Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
some progress... http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/15/gays.in.military/index.html?hpt=T2 Read the idiotic comments by some conservative politicians lol: Quote: This is "an imposition of somebody's social agenda," said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri. It's an "eclipse of reason, an eclipse of common sense." I wonder whose "social agenda" it was to make this into law in the first place? Quote: Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California. This is "a liberal crusade to create a utopia." And someone tell me how is it wrong to try to remake our shit society into something where everyone can be amicable towards each other? Liberal crusade to create a utopia...wow these folks are blinded by their sheer arrogance.
I was reading a couple days ago, that Russian intelligence still uses 'Honey Traps' as they remain the most effective method of seducing, and extracting information from hapless dudes. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be a huge national security advantage for the US. Once the military knows who bats for the same team, those people can be the ones entrusted with sensitive information, and would be impossible to seduce, thus ruining fifty years of cold war expertise on the part of the Russians. Best part of all! Russian dudes are fucking ugly. No way they'd be able seduce dudes on our home team.
Lol. As far as the thread goes though, I never understood why it is considered 'bad' to be a homosexual... in any context. Someone want to elaborate that for me?
the argument against christians serving in the military is a lot stronger than the argument against homosexuals serving in the military, and yet nobody says christians can't serve in the military.
nikki6ixx wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 13:29 I was reading a couple days ago, that Russian intelligence still uses 'Honey Traps' as they remain the most effective method of seducing, and extracting information from hapless dudes. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be a huge national security advantage for the US. Once the military knows who bats for the same team, those people can be the ones entrusted with sensitive information, and would be impossible to seduce, thus ruining fifty years of cold war expertise on the part of the Russians. Best part of all! Russian dudes are fucking ugly. No way they'd be able seduce dudes on our home team. I dunno, those Russians do have some fancy scarfs and turtlenecks that they could wave around.
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 15:23 Lol. As far as the thread goes though, I never understood why it is considered 'bad' to be a homosexual... in any context. Someone want to elaborate that for me? It is against God's will. Please think before you post, sinner.
bmr_71 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 21:54 R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 15:23 Lol. As far as the thread goes though, I never understood why it is considered 'bad' to be a homosexual... in any context. Someone want to elaborate that for me? It is against God's will. Please think before you post, sinner. Who is God? Was he important? How did he die? He must have been a pretty big deal type guy to be allowed that kind of decree in his will...
God is our creator. All those who stand against him shall perish.
nikki6ixx wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 11:29 Best part of all! Russian dudes are fucking ugly. No way they'd be able seduce dudes on our home team. But they have big guns and sandviches. Some dudes are into that.
bmr_71 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 22:46 God is our creator. All those who stand against him shall perish. Actually everyone will perish at some point.
Crimson wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 06:49 bmr_71 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 22:46 God is our creator. All those who stand against him shall perish. Actually everyone will perish at some point. Don't do it...
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 21:12 bmr_71 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 21:54 R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 15:23 Lol. As far as the thread goes though, I never understood why it is considered 'bad' to be a homosexual... in any context. Someone want to elaborate that for me? It is against God's will. Please think before you post, sinner. Who is God? Was he important? How did he die? He must have been a pretty big deal type guy to be allowed that kind of decree in his will... Who's your idol? The tiny japanese dude who created the stupid anime in your avatar? Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve... bitches.
Crimson wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 07:49 bmr_71 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 22:46 God is our creator. All those who stand against him shall perish. Actually everyone will perish at some point. Only the sinners and nonbelievers.
bmr_71 wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 10:53 Crimson wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 07:49 bmr_71 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 22:46 God is our creator. All those who stand against him shall perish. Actually everyone will perish at some point. Only the sinners and nonbelievers. Oh wow.
M0FiR3 wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 10:34 R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 21:12 bmr_71 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 21:54 R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 15:23 Lol. As far as the thread goes though, I never understood why it is considered 'bad' to be a homosexual... in any context. Someone want to elaborate that for me? It is against God's will. Please think before you post, sinner. Who is God? Was he important? How did he die? He must have been a pretty big deal type guy to be allowed that kind of decree in his will... Who's your idol? The tiny japanese dude who created the stupid anime in your avatar? Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve... bitches. I don't worship anyone if that's what you're implying.
