Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430642 is a reply to message #430631] |
Sun, 13 June 2010 04:47   |
|
|
| snpr1101 wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 12:07 |
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 06:55 |
Why do Fathers have to be a part of a child's life?
|
I can see this getting deeper and deeper into a debate about whether it is 100% necessary for a father to be a part of a child's life; whether it is not "Right" for one not to be.
So; as you you would say, WikiPedia to the rescue!
First paragraph sir.
|
All of those studies completely miss the point, good parents are good parents, regardless of gender.
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430644 is a reply to message #422616] |
Sun, 13 June 2010 05:19 |
|
|
I did respond - those studies don't address the question, they so much as:
| Quote: |
completely miss the point
|
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
[Updated on: Sun, 13 June 2010 05:20] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430664 is a reply to message #422616] |
Sun, 13 June 2010 12:47 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
That 'father' article reads as if it were written by someone involved with 'Focus on the Family,' or a similar organization.
None of it is factual...
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430665 is a reply to message #430644] |
Sun, 13 June 2010 12:49 |
 |
snpr1101
Messages: 425
Registered: June 2007
Location: Australia
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 07:19 |
I did respond - those studies don't address the question, they so much as:
| Quote: |
completely miss the point
|
|
| snpr1101 wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 05:24 |
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 05:05 |
| Quote: |
... aspects of character
|
Such as?
|
With both genders come predefined behaviors and characteristics that are imparted to their children as they mature and grow. The exact stereotypical behaviors and characteristics that I refer to are arguable; yet I'm sure the majority of us can reach mutual agreement on some of them.
For example; common male attributes include pride, strength, confidence, assertiveness etc. Children imitate behavior, especially from their parents. If a male child were to grow up without any male influence; his personal development would be different to a child who did.
To be influenced by both sexes is to promote balance. Without openly stating that this is the "right" way for a child to grow; or saying that same sex parents is detrimental to a child's development; I would of preferred to have a balance if I could change the past when I was a child.
|
Maybe I'm not making myself clear; or perhaps I'm confused. So again I'll restate - Both sexes have something to contribute to their child as they grow. If you take away one; the child's development will be different.(Different is vague, I know; but to avoid getting into further debate about whether having same sex parents can be detrimental to development; or a cause for a lack in some aspects of a child's character.) - In which case I have touched on previously; hence to link to the Wikipedia page that lists the values that a Father can impart to their child; for example. And yes, I realize a lot of women possess more of those values then men; but like I said, insert whatever value that only the father or mother [male/female] can impart to their child that you agree with here
Admittedly; I have not read the whole thread. Maybe I am missing the point; which is what? After you asked | CarrierII wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 05:55 |
Why do Fathers have to be a part of a child's life?
|
I presume that everything I've said in relation to why a father should be a part of a child's life has actually been quite to the point.
Please, enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430671 is a reply to message #422616] |
Sun, 13 June 2010 14:17 |
|
|
1) To be honest, so long as the parents have good qualites to impart, does it matter which qualities?
2) A person's personality is not dictated by the gender of their parents, and nothing else. A lot of my personality comes from school, for example.
I see nothing wrong with same-sex parents provided they are healthy individuals, in terms of personality. The issue comes when a parent is a bad rolemodel.
3) I also fail to see why the opinions of one faith should dictate the law, fortunately in the UK, it doesn't.
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
[Updated on: Sun, 13 June 2010 14:25] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430679 is a reply to message #422616] |
Sun, 13 June 2010 19:40 |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
Seriously? It's happened countless times, a small error ending with the failure of a mission (on any front, not just space exploration).
|
The rocket analogy is just fine but comparing it to denominational differences isn't since denominations are just differences in opinions.
|
"Differences in opinions" can have the same result if only one of the two can possibly be correct.
Take baptism. If it truly isn't necessary, both sides are likely to be in the clear, provided God doesn't have a problem with baptism. But if it is required, then those who do not do so are not obeying, which is sin.
