Knight's pick 10-08-2011

[alwight]

Deleted duplicate.

 

[alwight]

Something went wrong during editing the above now there's no edit button? :liberals:

 

[alwight]

Nope, still can't edit my own posts on this thread. :idunno:

 

[MaryContrary]

Not pretending, it was a fact that lefties where persecuted due to the silly notion it was evil, people right here in the good ol US of A were training left handed children to switch over as late as the mid 1900's due to this perceived evilness. :rotfl: silly fanatics!

Oh, wait, were you referring to hand sex, if so, off with their evil hand, but only if it was a left hand!

Then you're missing the point that outlawing a behavior doesn't outlaw the desire, inclination or even the capability of committing it. And pretending it does is either dishonest or stupid. So which prompted you to equate our position with outlawing left-handedness? Were you mistaken or lying?

 

[MaryContrary]

And who says it should be illegal, you and your buddies?
Want your cake and eat it much do you?
I'm not gay but you'd only have your way over my dead body I can assure you.

:blabla:
Nothing to do with the quote you attached it to. The one asking you how it's oppressive to pass a law and expect people to comply with it.

And stop being hysterical. It's girly.

Who else exactly does the state outlaw for doing in private what is simply a natural preference for them?

"Who else..."?

Who are we outlawing again? I thought we were talking about outlawing homosexuality, the actual act itself, not homosexuals en masse. If we're talking about outlawing homosexuals, then I'm on the wrong thread.

Which after all has no actual difference, in effect, from hetrosexual sex as far as the non concerned are concerned, and is of particularly of no concern to the state imo.

Wait...now you do seem to understand we're talking about homosexual sex and not homosexuals themselves. Are you confused or something?

I do however try to understand how your own religious views make this hard for you to accept, which is where some tolerance for other people's own views would come in handy perhaps. But sadly I rather suspect that your world is far too black and white for that.

Yeah, I guess you are confused on this issue. And I'm pretty sure the point that's throwing you for a loop would be the difference between outlawing a behavior and outlawing the existence of, you know, people. I think if you manage to get that singular point untangled the rest will make sense easily enough.

Nonsense, there is no pretence involved, do you actually believe that a majority can't oppress a minority, when clearly even the largest minority can do that in a democracy?
Do you really think that a majority opinion is automatically the right and proper position?

I never said the majority couldn't oppress the minority. I said we aren't doing that here, so to speak, by outlawing homosexual sex. And asked you to explain your accusation that we are. Which, by the way, you haven't done here.

You'd not have your way in my society without a physical fight I can assure you because I for one am never going to accept gays being locked up or executed in my name just having gay sex in private, or indeed that they be forced not to just to suit the likes of you.

And this makes two little, mini-rants about how you'd react violently if such a law were passed. I would suggest calming down a bit and maybe trying to approach this discussion rationally, since we're not on the floor of the senate voting on the thing just now. It's an internet debate forum.

Not that this sort of thing wouldn't be any less hysterical on the floor of the senate, mind you.

If the civil secular laws offend me enough then it really doesn't actually matter if it's called democracy or not on your particular ship of fools.

I asked you to explain how you determine which instances where a law is passed against the will of the minority constitute oppression. This is your answer?

I'm really not "in" anything Mary except in your own mind perhaps.

No, I think a second clear example of your inability/refusal to acknowledge the difference between outlawing an act and outlawing thought-crime, your refusal to support your claim of oppression and two threats of general violence over a hypothetical indicates you're definitely"in" something. You're either hysterical or don't have an argument that's rational. Or, actually, both.

You are perfectly within your rights as a human being to not like homosexuals or what they do in private, but you have no right to stop them doing it in private, even if the thought of what they do deeply offends you or only because you happen to think from religious dogma that it offends your God.

I like homosexuals just fine, not that I need your permission to like or dislike anything in particular. And, yes, I do have the right, as a voter anyway, to outlaw acts I believe are destructive to society, just as you do, thank you very much. Because that right isn't conditional upon how much it offends alwight.

 

[some other dude]

And stop being hysterical. It's girly.

:darwinsm:

I may add that to my signature line.

"Who else..."?

Who are we outlawing again? I thought we were talking about outlawing homosexuality, the actual act itself, not homosexuals en masse. If we're talking about outlawing homosexuals, then I'm on the wrong thread.

