The religious discussion thread

[Archangel]

This thread was created to bring a local new story to light, which can be viewed below:

JACKSON, Ohio (AP) — An Ohio school district decided Tuesday night to keep a portrait of Jesus hanging in the school where it's been 65 years, denying a federal lawsuit's claim the portrait's display unconstitutionally promotes religion in a public school.

The Jackson City Schools board offered a constitutional justification of its own in voting 4-0 to keep the portrait up in its middle school, saying it must protect students' free speech rights. The vote drew cheers and applause from the dozens of people gathered in the elementary school gymnasium.

Read all of it here: http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-school-b...xzBHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQR0ZXN0A1Rlc3RfQUZD;_ylv=3

I posted his here @ NP to see what ppl had to say on the issue. As it turns out, this sparked many debates. I've considered closing this thread but after multiple suggestions, I decided to keep it open. Feel free to join in the topics but per forum rules, please refrain from obscene, threatening, rude, or insulting posts.

 

[JB Lions]

"Why should I pay for someone's lack of responsibility?"

Why should we have to pay for your old age and health costs?

"They have the same rights as everyone else. Gay men can marry women and Lesbians can marry men."

You already made that nonsensical argument.

"And do you realize that there are millions that are NOT OK with gay marriage?"

So. There are millions not ok with interracial marriage. The normal, decent world really could care less what bigots think.

"They can walk around naked and have oral sex in the Streets of San Francisco in front of everyone, children included and nobody is supposed to say anything"

That's actually illegal. Didn't somebody recently post straight people on Spring Break doing the same? Everybody has sex, everywhere, some places it would be illegal.

With abortion again, 2 things you aren't grasping:
1. what a woman does with her body = none of your business
2. it's legal and will continue to be

At this point, it's really politicians and certain groups, just working the crowd. Getting votes, getting your money for an already decided issue. They actually have you believing that one day abortion will be banned again in this country. If you believe that, you're a sucker.

 

[DU]

They have the same rights as everyone else. Gay men can marry women and Lesbians can marry men.

So we should be arguing that we want women to have the same rights as men?

 

[GILSAN]

"Why should I pay for someone's lack of responsibility?"

Why should we have to pay for your old age and health costs?

I don't have to rely on anyone, because I've discounted all my life, through taxes to have an old age pension and free health care. For someone who's lived in Germany, that's a pretty ignorant comment to make. Don't you know how things work in Europe?

"And do you realize that there are millions that are NOT OK with gay marriage?"

So. There are millions not ok with interracial marriage. The normal, decent world really could care less what bigots think.

Are you still talking about interracial marriage 50 years later?

"They can walk around naked and have oral sex in the Streets of San Francisco in front of everyone, children included and nobody is supposed to say anything"

That's actually illegal. Didn't somebody recently post straight people on Spring Break doing the same? Everybody has sex, everywhere, some places it would be illegal.

If it's illegal why don't the authorities stop it?

With abortion again, 2 things you aren't grasping:
1. what a woman does with her body = none of your business
2. it's legal and will continue to be

At this point, it's really politicians and certain groups, just working the crowd. Getting votes, getting your money for an already decided issue. They actually have you believing that one day abortion will be banned again in this country. If you believe that, you're a sucker.

When a woman goes out to kill a live fetus through an abortion so that she doesn't interrupt the good times she's having because she's fornicating with virtually every dick she finds, then it's everyone's business, because the taxpayer has to pay for it. She should be forced to pay for her abortion in a case like this and on top of it they should give her a photo of the fetus she's just killed, with the help of a doctor who may not even like doing abortions but is probably forced to do it by law.

 

[JB Lions]

"Don't you know how things work in Europe?"

Taxes right? High taxes? If there were no old people, probably could lower it some.

"Are you still talking about interracial marriage 50 years later?"

Was pointing out they were wrong then, you're wrong now.

"If it's illegal why don't the authorities stop it?"