Saying that every denomination's opinion doesn't matter is a generalization, and generalizations are almost always incorrect.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
The entire concept of baptism (like every other christian concept) comes down to wrangling and nitpicking bible verses to form such varied opinions. There is absolutely no reason to think that baptism is necessary to be saved.
|
Despite the fact that many verses say it is?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
Now you're making assumptions on my first impression of atheism? Nice try, but wrong.
|
I didn't have to assume anything considering you illustrated well with that example:
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
Fine. I'll go on a mudering spree and kill everyone even remotely religious, saying that they're poisioning our civilization and ruining our gene pool, and that I'm purifying the human race.
Oh, and I'll mention how I'm an atheist.
And you can't say that he's not a true atheist to cover yourselves, because that's just "pulling a fast one".
|
|
That doesn't represent my opinion of atheists.
Go ahead and keep ignoring the points I try to make, and turn around my statements to mean something else. The only people who can't see past it don't concern me anyhow.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
You miss the point. That's the only suggestion I could come up with to avoid killing the children. What suggestions have you brought up to avoid having them killed? That's the point of this.
|
Mine would be trying to diplomatically change their religious practices, or perhaps doing an act similar to the plagues on Egypt.
It's logical to see that they very likely would not have worked, since those acts' influences would have hit them by the first times they were done anywhere, or not at all.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
imo, "public lack of acceptance" is irrelavent. Tyranny of the majority shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying their lives. It was the same with race, it was the same with gender, it was the same with interraccial marriages, and I feel is is the same with homosexuals.
|
What do you mean by "tyranny of the majority"?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
I wonder what makes you think atheists are going to cram such topics to a "child" in the first place?
|
Resentment?
I'm sure plenty of atheists feel hostile to the religious, and try to ensure that their children are never fooled by such things.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
There's no need for you to play victim here.
|
That's awfully bigoted
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
And I don't know how you came to the conclusion that we are "vindicating abuse" when what we are saying is hell and verbal threats are absolutely not equal.
|
It was your response, or perhaps excuse.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
It's crazy what religious indoctrination can do to a person...it makes them absolutely sure that they are right. I have the luxury of knowing what it feels like i.e, having "faith."
|
The irony seeps off of this... seeing as how you speak in the air of one who knows he is right.
I'm not sure how "being absolutely sure they are right" is better the second time around rather than the first.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
And you cannot have "faith" if you take away childhood brainwashing.
|
Then how do people who've never been religious all their life hear the message and study it, and decide to become Christians? That's not childhood brainwashing.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
Simply stating it is interference doesn't make it so. How is it interfering? Any specifics?
|
Interference = hindrance, intrusion
Debating over the topic is surely a hindrance at the least.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
How did someone challenging your beliefs obstruct and hinder you from practising your faith?
|
I'd think this was obvious.
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 11:57 |
it's theism that's being rejected, not merely deism. religious people don't just say that they think there's likely to be a 'god'... they claim to know quite a lot of details.
|
I understood that when you said it earlier. My apologies if I spoke contrary to it.
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 11:57 |
if your god is going to torture people for ever and ever if they don't get this question right, isn't he a COLOSSAL prick for not making it very clear to begin with? isn't it a huge indictment of His incompetence as well as His cruelty?
|
As far as baptism goes, it's quite clear, although many try to pull verses out of context to dispute it.
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 11:57 |
You're just seeing homosexuality as a form of sex. It's not just a form of sex, it's a form of love too (maybe the bigger part of the two is the love part, not that I am in a position to know).
|
It's safe to say that the vast majority of homosexual couples practice homosexual intercourse.
And as for the unhealthy part, here's an example:
| Quote: |
For example, one 1982 study mentioned in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal.1 And a 1997 New England Journal of Medicine study again drew attention to the "strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact."2 (The reason for the connection is that the lining of the anus, as opposed to the much thicker lining of the vagina, is only a single cell in thickness, tears easily, and thus is an easy point of entry for viruses and bacteria. Just as repeatedly assaulting lung tissue with cigarette smoke increases one's lung cancer risk, repeatedly damaging the anus and rectum increases one's anal cancer risk. Anal sex frequently results in damage to the anus and rectum. Too, this helps explain why AIDS is spread so easily in the homosexual community. However, even when there are not any tears in the anal lining, there is still a high risk for HIV infection because certain cells in its mucous lining [M-cells and Langerhans cells] can be infected and will then carry HIV deeper into one's body.)
|
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 11:57 |
| Quote: |
I don't know what you mean by a comparison to their love life - it's just another debate over a different topic, that one being homosexuality. Challenging their ideas on it and calling that "interfering with their love life" is the same as challenging a religious person's ideas and calling that "interfering with their religious life".
|
if only religious people were content JUST to verbally challenge homosexuality. what a better world that would be. well, i'm all for free speech.
|
The only two acts I support are verbal challenge and voting on the issue politically.