If you outlaw homosexuality, then only homosexuals will have guns... or something....

 

[alwight]

Oppress gays if they don't comply? Comply with what? Not engaging in behavior that is illegal?

And who says it should be illegal, you and your buddies?
Want your cake and eat it much do you?
I'm not gay but you'd only have your way over my dead body I can assure you.

:blabla:
Nothing to do with the quote you attached it to. The one asking you how it's oppressive to pass a law and expect people to comply with it.

And stop being hysterical. It's girly.

Me hysterical, pull the other one Mary? That's rather more your department I think.
Presumably though you would rather like to wind me up, sorry but that just won't work. What I said was simply a cold statement of fact and your stupid proposed anti-gay laws and mentality would have to come pass me in my society, what you can get away with in yours is rather another matter.
Anyway, you were making the presumption about "Not engaging in behavior that is illegal?", should I presume that it was indeed already illegal and argue on that basis, I really don't think so, that was what I responded to, sorry that you didn't seem to get my point.

Do we likewise oppress everyone who does anything else we've outlawed? Aren't they also failing to comply and wouldn't that also make all of us in favor of any law at all oppressors?

Who else exactly does the state outlaw for doing in private what is simply a natural preference for them?

"Who else..."?

Who are we outlawing again? I thought we were talking about outlawing homosexuality, the actual act itself, not homosexuals en masse. If we're talking about outlawing homosexuals, then I'm on the wrong thread.

You're just being somewhat dense or evasive here imo, you were likening the outlawing of private gay sex to other crimes and I was asking you what other laws are in place to prevent such private harmless personal activities. I'll assume then that you can't think of any and that such a law would be the only one that criminalised private personal and consensual activities that harmed no one else. Indeed why exactly should the (secular) state interfere in anyone's private lives, it should and probably does keep its nose well out of it, no thanks to you though.

Which after all has no actual difference, in effect, from hetrosexual sex as far as the non concerned are concerned, and is of particularly of no concern to the state imo.

Wait...now you do seem to understand we're talking about homosexual sex and not homosexuals themselves. Are you confused or something?

No I at least am not confused, you may be though, since clearly homosexual sex was the thrust of my argument and clearly imo I was referencing it to heterosexual sex above (albeit misspelt).
Homosexuals should be allowed exactly the same rights to live and have a private life as anyone else in my worldview, while you it seems will let them live so long as they don't have one, yet you expect them to remain happy with that arrangement while in your public company or mine too for that matter, do get real.

I do however try to understand how your own religious views make this hard for you to accept, which is where some tolerance for other people's own views would come in handy perhaps. But sadly I rather suspect that your world is far too black and white for that.

Yeah, I guess you are confused on this issue. And I'm pretty sure the point that's throwing you for a loop would be the difference between outlawing a behavior and outlawing the existence of, you know, people. I think if you manage to get that singular point untangled the rest will make sense easily enough.

I simply think it's grossly wrong and bigoted to outlaw anyone's private life, let alone to execute someone for it, but sadly you think you can perhaps because you think your god wants you to, assuming you are genuinely not bigoted yourself, which might be the extent of the power of any supposed god perhaps.

Nonsense, there is no pretence involved, do you actually believe that a majority can't oppress a minority, when clearly even the largest minority can do that in a democracy?
Do you really think that a majority opinion is automatically the right and proper position?

I never said the majority couldn't oppress the minority. I said we aren't doing that here, so to speak, by outlawing homosexual sex. And asked you to explain your accusation that we are. Which, by the way, you haven't done here.

Do you really think that, say, an atheist gay couple would appreciate your proposed laws if they were based on your particular God existing and indeed your own particular rigid interpretation of an ancient book? You don't think they'd feel just a little bit oppressed? Or any less oppressed if it were simply the homophobic and bigoted intolerance of a majority?
Why I'd even feel oppressed on their behalf, even by the thought of such a thing.

You'd not have your way in my society without a physical fight I can assure you because I for one am never going to accept gays being locked up or executed in my name just having gay sex in private, or indeed that they be forced not to just to suit the likes of you.

And this makes two little, mini-rants about how you'd react violently if such a law were passed. I would suggest calming down a bit and maybe trying to approach this discussion rationally, since we're not on the floor of the senate voting on the thing just now. It's an internet debate forum.