They do, if they're aware of it.

And your other comment, shows besides being homophobic, you're basically saying that women who have abortions are sluts. You're all around pathetic.

 

[DU]

I don't have to rely on anyone, because I've discounted all my life, through taxes to have an old age pension and free health care. For someone who's lived in Germany, that's a pretty ignorant comment to make. Don't you know how things work in Europe?.

So your healthcare limits are based on what you contributed? It's a fully funded pot of money earmarked to individuals based on what they contributed? So healthy people must get their money back. Old sickly people must run out. That doesn't seem right.

Thank god the young in Portugal don't have to pay taxes to support their older generation.

 

[GILSAN]

So your healthcare limits are based on what you contributed? It's a fully funded pot of money earmarked to individuals based on what they contributed? So healthy people must get their money back. Old sickly people must run out. That doesn't seem right.

Thank god the young in Portugal don't have to pay taxes to support their older generation.

This and the previous post makes no fu-king sense. How about writing in English so we can all understand. Don't just write be be "contra" Gilsan. I'll bet if I told you that the sky is blue you'd say it's green....right? You might be a big shot around this forum, but to me you're nothing.

 

[JB Lions]

"Japan’s Finance Minister Suggests Elderly Should Die Quickly To Ease Health Care Burdens"

"As the population ages, the pool of working-age people who must support the elderly is ever shrinking, creating a crisis in the country’s health care management and overall finances."

"According to reports, one-fourth of all Japanese citizens – about 32 million people -- are now above the age of 60. Over the next 50 years, that figure will rise to 40 percent."

http://www.ibtimes.com/japans-finan...die-quickly-ease-health-care-burdens-1031418#

It's a crisis, the burden they put on society. They had their time to shine, why not take one for the team, help us out. We could feed the world:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IKVj4l5GU4"]Soylent Green Is People!!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Archangel]

I've been busy and thus haven't read the past few pages in detail. I'll do that soon. But I see 2 issues I think I wanna touch on a bit.

I was born & raised Republican but since renounced it since they're all insane. Dems aren't much better, so I'm Independent now. One thing that really irks me about Republicans is their Holier-than-thou stance on their pseudo-literal impressions of how the Bible and Christianity should rule the world. Now, it's okay to want ppl to do something but forcing them to--just because you, personally, think it's right--is pathetic. As stated elsewhere in this threads, I'm Christian. But I don't wanna be thrown into the same fire-and-brimstone group that's trying to force their beliefs on people. I was asked earlier in this thread "What do you mean forcing?" This was back with the whole painting thing. In the eyes of most Christians, there is one way and 1 way only. They do not allow for ppl to be individuals. The Bible says something like "A man who lay with another man should be stoned." (Maybe ppl were being a little TOO literal with that when they legalized weed...) Sure, you might think gays are 'faggots' and that God hates them. You might think it's disgusting. And you might think gays aren't 'normal, decent people.' You might think the other way around: that gays are great ppl, the pride of society. Whatever--it is a BELIEF, not a fact. Funny, if you think of it, how we have 'freedom of religion' yet gays have so little freedoms in most of the country. If a non-Christian wants to marry the same sex, could he not claim that a refusal to allow it constitutes as deprivation of a constitutional right, as his religion speaks none of this whole gays-are-bad thing?

Abortions are another thing. I could sit here for literally hours talking about it. But I'll say this and hope it is sufficient: Allow abortions 100%, even if it costs tax payers money. This statement will likely rile a lot of people. But the vast majority of crimes and murders that take place are done by ppl who were raised by shitty parents and never were instilled with ethics of any sort. I'd rather a dumb, irresponsible teen to abort a child than to have one, raise it to welcome drugs and violence, and then unleash it upon the world. Not ALL kids from unfit parents turn out bad but most do. I support force-adoptions, too, but in regards to abortions,I'd rather a potential monster be killed before its creator can help destroy its mind & make another Eddie Gein or something.