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 16:17 |
1) To be honest, so long as the parents have good qualites to impart, does it matter which qualities?
|
It might if there really are certain qualities that only one gender can impart. Determining whether or not there are such qualities is a whole different problem, though.
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 16:17 |
2) A person's personality is not dictated by the gender of their parents, and nothing else. A lot of my personality comes from school, for example.
|
True.
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 16:17 |
3) I also fail to see why the opinions of one faith should dictate the law, fortunately in the UK, it doesn't.
|
Opinions of one faith shouldn't dictate the law.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430700 is a reply to message #430698] |
Mon, 14 June 2010 07:56 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
imo, I don't see how how one parent being a male has to do anything with imparting atrributes to a child. My uncle bought a bicyle to my cousin at an early age and he learned how to ride it. Now he has his own motorbike. On the other hand, my dad didn't buy me a bicyle and I grew up without knowing how to ride a bicyle. It wasn't until last year I had to buy my own bicyle and learned to ride it.
Now what did the male gender of my dad and my uncle have to do with anything here while it was simply their mindset that made them to buy or not buy their kid a bicycle?
Anyway, I see this whole deal as another feeble attempt by the homophobes citing vague generalizations in an attempt to stop people from doing what they object to. This seems just as absurd as the "sanctity of marriage" drivel they came up with to stop same-sex marriages.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 21:40 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
It's crazy what religious indoctrination can do to a person...it makes them absolutely sure that they are right. I have the luxury of knowing what it feels like i.e, having "faith."
|
The irony seeps off of this... seeing as how you speak in the air of one who knows he is right.
I'm not sure how "being absolutely sure they are right" is better the second time around rather than the first.
|
Way to miss the point. I speak of one who now understands the basic irrefutable premise that I turned out to be christian only because I was born into a christian home and was raised up with the christian upbringing (read my first post in this thread about religious brainwashing). And I can see clearly now that if I were born into a hindu family, I would be spouting hindu myths just as I would be spouting islamic dogma if I were born into a muslim family.
So nice try with the claim that I am "absolutely sure the second time around" because that is not the case. I have a billion more questions now because I am now at the point where I was in my childhood before my christian parents and sunday school had the chance to plant any bullshit stories into my mind.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 21:40 |
What do you mean by "tyranny of the majority"?
|
Why is there even a debate on homosexual rights? Because the majority object to it.
The fact that I cannot be openly atheist just because my entire family is christian is another example. Just yesterday, the son-of-a-bitch that I have for a father told me over the phone while discussing something unrelated that "you are fucked because you choose to be an atheist and questioned christianity." He thinks I am some sort of criminal for being atheist.
It's the same for homosexuals in this country and elsewhere. The fact they cannot do whatever they want just because the majority of Altzans object to it on the basis of a deep whine.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 21:40 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
I wonder what makes you think atheists are going to cram such topics to a "child" in the first place?
|
Resentment?
I'm sure plenty of atheists feel hostile to the religious, and try to ensure that their children are never fooled by such things.
|
We don't resent the "religious" but certainly do so to religion. There's a huge difference.
besides you missed the point. Discussing the theories of human origins is an inappropriate topic to a young child. And look what is done in sunday schools...by the age of 10, the myths are firmly impressed upon them. My brother thinks there is big man sitting with a feather pen and a big book on a giant judge's chair. He is going to turn 11 next month.
so yes, I absolutely resent the fact that little children are taught biblical mythologies like as if they are facts. Religion has just labeled itself to be true without any evidence to back it up.