Not that this sort of thing wouldn't be any less hysterical on the floor of the senate, mind you.

Yes perhaps I do find that the arrogance of some fundie Christians who think they are entitled or is it empowered by God to go meddle in other people's lives rather does get my hackles up I will admit. But I am not ranting and I remain perfectly calm when I say albeit with some feeling that I would simply not put up with any such proposed theocratic or personal bigotry nonsense in any shape or form in my society.

If the civil secular laws offend me enough then it really doesn't actually matter if it's called democracy or not on your particular ship of fools.

I asked you to explain how you determine which instances where a law is passed against the will of the minority constitute oppression. This is your answer?

Why does it matter you're simply making an irrelevant appeal to popularity? The popularity of a law doesn't make it right nor that I can't strongly object to it.

I'm really not "in" anything Mary except in your own mind perhaps.

No, I think a second clear example of your inability/refusal to acknowledge the difference between outlawing an act and outlawing thought-crime, your refusal to support your claim of oppression and two threats of general violence over a hypothetical indicates you're definitely"in" something. You're either hysterical or don't have an argument that's rational. Or, actually, both.

Rather it's your thoughts that want to make it a crime perhaps. How is it not oppression to force gays into compliance to your mindset under the duress of capital punishment? Do you really think that a democratic vote has any bearing here?
Why don't you be more honest and convince gays and me to your religious or societal beliefs, then we can all talk about what gays are not allowed to do in private, or think.

You are perfectly within your rights as a human being to not like homosexuals or what they do in private, but you have no right to stop them doing it in private, even if the thought of what they do deeply offends you or only because you happen to think from religious dogma that it offends your God.

I like homosexuals just fine, not that I need your permission to like or dislike anything in particular. And, yes, I do have the right, as a voter anyway, to outlaw acts I believe are destructive to society, just as you do, thank you very much. Because that right isn't conditional upon how much it offends alwight.

So, perhaps after all then it comes down to your own personal preferences, not your God's or from rigid adherence to the Bible? You personally don't like what they do in private so it's you who wants them to be locked up and executed, I'm glad we got that sorted out.
Perhaps you will explain how gays say having consensual monogamous sex in private is so much worse than any other forms of intercourse, why should adulterers not be executed?

 

[MaryContrary]

Me hysterical, pull the other one Mary? That's rather more your department I think.
Presumably though you would rather like to wind me up, sorry but that just won't work. What I said was simply a cold statement of fact and your stupid proposed anti-gay laws and mentality would have to come pass me in my society, what you can get away with in yours is rather another matter.

:blabla:

Anyway, you were making the presumption about "Not engaging in behavior that is illegal?", should I presume that it was indeed already illegal and argue on that basis, I really don't think so, that was what I responded to, sorry that you didn't seem to get my point.

...

Dude, you already were presuming it was in place and responding to that hypothetical. You know, when you said it would oppressive to force people to comply with the law. That's what we were discussing.

You're just being somewhat dense or evasive here imo, you were likening the outlawing of private gay sex to other crimes and I was asking you what other laws are in place to prevent such private harmless personal activities. I'll assume then that you can't think of any and that such a law would be the only one that criminalised private personal and consensual activities that harmed no one else. Indeed why exactly should the (secular) state interfere in anyone's private lives, it should and probably does keep its nose well out of it, no thanks to you though.

:blabla:
And I was pointing out that you mistakenly identified the law we're talking about as outlawing homosexuals rather than homosexual sex. I don't know what the rest of that is supposed to be about.

No I at least am not confused, you may be though, since clearly homosexual sex was the thrust of my argument and clearly imo I was referencing it to heterosexual sex above (albeit misspelt).

Great. :thumb:

Homosexuals should be allowed exactly the same rights to live and have a private life as anyone else in my worldview,

Agreed.

...while you it seems will let them live so long as they don't have one,

No, don't be silly.

...yet you expect them to remain happy with that arrangement while in your public company or mine too for that matter, do get real.

Whether they're happy or not is up to them. :idunno:

I simply think it's grossly wrong and bigoted to outlaw anyone's private life, let alone to execute someone for it,

I don't want to outlaw anyone's private life. What are you going on about? :AMR:

...but sadly you think you can perhaps because you think your god wants you to, assuming you are genuinely not bigoted yourself, which might be the extent of the power of any supposed god perhaps.