 

[GILSAN]

"Japan’s Finance Minister Suggests Elderly Should Die Quickly To Ease Health Care Burdens"

"As the population ages, the pool of working-age people who must support the elderly is ever shrinking, creating a crisis in the country’s health care management and overall finances."

"According to reports, one-fourth of all Japanese citizens – about 32 million people -- are now above the age of 60. Over the next 50 years, that figure will rise to 40 percent."

http://www.ibtimes.com/japans-finan...die-quickly-ease-health-care-burdens-1031418#

It's a crisis, the burden they put on society. They had their time to shine, why not take one for the team, help us out. We could feed the world:

Soylent Green Is People!!! - YouTube

Yes I heard about that Japanese minister's suggestion. I have a suggestion for him. Just start the ball rolling by committing Hara Kiri, after all he is almost 73 years old.

But there are lots of other groups that he could also kill off. Top of the list would be Bankers and Politicians. Aren't they an even bigger burden and threat to our society?, What about the homeless, the lazy, the drug addicts, the Mentally ill, etc.

At least those old Japanese worked hard all their lives and deserve some respect from a POS Politician.

If the young population is diminishing then the government should give incentives to families to have more babies, not kill them.

Europe's young population is also getting smaller thanks to the stupidity and short sightedness of the mostly Liberal Governments who decided 20-30 years ago that the solution to that was to open their borders to the world and allowed mostly unskilled labor to flood Europe, with their strange culture and religions. These immigrants have not integrated into society, but sure know how to milk the system, while giving very little in return.

Some of these Liberal politicians are beginning to recognize the errors they made in the past as far as immigration goes, but it's too little too late. It's the older folks, that have discounted taxes all their lives that are now supporting so many of these lazy bums.

 

[Archangel]

I dunno if this is authentic but it's nice, still.

 

[GILSAN]

Funny, if you think of it, how we have 'freedom of religion' yet gays have so little freedoms in most of the country. If a non-Christian wants to marry the same sex, could he not claim that a refusal to allow it constitutes as deprivation of a constitutional right, as his religion speaks none of this whole gays-are-bad thing?

Gays have so little freedoms? Public schools can't have religious symbols but are teaching gay lifestyles. Hollywood, the Media are over represented by gays who constitute about 2-3% of the population, yet they are constantly shoving the gay agenda down everyone's throats, whether people like it or not. It's a constant barrage of news about how good gays are and how mean Christians are. And you say they have no freedoms?

Abortions are another thing. I could sit here for literally hours talking about it. But I'll say this and hope it is sufficient: Allow abortions 100%, even if it costs tax payers money. This statement will likely rile a lot of people. But the vast majority of crimes and murders that take place are done by ppl who were raised by shitty parents and never were instilled with ethics of any sort. I'd rather a dumb, irresponsible teen to abort a child than to have one, raise it to welcome drugs and violence, and then unleash it upon the world. Not ALL kids from unfit parents turn out bad but most do. I support force-adoptions, too, but in regards to abortions,I'd rather a potential monster be killed before its creator can help destroy its mind & make another Eddie Gein or something.

Now that, I must admit is quite interesting and I'd never thought about it. I have to agree with you there to a certain point, though I still believe that if you can change mentalities, you could also change the character of these potentially bad monsters. That's a big challenge for Political and community leaders. But since these leaders are more preoccupied with winning the next elections instead of helping their community then I guess it will never happen.

A country needs its young population to grow at a steady rate to be able to sustain its social programs. Since young couples are not incentivated to have more kids than they presently have and on top of that, abortions in the US kill 1.2 million babies per year, they must be replaced by immigrants, legal or not. From what I understand they are mostly illegal and probably a very high % of unskilled ones as well. Not a very good trade-off in my opinion.

As for Morgan Freeman's tweet, what else can one expect from a Hollywood asshole like him?