And finally, you whine about atheists trying to "ensure that their children are never fooled by such things" (give me a good reason as to why they should be fooled by religion) when you christians go to such great lengths to ensure that your child is not impressed by any religion other than your own.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 21:40 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
And you cannot have "faith" if you take away childhood brainwashing.
|
Then how do people who've never been religious all their life hear the message and study it, and decide to become Christians? That's not childhood brainwashing.
|
Are you serious?
How about telling your children about religion when they are mature enough to actually think on their own and come to a conclusion using their own judgment? Telling a 8 year old is just brainwashing since kids can be easily fooled.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 21:40 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
How did someone challenging your beliefs obstruct and hinder you from practising your faith?
|
I'd think this was obvious.
|
It isn't.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430701 is a reply to message #430679] |
Mon, 14 June 2010 08:47 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 21:40 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
I wonder what makes you think atheists are going to cram such topics to a "child" in the first place?
|
Resentment?
I'm sure plenty of atheists feel hostile to the religious, and try to ensure that their children are never fooled by such things.
|
plenty of atheists certainly feel hostile to religion, given the enormous amount of damage it's done and continues to do. i certainly think children ought to be protected from religion.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
And you cannot have "faith" if you take away childhood brainwashing.
|
Then how do people who've never been religious all their life hear the message and study it, and decide to become Christians? That's not childhood brainwashing.
|
exactly, and that's why it's fine when that happens. you want to proselytise to an adult like me, you're very welcome to try... just keep the fuck away from children.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
Simply stating it is interference doesn't make it so. How is it interfering? Any specifics?
|
Interference = hindrance, intrusion
Debating over the topic is surely a hindrance at the least.
|
there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. whenever you hear someone say that debating a particular question is a bad thing, you'll invariably have a religious justification.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
How did someone challenging your beliefs obstruct and hinder you from practising your faith?
|
I'd think this was obvious.
|
it sure is!
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 11:57 |
if your god is going to torture people for ever and ever if they don't get this question right, isn't he a COLOSSAL prick for not making it very clear to begin with? isn't it a huge indictment of His incompetence as well as His cruelty?
|
As far as baptism goes, it's quite clear, although many try to pull verses out of context to dispute it.
|
or say that they aren't convinced that the book was inspired by god, or say that they aren't convinced that there's a god at all, or say they think there are different gods than Yahweh, or don't see the point in a baptism even if god does want it... i expect the people in the world who don't go in for baptism (clearly a majority, despite christianity's incessant brainwashing of the young) would probably give all sorts of different answers.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 11:57 |
You're just seeing homosexuality as a form of sex. It's not just a form of sex, it's a form of love too (maybe the bigger part of the two is the love part, not that I am in a position to know).
|
It's safe to say that the vast majority of homosexual couples practice homosexual intercourse.
|
sure, but i think the point needs making. people need to understand we're talking about love here.
| Quote: |
And as for the unhealthy part, here's an example:
| Quote: |
For example, one 1982 study mentioned in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal.1 And a 1997 New England Journal of Medicine study again drew attention to the "strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact."2 (The reason for the connection is that the lining of the anus, as opposed to the much thicker lining of the vagina, is only a single cell in thickness, tears easily, and thus is an easy point of entry for viruses and bacteria. Just as repeatedly assaulting lung tissue with cigarette smoke increases one's lung cancer risk, repeatedly damaging the anus and rectum increases one's anal cancer risk. Anal sex frequently results in damage to the anus and rectum. Too, this helps explain why AIDS is spread so easily in the homosexual community. However, even when there are not any tears in the anal lining, there is still a high risk for HIV infection because certain cells in its mucous lining [M-cells and Langerhans cells] can be infected and will then carry HIV deeper into one's body.)
|
|
sure, anal sex can be damaging... how about oral sex or handjobs, for example? if it were established that these practices were not harmful, would you be fine with homosexuals enjoying their love lives that way?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 11:57 |
| Quote: |
I don't know what you mean by a comparison to their love life - it's just another debate over a different topic, that one being homosexuality. Challenging their ideas on it and calling that "interfering with their love life" is the same as challenging a religious person's ideas and calling that "interfering with their religious life".
|
if only religious people were content JUST to verbally challenge homosexuality. what a better world that would be. well, i'm all for free speech.