So, why the need to cast around and find some kind of bizarro motivation for my supporting this law? Something you can dismiss out of hand?

Do you really think that, say, an atheist gay couple would appreciate your proposed laws if they were based on your particular God existing and indeed your own particular rigid interpretation of an ancient book? You don't think they'd feel just a little bit oppressed? Or any less oppressed if it were simply the homophobic and bigoted intolerance of a majority?
Why I'd even feel oppressed on their behalf, even by the thought of such a thing.

Who cares what the law is based on? Would it be different if it were based on some ancient philosopher's teachings? Or if some Harvard professor had come up with it last week? If they're offended that's not my problem. I'm concerned only with whether the law is a good one.

Yes perhaps I do find that the arrogance of some fundie Christians who think they are entitled or is it empowered by God to go meddle in other people's lives rather does get my hackles up I will admit.

Okay. I get that. But we should decide whether we're going to discuss these things or just rant at each other.

But I am not ranting and I remain perfectly calm when I say albeit with some feeling that I would simply not put up with any such proposed theocratic or personal bigotry nonsense in any shape or form in my society.

Great. Except that you assume the law is theocratic or bigoted. Is it? Isn't that what we're discussing?

Why does it matter you're simply making an irrelevant appeal to popularity? The popularity of a law doesn't make it right nor that I can't strongly object to it.

I agree. Just as whether or not the law offends you doesn't make it a bad law.

But thank you for finally getting to that point. Now, explain why this law would be oppressive where other similar laws are not.

Rather it's your thoughts that want to make it a crime perhaps.

:liberals:
You do know what "thought crime" is supposed to reference, don't you? If not, it references George Orwell's book, "1984". You should read it, if you haven't. "Thought crime" references the criminality of certain thoughts. Folks in the society that book described were often arrested for literal crimes of thought.

Here in the US of A we don't outlaw thoughts...or we didn't before things like 'hate crime', anyway.

How is it not oppression to force gays into compliance to your mindset under the duress of capital punishment?

Is it oppression to outlaw prostitution?

Do you really think that a democratic vote has any bearing here?

You apparently do. You continue to reference your own offense at the law and appeal to the minority in opposition. If those things matter in determining whether a law is good then the majority opinion that passed the law would justify it. Which was my very obvious point.

Why don't you be more honest and convince gays and me to your religious or societal beliefs,

It'd be nice if we could get to that point. We're still stuck on your even acknowledging what the law is, not to mention 'oppression' and whatnot.

...then we can all talk about what gays are not allowed to do in private,

Okay...

or think.

:doh:

Maybe you should ask yourself why you're holding on so stubbornly to the idea that we want to outlaw what people think or desire or contemplate. Or, worse, people. We can't discuss why the law is good or bad until we agree on what the law is.

So, perhaps after all then it comes down to your own personal preferences, not your God's or from rigid adherence to the Bible? You personally don't like what they do in private so it's you who wants them to be locked up and executed, I'm glad we got that sorted out.

Or maybe you can stop trying to find any other reason why I might support this law other than it's a good law so you don't have to discuss whether it's a good law.

If I support it because 'dah lawd say so', or because I hate gays or for some other personal preference or whatever, then it's easy to dismiss. If you want this issue to be easy to disregard, why are you bothering with this thread at all? Just go ahead and dismiss it.

Perhaps you will explain how gays say having consensual monogamous sex in private is so much worse than any other forms of intercourse,

It's not worse than any other. It is worse than most, though, and it does fall into the 'death penalty worthy' category with some others.

...why should adulterers not be executed?

They should.

 

[alwight]

Dude, you already were presuming it was in place and responding to that hypothetical. You know, when you said it would oppressive to force people to comply with the law. That's what we were discussing.

No I was saying that such a law would be grossly oppressive and shouldn’t even be proposed, as I’m quite sure you well knew. lain:

You're just being somewhat dense or evasive here imo, you were likening the outlawing of private gay sex to other crimes and I was asking you what other laws are in place to prevent such private harmless personal activities. I'll assume then that you can't think of any and that such a law would be the only one that criminalised private personal and consensual activities that harmed no one else. Indeed why exactly should the (secular) state interfere in anyone's private lives, it should and probably does keep its nose well out of it, no thanks to you though.