 

[Archangel]

With all due respect, you are not giving examples of freedoms--you are merely speaking of awareness of homosexuality & trying to pass it off as 'freedoms.' I see no logical connection between what you said and what I had.

And I'm speaking of gays' rights in proportional to a straight man's rights -- gays have proportionally fewer rights than his straight counterpart, at least in America that I can vouch for.

Gays have so little freedoms? Public schools can't have religious symbols but are teaching gay lifestyles. Hollywood, the Media are over represented by gays who constitute about 2-3% of the population, yet they are constantly shoving the gay agenda down everyone's throats, whether people like it or not. It's a constant barrage of news about how good gays are and how mean Christians are. And you say they have no freedoms?


Now that, I must admit is quite interesting and I'd never thought about it. I have to agree with you there to a certain point, though I still believe that if you can change mentalities, you could also change the character of these potentially bad monsters. That's a big challenge for Political and community leaders. But since these leaders are more preoccupied with winning the next elections instead of helping their community then I guess it will never happen.

A country needs its young population to grow at a steady rate to be able to sustain its social programs. Since young couples are not incentivated to have more kids than they presently have and on top of that, abortions in the US kill 1.2 million babies per year, they must be replaced by immigrants, legal or not. From what I understand they are mostly illegal and probably a very high % of unskilled ones as well. Not a very good trade-off in my opinion.

As for Morgan Freeman's tweet, what else can one expect from a Hollywood asshole like him?

---------- Post added at 10:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------

But with the other thing: I think forced-abortions are bad, unless they are necessary ie if the choice to not abort could potentially kill the mother. Still, I don't see the good in having unfit parents try to raise a kid. Yes, some murderers were raised well, but many were taught that drugs were more important than life etc. And some (Casey Anthony?) have lacks of ethics that can/usually does result in a child's death or the worse, the child's near death. "Worse" here is in the fact that the kid would likely grow up with the notion that, "Hey--it didn't kill me. It won't hurt others if I did it to them." Even accidental monsters exist, ya know.

 

[GILSAN]

gays have proportionally fewer rights than his straight counterpart, at least in America that I can vouch for.

And what rights don't they have... proportionally?

 

[JB Lions]

And what rights don't they have?

You know which one, the one gone over to death in various threads.

A straight person has the right to marry another consensual straight person.

A gay person does not have the right to marry another consensual gay person.

Not complicated.

"Now that, I must admit is quite interesting and I'd never thought about it."

That was gone over before as well. I mentioned the book Freakonomics and they were looking for reasons why crime didn't go up like everybody thought it would. The came up with abortion and the reasons they gave made sense. If you forced those women to go thru with the pregnancy, there is a good chance they'll be more people on public assistance, a higher chance that child will get into crime etc. Would you want to be born to parents/situation where they didn't really want you? Or didn't have the money to take care of you? Or not in the best of situations/environment? Probably not. It's possible you can get thru that and have a great life and people that come from good environments can have bad lives. But we're talking overall chance.

 

[Archangel]

Not meaning to sound arrogant, cocky, or dumb but I know little of Portugal. It is a hard argument to have, trying to add things to a list so as to determine the 'proportional' thing, to see if one side vastly outweighs the other. But the main thing is most rights/liberties granted to us by the US Constitution -- most of it applies to every citizen here. So again, it's tricky to put things on one side of the equation as everything is debatable.

And what rights don't they have... proportionally?

Yeah, Lions said it the better.

With the abortion thing: I think my post was pretty much the same as the one I made long ago, in this thread. I've been so busy lately that I lost track.

You know which one, the one gone over to death in various threads.

A straight person has the right to marry another consensual straight person.

A gay person does not have the right to marry another consensual gay person.

Not complicated.

"Now that, I must admit is quite interesting and I'd never thought about it."