|
The only two acts I support are verbal challenge and voting on the issue politically.
|
you earlier said that a verbal challenge is "interfering". (i personally depart from you there)
| Quote: |
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 16:17 |
3) I also fail to see why the opinions of one faith should dictate the law, fortunately in the UK, it doesn't.
|
Opinions of one faith shouldn't dictate the law.
|
[/quote]
if, after you die, god asks you to explain yourself on this point, what will you say to Him?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430808 is a reply to message #422616] |
Wed, 16 June 2010 20:40 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 09:56 |
Why is there even a debate on homosexual rights? Because the majority object to it.
|
Where does the 'tyranny' come in?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 09:56 |
The fact that I cannot be openly atheist just because my entire family is christian is another example. Just yesterday, the son-of-a-bitch that I have for a father told me over the phone while discussing something unrelated that "you are fucked because you choose to be an atheist and questioned christianity." He thinks I am some sort of criminal for being atheist.
|
I'm sorry to hear that.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 09:56 |
It's the same for homosexuals in this country and elsewhere. The fact they cannot do whatever they want just because the majority of Altzans object to it on the basis of a deep whine.
And finally, you whine about atheists trying to "ensure that their children are never fooled by such things" (give me a good reason as to why they should be fooled by religion) when you christians go to such great lengths to ensure that your child is not impressed by any religion other than your own.
|
1) What's with you thinking I'm 'whining'? I certainly don't think that of you, despite the fact that we're both debating the same thing in roughly the same manner.
2)Quick question - what is it that homosexuals want to do that is being held back by the 'tyranny of the majority'?
3)I certainly don't care whether or not atheists try to guard their children against religion. If they want to make sure their child stays free of mind through their childhood, it's fine by me.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 09:56 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 21:40 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
And you cannot have "faith" if you take away childhood brainwashing.
|
Then how do people who've never been religious all their life hear the message and study it, and decide to become Christians? That's not childhood brainwashing.
|
Are you serious?
How about telling your children about religion when they are mature enough to actually think on their own and come to a conclusion using their own judgment? Telling a 8 year old is just brainwashing since kids can be easily fooled.
|
Didn't answer the question.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 10:47 |
exactly, and that's why it's fine when that happens. you want to proselytise to an adult like me, you're very welcome to try... just keep the fuck away from children.
|
I don't plan on trying to teach it to children. Sure, parents will teach theirs, that's not likely to change, but when it comes to teaching it to others, it doesn't include children.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 10:47 |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
Simply stating it is interference doesn't make it so. How is it interfering? Any specifics?
|
Interference = hindrance, intrusion
Debating over the topic is surely a hindrance at the least.
|
there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. whenever you hear someone say that debating a particular question is a bad thing, you'll invariably have a religious justification.
|
I never said it was a bad thing, actually
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 10:47 |
sure, anal sex can be damaging... how about oral sex or handjobs, for example? if it were established that these practices were not harmful, would you be fine with homosexuals enjoying their love lives that way?
|
In a worldly sense, I suppose.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 10:47 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 June 2010 11:57 |
| Quote: |
I don't know what you mean by a comparison to their love life - it's just another debate over a different topic, that one being homosexuality. Challenging their ideas on it and calling that "interfering with their love life" is the same as challenging a religious person's ideas and calling that "interfering with their religious life".
|
if only religious people were content JUST to verbally challenge homosexuality. what a better world that would be. well, i'm all for free speech.
|
The only two acts I support are verbal challenge and voting on the issue politically.
|
you earlier said that a verbal challenge is "interfering". (i personally depart from you there)
|
So you wish the "homophobes" would only interfere in that manner?