And I was pointing out that you mistakenly identified the law we're talking about as outlawing homosexuals rather than homosexual sex. I don't know what the rest of that is supposed to be about.

Here again I am arguing against even the idea of such laws but without much success it seems. I have never suggested anywhere that you were trying to outlaw homosexuals as such only that gay sex in private you would have banned and those that did it executed, but I rather think you know exactly what I have been saying all along.
:AMR:

Homosexuals should be allowed exactly the same rights to live and have a private life as anyone else in my worldview,

Agreed.

:AMR:
I’m not falling for that one Mary. Presumably though you would still not allow gay sex because you would not allow gay marriage and you would only allow married couples to have intercourse. You are a control freak Mary as well as a bigot. Your police force just gets bigger and bigger it seems I hope you have plenty of money to pay your taxes.

...yet you expect them to remain happy with that arrangement while in your public company or mine too for that matter, do get real.

Whether they're happy or not is up to them. :idunno:

Really, so who exactly is it up to then, you? :sherlock:

I simply think it's grossly wrong and bigoted to outlaw anyone's private life, let alone to execute someone for it,

I don't want to outlaw anyone's private life. What are you going on about? :AMR:

By “private life” I of course meant in their case, gay sex, as I’m rather sure you knew and still don’t want to allow. :AMR:
If however I am wrong and you now would not insist on banning gay sex in private nor of executing anyone for it then we have nothing more to say.

...but sadly you think you can perhaps because you think your god wants you to, assuming you are genuinely not bigoted yourself, which might be the extent of the power of any supposed god perhaps.

So, why the need to cast around and find some kind of bizarro motivation for my supporting this law? Something you can dismiss out of hand?

What law? The law that you would like to exist but as yet doesn’t thankfully?
As I recall this isn’t about a god but simply what you want, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

Do you really think that, say, an atheist gay couple would appreciate your proposed laws if they were based on your particular God existing and indeed your own particular rigid interpretation of an ancient book? You don't think they'd feel just a little bit oppressed? Or any less oppressed if it were simply the homophobic and bigoted intolerance of a majority?
Why I'd even feel oppressed on their behalf, even by the thought of such a thing.

Who cares what the law is based on? Would it be different if it were based on some ancient philosopher's teachings? Or if some Harvard professor had come up with it last week? If they're offended that's not my problem. I'm concerned only with whether the law is a good one.

However what is actually being deemed as “good” law here imo, is rather by the standards of your friendly everyday neighbourhood homophobic bigots.

Yes perhaps I do find that the arrogance of some fundie Christians who think they are entitled or is it empowered by God to go meddle in other people's lives rather does get my hackles up I will admit.

Okay. I get that. But we should decide whether we're going to discuss these things or just rant at each other.

Then I’m sure you’ll let me know if ever I do start ranting.:e4e:

But I am not ranting and I remain perfectly calm when I say albeit with some feeling that I would simply not put up with any such proposed theocratic or personal bigotry nonsense in any shape or form in my society.

Great. Except that you assume the law is theocratic or bigoted. Is it? Isn't that what we're discussing?

Yes it is x 2.
OK then exactly why in your view should any monogamous law abiding (current laws!) gay couple be executed for having homosexual sex in private?

Why does it matter you're simply making an irrelevant appeal to popularity? The popularity of a law doesn't make it right nor that I can't strongly object to it.

I agree. Just as whether or not the law offends you doesn't make it a bad law.

But thank you for finally getting to that point. Now, explain why this law would be oppressive where other similar laws are not.

But obviously bigoted proposed laws such as you propose won’t generally get made into law in free democratic societies, certainly not mine. If that ever changed for some reason that I couldn’t begin to imagine... but I’ve already “ranted” my answer about this which still stands btw.

Rather it's your thoughts that want to make it a crime perhaps.

:liberals:
You do know what "thought crime" is supposed to reference, don't you? If not, it references George Orwell's book, "1984". You should read it, if you haven't. "Thought crime" references the criminality of certain thoughts. Folks in the society that book described were often arrested for literal crimes of thought.

Here in the US of A we don't outlaw thoughts...or we didn't before things like 'hate crime', anyway.