That was gone over before as well. I mentioned the book Freakonomics and they were looking for reasons why crime didn't go up like everybody thought it would. The came up with abortion and the reasons they gave made sense. If you forced those women to go thru with the pregnancy, there is a good chance they'll be more people on public assistance, a higher chance that child will get into crime etc. Would you want to be born to parents/situation where they didn't really want you? Or didn't have the money to take care of you? Or not in the best of situations/environment? Probably not. It's possible you can get thru that and have a great life and people that come from good environments can have bad lives. But we're talking overall chance.

 

[GILSAN]

You know which one, the one gone over to death in various threads.

A straight person has the right to marry another consensual straight person.

A gay person does not have the right to marry another consensual gay person.

Not complicated.

How many times does it need to be explained that they can marry already. It just needs to be with someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people. Gays can't procreate so they have to find a different solution.

They already have Civil unions, but no, that's not enough for them. They want to make a mockery of the word Marriage. They want more rights than everyone else. Pretty soon they will demand the reduction of the age of consent, which they are already trying hard to get into law. Their goal is to have legal sex with very young boys. Perverts!

And yet all you brainwashed lefties are OK with this?

Mayor Bloomberg had, in my opinion a sensible idea in banning large sodas for health reasons. He should also consider banning sodomy as it's an even bigger health hazard. Look at the enormously disproportionate amount of gays with AIDS, rectal cancer and other STD's. Seems like they have too much of a care-free, anything goes sexual relationships, without looking at the consequences of their actions.

If Archangel can think (when referring to abortion) and I quote him "the vast majority of crimes and murders that take place are done by ppl who were raised by shitty parents and never were instilled with ethics of any sort. I'd rather a dumb, irresponsible teen to abort a child than to have one, raise it to welcome drugs and violence, and then unleash it upon the world. Not ALL kids from unfit parents turn out bad but most do." then I can also think that Gays and their lifestyle are not a very good idea to get married and to raise adopted children.

Every single living creature on this earth hooks up with the opposite sex to procreate. Why are liberals trying to change the laws of nature? And yet people are supposed to support this type of lifestyle?
.[/QUOTE]

 

[JB Lions]

"How many times does it need to be explained that they can marry already. It just needs to be with someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people. Gays can't procreate so they have to find a different solution."

Why do you insist on being stupid? It's "A gay person does not have the right to marry another consensual gay person."

I know you understand that gay people don't want to marry straight people. You just don't have much of an argument. It's so bad you go back to failed arguments.

"Their goal is to have legal sex with very young boys."

Brilliant Gilsan. That pretty much sums you up right there.

 

[verbster]

How many times does it need to be explained that they can marry already. It just needs to be with someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people. Gays can't procreate so they have to find a different solution.

They already have Civil unions, but no, that's not enough for them. They want to make a mockery of the word Marriage. They want more rights than everyone else. Pretty soon they will demand the reduction of the age of consent, which they are already trying hard to get into law. Their goal is to have legal sex with very young boys. Perverts!

And yet all you brainwashed lefties are OK with this?

Mayor Bloomberg had, in my opinion a sensible idea in banning large sodas for health reasons. He should also consider banning sodomy as it's an even bigger health hazard. Look at the enormously disproportionate amount of gays with AIDS, rectal cancer and other STD's. Seems like they have too much of a care-free, anything goes sexual relationships, without looking at the consequences of their actions.

If Archangel can think (when referring to abortion) and I quote him "the vast majority of crimes and murders that take place are done by ppl who were raised by shitty parents and never were instilled with ethics of any sort. I'd rather a dumb, irresponsible teen to abort a child than to have one, raise it to welcome drugs and violence, and then unleash it upon the world. Not ALL kids from unfit parents turn out bad but most do." then I can also think that Gays and their lifestyle are not a very good idea to get married and to raise adopted children.

Every single living creature on this earth hooks up with the opposite sex to procreate. Why are liberals trying to change the laws of nature? And yet people are supposed to support this type of lifestyle?

Oh, my. :td:

 

[GILSAN]

"Their goal is to have legal sex with very young boys."

Brilliant Gilsan. That pretty much sums you up right there.