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 10:47 |
| Quote: |
Opinions of one faith shouldn't dictate the law.
|
if, after you die, god asks you to explain yourself on this point, what will you say to Him?
|
While it depends on what or why he's asking for an explanation, I'd point out that changing governmental laws to favor religion against the wishes of the populace generally harbors disfavor to said religion, and that hardly helps to teach it to others.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430834 is a reply to message #430808] |
Thu, 17 June 2010 11:01 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 16 June 2010 22:40 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 09:56 |
The fact that I cannot be openly atheist just because my entire family is christian is another example. Just yesterday, the son-of-a-bitch that I have for a father told me over the phone while discussing something unrelated that "you are fucked because you choose to be an atheist and questioned christianity." He thinks I am some sort of criminal for being atheist.
|
I'm sorry to hear that.
|
on what theological basis do you disagree with starbuzz's father? the bible seems to say that starbuzz is a heinous criminal, as am i. god's a cruel, bloodthirsty tyrant at the best of times, but his merciless rage is at its worst when someone doesn't worship him correctly. and before you say that's just in the OT, christians have been telling us for two thousand years that we'll suffer even worse than what the victims of the old testament supposedly suffered, as punishment for the worst crime of all: doubt.
| Quote: |
2)Quick question - what is it that homosexuals want to do that is being held back by the 'tyranny of the majority'?
|
marriage, in a lot of places. also, stop me if i'm wrong, but there are sodomy laws in some states? so they can't legally have a sex life, even in private with a consenting adult.
| Quote: |
3)I certainly don't care whether or not atheists try to guard their children against religion. If they want to make sure their child stays free of mind through their childhood, it's fine by me.
|
do you think it's fine by your God?
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 09:56 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 13 June 2010 21:40 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
And you cannot have "faith" if you take away childhood brainwashing.
|
Then how do people who've never been religious all their life hear the message and study it, and decide to become Christians? That's not childhood brainwashing.
|
Are you serious?
How about telling your children about religion when they are mature enough to actually think on their own and come to a conclusion using their own judgment? Telling a 8 year old is just brainwashing since kids can be easily fooled.
|
Didn't answer the question.
|
i think i did, didn't i? if an adult wants to study a religion and then makes a free hindered choice to start practicing in it, you won't find many atheists objecting to that.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 10:47 |
exactly, and that's why it's fine when that happens. you want to proselytise to an adult like me, you're very welcome to try... just keep the fuck away from children.
|
I don't plan on trying to teach it to children. Sure, parents will teach theirs, that's not likely to change, but when it comes to teaching it to others, it doesn't include children.
|
cool.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 10:47 |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 10 June 2010 03:25 |
Simply stating it is interference doesn't make it so. How is it interfering? Any specifics?
|
Interference = hindrance, intrusion
Debating over the topic is surely a hindrance at the least.
|
there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. whenever you hear someone say that debating a particular question is a bad thing, you'll invariably have a religious justification.
|
I never said it was a bad thing, actually
|
you compared it to the "hindrance" christians inflict to homosexuals, such as supporting laws that deny them of their basic human rights. it's ridiculous to even mention the two situations in the same breath.
| Quote: |
So you wish the "homophobes" would only interfere in that manner?
|
yes, and i'd defend their right to do so. freedom of speech... that's a basic human right, as is the right to enjoy your love life with a consenting adult. as is the right to make your own free choice of religion without being threatened with punishments...
i say all of the above are basic human rights, but religions invariably disagree.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 14 June 2010 10:47 |
| Quote: |
Opinions of one faith shouldn't dictate the law.
|
if, after you die, god asks you to explain yourself on this point, what will you say to Him?
|
While it depends on what or why he's asking for an explanation,
|
for example, if he says "i thought i made it clear that everyone's got to worship me and follow my rules or there will be trouble"
| Quote: |
I'd point out that changing governmental laws to favor religion against the wishes of the populace generally harbors disfavor to said religion, and that hardly helps to teach it to others.
|
quite a cunning answer, but it's still a point against your religion... it shouldn't have the power it says it should have, because then everyone will realise how evil it is?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #431043 is a reply to message #430834] |
Sat, 19 June 2010 21:19 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 17 June 2010 13:01 |
on what theological basis do you disagree with starbuzz's father?
|
As I've said, I disagree on his methods... constantly nagging on him and treating him badly because of his decision is just stupid.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 17 June 2010 13:01 |
| Quote: |
2)Quick question - what is it that homosexuals want to do that is being held back by the 'tyranny of the majority'?
|
marriage, in a lot of places. also, stop me if i'm wrong, but there are sodomy laws in some states? so they can't legally have a sex life, even in private with a consenting adult.