Yes I read it years ago, in 1984 as I recall.
I wasn’t actually suggesting that your thoughts should have you executed, but then again perhaps someone might want to propose such a law, which if passed by the largest minority would mean that you would never be allowed to think again, I’m sure that wouldn’t be too difficult for you.

How is it not oppression to force gays into compliance to your mindset under the duress of capital punishment?

Is it oppression to outlaw prostitution?

No.
Red herring I’m arguing about private monogamous gay sex at the moment.
However prostitution does have clear negative effects on whole neighbourhoods and is often kerb crawled, solicited or advertised publically or controlled by organised crime. Civil laws are there to combat that, not to make moral judgments of participants. I see no reason to ban prostitution beyond that.

Do you really think that a democratic vote has any bearing here?

You apparently do. You continue to reference your own offense at the law and appeal to the minority in opposition. If those things matter in determining whether a law is good then the majority opinion that passed the law would justify it. Which was my very obvious point.

What is obvious is that no such proposed law is ever likely to be passed or enforced while reasonable people are the majority.

Why don't you be more honest and convince gays and me to your religious or societal beliefs,

It'd be nice if we could get to that point. We're still stuck on your even acknowledging what the law is, not to mention 'oppression' and whatnot.

Perhaps you just don’t have sufficiently good arguments to support your notions, did you ever stop to consider that you might actually just be plain wrong and a bigot?

Maybe you should ask yourself why you're holding on so stubbornly to the idea that we want to outlaw what people think or desire or contemplate. Or, worse, people. We can't discuss why the law is good or bad until we agree on what the law is.

I understand that you want laws that monogamous gay couples having sex in private to be executed by the state, am I wrong?

So, perhaps after all then it comes down to your own personal preferences, not your God's or from rigid adherence to the Bible? You personally don't like what they do in private so it's you who wants them to be locked up and executed, I'm glad we got that sorted out.

Or maybe you can stop trying to find any other reason why I might support this law other than it's a good law so you don't have to discuss whether it's a good law.

Why exactly would it be “good”, for whom would it be good? It wouldn’t do me any good nor gay couples. If I thought the state was killing gays for being gay, in my name, I might even feel forced to go hunting down the homophobic bigots that made it law or perhaps those who enforced it, who knows?

If I support it because 'dah lawd say so', or because I hate gays or for some other personal preference or whatever, then it's easy to dismiss. If you want this issue to be easy to disregard, why are you bothering with this thread at all? Just go ahead and dismiss it.

Are you ashamed to admit perhaps that you simply adhere to the words in the Bible and that your own thinking in really quite unimportant and subjugated to a poor second? Perhaps you don’t like being a mindless automaton; I should give you some kudos for that maybe? :think:
After all this time I can still get no rationale from you as to exactly why you personally want monogamous gay sex in private given the death penalty. :bang:

Perhaps you will explain how gays say having consensual monogamous sex in private is so much worse than any other forms of intercourse,

It's not worse than any other. It is worse than most, though, and it does fall into the 'death penalty worthy' category with some others.

Why exactly is it “worse”. What makes you want to have gays executed for what they do in private, what business is it of yours what they do, never mind wanting them put to death for it? :IA:

...why should adulterers not be executed?

They should.

I see, or rather, I don’t. :AMR:

 

[Lighthouse]

If you outlaw homosexuality, then only homosexuals will have guns... or something....

.., then only homosexuals will be gay.

 

[MaryContrary]

Never mind, alwight. You're all over the place and the posts are getting too long to pick through for the one or two bits that might be worth responding to. I barely got past the first confused point on whether or not we're discussing a hypothetical. Or whether we should. Or whatever the heck you're on about.

Kthxbye. :wave2:

 

[alwight]

Never mind, alwight. You're all over the place and the posts are getting too long to pick through for the one or two bits that might be worth responding to. I barely got past the first confused point on whether or not we're discussing a hypothetical. Or whether we should. Or whatever the heck you're on about.

Kthxbye. :wave2:

Oh dear, how sad Mary, perhaps its my English accent?
You wouldn't simply be looking for an arbitrary excuse to avoid answering imo my fairly straightforward questions would you?
No, surely not. :nono:

I was looking forward hopefully to finding out the answers to a couple of related questions that I've now asked in various different forms unsuccessfully, which perhaps sadly you haven't been able to quite understand it seems. :think:

Maybe I'm wrong but from our talk I will now assume that there is actually no dogmatic religious adherence to religious scripture by you, nor to the presumed word of your God or just blind faith as being deciding factors for you here. IOW I now assume that for you personally, monogamous gay sex and adultary are simply not to be tolerated under any circumstances.