To quote Verbster's famous words; Oh, my. :td: You and all the lefties sure hate to hear the truth, right?

 

[DU]

To quote Verbster's famous words; Oh, my. :td: You and all the lefties sure hate to hear the truth, right?

I'm surprised that Scalia has not brought up Edith Windsor's long journey towards this goal yet to put all the commies in their place.

 

[RogueWriter]

I dunno if this is authentic but it's nice, still.

Looks like a fake to me on 2 counts: 1- Morgan Freeman using the account name @ morgonfreeman , I don't think so...... and 2- Someone follows Morgan Freeman? :zzz:

 

[enlytend]

They already have Civil unions, but no, that's not enough for them.

You know why it's "not enough?"

- Because none of the civil union / domestic partnership rights exist outside of the state in which they were issued. Let's say the couple goes on vacation to another state and one becomes ill or is injured - the hospital may not allow the partner to visit because that state doesn't recognize the union.
- Because it they are not recognized a the federal level - i.e. for tax purposes, military spouse benefits ...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/us/new-york-doma-windsor

 

[verbster]

To quote Verbster's famous words; Oh, my. :td: You and all the lefties sure hate to hear the truth, right?

Sometimes it's better to cut bait than spend all day trying to unsnag.

 

[GILSAN]

You know why it's "not enough?"

- Because none of the civil union / domestic partnership rights exist outside of the state in which they were issued. Let's say the couple goes on vacation to another state and one becomes ill or is injured - the hospital may not allow the partner to visit because that state doesn't recognize the union.
- Because it they are not recognized a the federal level - i.e. for tax purposes, military spouse benefits ...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/us/new-york-doma-windsor

Then get Civil Unions on a Federal level instead of insisting on marriage and having the MSM, the Liberals and Hollywood forcing it down everyone's throats. The media is constantly flooding everyone with the idea that gays are the perfect, ideal couple to raise a normal family.

What normal family.? And how do we know that kids raised by homosexuals are all gonna turn out to be perfect citizens, with no psychological and other traumas?

Just last night on Anderson Cooper they were talking about Gay Marriage (what else) and Dr. Drew Pinsky was saying that so far there was no evidence that kids raised in homosexual homes are no different to other kids.

How can he claim this when it will require at least 20-30 years, if not more to get more trustworthy results. And even if they do find that out that the results are not positive for the gay cause, the Liberal media will simply hide it from the general public for political correctness reasons. The Liberal Media are specialists in doing this.

As for Edith Windsor, why did she go to Canada to get married? Apparently she and her partner were smart, well off people. Didn't they know the law in the US?

---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 AM ----------

Sometimes it's better to cut bait than spend all day trying to unsnag.

:tu: Definitely a much better quote than your previous "Oh, my." :td:

Sounds like you're an experienced fisherman.

 

[randomo]

Then get Civil Unions on a Federal level instead of insisting on marriage [...]

Question (not a leading question, just for information): would you agree to giving gay couples all the same rights (hospital visitation, adoption, tax status, etc., etc.) as heterosexual married couples, as long as the term "civil union" was used instead of "marriage"?

And how do we know that kids raised by homosexuals are all gonna turn out to be perfect citizens, with no psychological and other traumas?

I haven't read every entry in this thread, but I haven't seen anyone say that kids raised by gays would be "perfect citizens". Nor, for that matter, do kids raised by heteros all turn out to be "perfect citizens" - do they?

I think it's good for a child to have parental figures of each gender (which don't necessarily have to be the child's parents). On the other hand, countless kids are brought into this world by parents who didn't want to have them but had either poor judgment or ineffective birth control; those kids are more likely than others to be neglected and/or abused, and thus probably more likely to cause problems for society.

If a gay couple raises a kid, they almost certainly went to great effort to add that kid to their family (through adoption, artificial conception, whatever), so the kid is likely to be raised with more care and affection than many unplanned "oops" kids.