|
So the problem is that homosexuals cannot be officially and legally married because the majority are against it. Hmm.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 17 June 2010 13:01 |
| Quote: |
3)I certainly don't care whether or not atheists try to guard their children against religion. If they want to make sure their child stays free of mind through their childhood, it's fine by me.
|
do you think it's fine by your God?
|
"Fine by him"? I'm sure he doesn't want it to happen, no, but I don't know about any other detail partaining to that... unless I'm misunderstanding you.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 17 June 2010 13:01 |
you compared it to the "hindrance" christians inflict to homosexuals, such as supporting laws that deny them of their basic human rights. it's ridiculous to even mention the two situations in the same breath.
|
Not my point. I'm just validating my use of the word "interference".
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 17 June 2010 13:01 |
for example, if he says "i thought i made it clear that everyone's got to worship me and follow my rules or there will be trouble"
|
That says nothing about actions, only words.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 17 June 2010 13:01 |
quite a cunning answer, but it's still a point against your religion... it shouldn't have the power it says it should have, because then everyone will realise how evil it is?
|
That's opinionated, but anyway, where does it say it should have power?
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #434077 is a reply to message #433881] |
Sun, 01 August 2010 19:45 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Rocko wrote on Sat, 31 July 2010 03:00 |
i have never seen anyone as naive or dumb as altzan
|
Honestly, I'd be ashamed if you approved of my answers.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #434101 is a reply to message #434077] |
Mon, 02 August 2010 00:22 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
i had a thought a while ago, altzan. you said god isn't interfering in the world anymore, not since the time of jesus. does that mean that when somebody prays for some help in the here and now, as so many people in the world do (for example, if they have a relative in the army and they pray for his safety), they're completely wasting their time?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #475560 is a reply to message #422683] |
Tue, 02 October 2012 22:04 |
 |
Starbuzz
Messages: 2487
Registered: May 2007
Karma: 2
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 06:58 |
| Quote: |
That doesn't chenge the fact that once it and the people within it are gone, they're gone for good... if there's no afterlife.
|
Yes, but the party will go on. The human race goes on, the planet's still here, our friends and relatives are still here...
|
After many years of neglect, I finally bought Brave New World by Aldous Huxley; started reading it last night. I have no idea why I waited so long to buy the book when I had known since at least 2009 that it is a must-have for me.
So anyway, here I am on page thirty four and I read a passage that totally catches me by surprise...the sort of thing that forces a long-buried memory to gush out; it made me remember the statement quoted above that you wrote back in 2010!
| Quote: |
"You all remember," said the Controller, in his strong deep voice, "you all remember, I suppose, that beautiful and inspired saying of Our Ford's: History is bunk. History," he repeated slowly, "is bunk."
He waved his hand; and it was as though, with an invisible feather wisk, he had brushed away a little dust, and the dust was Harappa, was Ur of the Chaldees; some spider-webs, and they were Thebes and Babylon and Cnossos and Mycenae. Whisk. Whisk-and where was Odysseus, where was Job, where were Jupiter and Gotama and Jesus? Whisk-and those specks of antique dirt called Athens and Rome, Jerusalem and the Middle Kingdom-all were gone. Whisk the place where Italy had been was empty. Whisk, the cathedrals; whisk, whisk, King Lear and the Thoughts of Pascal. Whisk, Passion; whisk, Requiem; whisk, Symphony; whisk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #475566 is a reply to message #434101] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 03:24 |
Major-Payne
Messages: 561
Registered: March 2012
Location: Im actually MUDKIPS
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 02 August 2010 00:22 |
i had a thought a while ago, altzan. you said god isn't interfering in the world anymore, not since the time of jesus. does that mean that when somebody prays for some help in the here and now, as so many people in the world do (for example, if they have a relative in the army and they pray for his safety), they're completely wasting their time?
|
There is no god. Anyone who invests any time in any kind of god is wasting it, and they will never ever get it back.
It's all part of the big illusion that we perpetuate on ourselves and in turn is perpetuated upon us. When we believe, we engage the illusion. When we stop believing we shatter the illusion and shatter ourselves in the process. Because we are, part of it.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Jun 09 12:13:57 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01488 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
)