However I still don't understand:

why exactly it is that you personally see a need for people, whom you don't even know, to be executed simply for what they do in private?

what business is it of yours in whatever gays may choose to do in private?

what business is it of yours in whatever heterosexuals may choose to do in private?​

I rather think that you don't even understand your own thinking never mind mine.
:wave2:

 

[WizardofOz]

Typical cop-out. It's kind of her thing alwight.
Especially poor form as she butted in to your conversation with Lighthouse to begin with with post 101.

Ah well.:sigh:

 

[alwight]

Typical cop-out. It's kind of her thing alwight.
Especially poor form as she butted in to your conversation with Lighthouse to begin with with post 101.

Ah well.:sigh:

At least Lighthouse is able to admit he's simply following what he thinks is God's will rather than just his own, oh well.

 

[some other dude]

As usual you seem to be more interested in style points than the heart of the matter. I have never cared how scholarly a person presents their case. To me... the truth is more important. :idunno:

Well... you have to admit, the entire escapade has provided some much needed "buzz" around here. :chuckle:

:banana:

 

[Sherman]

Great POTD and worthy of recognition.

 

[ok doser]

And stop being hysterical. It's girly.

:darwinsm:

still hilarious! :thumb:



whatever happened to mary?

 

[patrick jane]

:darwinsm:

still hilarious! :thumb:


Let's get back on topic


whatever happened to mary?

 

[patrick jane]

I like Town Heretic and I know he is a smart guy, but.... it's tragic that he doesn't understand how wrong he is on this topic. Thanks to SOD for calmly and intelligently demonstrating the point. :up:

:first:

Originally Posted by some other dude
some other dude suggests that Christians ought not tolerate homosexuality in their society/culture.


Town, displaying his allegiance to man's lawover God's, posts:

Originally Posted by Town
The Constitution...
...we have a Republic...
Every man has the right to his own conscience...
You can't respect that because you want to control the next fellow ...





some other dude reminds Town of whom he is referring:

Originally Posted by some other dude
The "next fellow" in this case being one of those perverted abominations that Town welcomes into his society.





Town responds with a personal episode of having his hair fondled by one of his beloved homos:

Had my hair cut today by one of the nicest guys I know. He's gay. He's also thoughtful and generous. If you didn't know he was gay you'd like him. His moral mistakes, your mistakes, my mistakes, are between us and God. The damage we do ourselves is His to judge. I'll leave it to him.




some other dude reminds Town of his Christian duty to warn the hell-bound:
Did you tell this "nice, thoughtful, generous, likeable" pervert that he was going to burn in Hell for eternity?

Or didn't you think that would be "nice"? or "thoughtful"? or "generous"?




and Town demonstrates his ignorance of the Word of God:

I don't know that and neither do you.

 

[patrick jane]

Originally Posted by some other dude
some other dude suggests that Christians ought not tolerate homosexuality in their society/culture.


Town, displaying his allegiance to man's lawover God's, posts:

Originally Posted by Town
The Constitution...
...we have a Republic...
Every man has the right to his own conscience...
You can't respect that because you want to control the next fellow ...





some other dude reminds Town of whom he is referring:

Originally Posted by some other dude
The "next fellow" in this case being one of those perverted abominations that Town welcomes into his society.





Town responds with a personal episode of having his hair fondled by one of his beloved homos:

Had my hair cut today by one of the nicest guys I know. He's gay. He's also thoughtful and generous. If you didn't know he was gay you'd like him. His moral mistakes, your mistakes, my mistakes, are between us and God. The damage we do ourselves is His to judge. I'll leave it to him.




some other dude reminds Town of his Christian duty to warn the hell-bound:
Did you tell this "nice, thoughtful, generous, likeable" pervert that he was going to burn in Hell for eternity?

Or didn't you think that would be "nice"? or "thoughtful"? or "generous"?




and Town demonstrates his ignorance of the Word of God:

I don't know that and neither do you.

I wonder if Town has changed his view since then -