevent the ordinarily mentally ill from voting, we shouldn't allow Christians to disrupt the democratic will of society via appeals to their apocalyptic death-cult.

Your view doesn't have as much merit and weight as the opinions of more rational people because it's incoherent, illogical, based on false premises, and the result of a mental illness that you contracted by engaging in a sickening and depraved lifestyle.

Nice attack on my religious views. Reported.

Next time you want to attack me Nurglitch leave the religion out of it. Enjoy your ban.

I also didn't attack Dogma or anyone else's viewpoints on why they are okay with gay unions (well maybe attacking their liberal viewpoints but that's normal between liberals and conservatives and is accepted as proper).

Fateweaver:

I didn't attack your religious views at all. I just pointed out your view fails the standards of rationality, and how it failed them, and then pointed out what I personally believe. If you view that as an attack, well then I hope you likewise enjoy your ban for attacking my lifestyle as immoral.

If your post was meant to be a joke than you should have said so.

Your post looks like it's attacking my viewpoint and we both know how intolerant of attacking someone based on religion this board is.

Well, mods always give you an oppurtunity to dispute a ban so take it up with Yakface or the mod who will probably ban you.

Without seeing orkmoticons I assume it's all serious.

Fateweaver:

Of course I'm attacking your view: Your view sucks. It sucks both substantively, and in the reasoning that you give for justifying your ownership of it. All it boils down to is a baseless and pointless attack on the beliefs of others, like mine, which you then incoherently accord the same status as your own, despite initially denying opinions such as mine validity.

What I've done is held up a semi-satyrical mirror of your opinion to underscore just how objectionable and incoherent your opinion actually is, and to scold you for your cowardly and incoherent retreat into moral relativism to try and protect your position of moral absolutism.

The mods are probably being sensible and celebrating a New Year, seeing as I reported this thread aeons ago.

I don't belive Nurglitch "attacked" anything,he simply stated his views concerning religion.

Nurglitch wrote:The fact is that's why Christians shouldn't be allowed to marry, hold citizenship, or have voting rights. Just as we disallow the slowed from marrying, deport the terrorist, and prevent the ordinarily mentally ill from voting, we shouldn't allow Christians to disrupt the democratic will of society via appeals to their apocalyptic death-cult.

Your view doesn't have as much merit and weight as the opinions of more rational people because it's incoherent, illogical, based on false premises, and the result of a mental illness that you contracted by engaging in a sickening and depraved lifestyle.

All done.