I should indicate that despite the normal quality of posting from certain individuals who have posted in this topic, I do believe they are being intentionally humorous, and succeeding! (TL;DR: Nothing in here is flaming nor trolling, yet)
R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 13:30 M0FiR3 wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 10:34 R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 21:12 bmr_71 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 21:54 R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 15:23 Lol. As far as the thread goes though, I never understood why it is considered 'bad' to be a homosexual... in any context. Someone want to elaborate that for me? It is against God's will. Please think before you post, sinner. Who is God? Was he important? How did he die? He must have been a pretty big deal type guy to be allowed that kind of decree in his will... Who's your idol? The tiny japanese dude who created the stupid anime in your avatar? Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve... bitches. I don't worship anyone if that's what you're implying. I worship you, even though I know your wrong... don't ask
CarrierII wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 15:22 I should indicate that despite the normal quality of posting from certain individuals who have posted in this topic, I do believe they are being intentionally humorous, and succeeding! (TL;DR: Nothing in here is flaming nor trolling, yet) That's what trolling is... haha.
I think God's a pretty cool guy. He made the world and dosnt afraid of of anybody
If God can do anything, can he create something so incredibly heavy that not even he can lift?
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 15:12 If God can do anything, can he create something so incredibly heavy that not even he can lift? Wow, what a test of intelligence that question is. I hope it isn't one that you frequent when arguing your case for atheism. You got trolled, and you're not very smart. Me > Your feelings of superiority resulting from your lack of faith < your stupidity. FYI I'm atheist too.
Renegade is the most unique game ever. It's so easy to troll fags in forums, public servers, etc. it's ridiculous. That's why I was part of clanwars, because after all the trash talking and bitching at least people aren't morons or stupidly gullible.
Two things: 1. I'm not an atheist. 2. I'm not arguing you, I'm asking you a question. Regardless of what you believe, I wanted to know how you would answer that.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 14:12 If God can do anything, can he create something so incredibly heavy that not even he can lift? That depends upon whether you believe that god can do the logically impossible or not. It wouldn't be unreasonable to answer that by saying yes, he could, but we wouldn't be able to understand how. But then... Yep, I though we were talking about homosexuals in the army? Btw if god was going to make something too heavy for him to lift, it would probably be a chain.
Anyway, back on topic. What God says is right or wrong should not come into the picture. This is because religion is not supposed to interfere with government regulations. Freedom isn't free, if you want to live here, there are somethings that you have to be subjected to. Being gay can just be used as a loophole for people to avoid being drafted. And besides, on top of that, wouldn't not allowing homosexuals in the army weaken the military's strength?
WE ALL REALISE RELIGION IS DUMB THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
successful troll is successful Also, repealing it won't exactly make everyone accept homosexuality in the military. Just throwing that out there.
Whether or not some, or even most folks will accept gays in the military is a moot point. In case you haven't been keeping up with the news, it's a done deal- as good as repealed the moment it gets to the Oval Office for signing. Acceptance has a way of coming in its own good time. If you were to wait until everyone accepts gays in order to extend them equal protection of the laws, including open service in the military, it would never happen. Remember that there are still bigoted fuckwads who would rather there not be any blacks or hispanics or asians in the military... and racial integration happened under President Truman, a good two decades before rulings like Brown vs. Board of Ed. made segregated public services illegal. Took people a while to accept that one, didn't it? Well, it'll take people a while to accept gays too. Probably less of a while, all things considered. The "gay or no gay" issue has always had religious roots, and religion should never have been a factor in policy-making to begin with. "But then everyone will have to change and get used to the idea of knowing who's gay" is not a valid counter-argument. Servicemen have never had the option of picking and choosing who to serve with. Yes, it will make the fundies get all butthurt and pissy, but... honestly? Fuck 'em. Some of my best friends are gay, and the thought of them being shat upon because they don't like the opposite sex just kinda pisses me off.
yeah, it's a done deal! The homophobes are cornered now. Quote: "Gay and lesbian service members -- brave Americans who enable our freedoms -- will no longer have to hide who they are," Obama said in an e-mailed statement to supporters. "The fight for civil rights, a struggle that continues, will no longer include this one." you gotta love this President. It's nice to see that homosexual people don't have to play a double-life anymore to homophobic christian pricks who love to control others. I am very happy for this as this is one of the longest nails that have been hammered yet into the lid of the coffin of the dead and dying rotting religion known as christianity.
Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 05:38 I am very happy for this as this is one of the longest nails that have been hammered yet into the lid of the coffin of the dead and dying rotting religion known as christianity. orly
snpr1101 wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 07:15 Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 05:38 I am very happy for this as this is one of the longest nails that have been hammered yet into the lid of the coffin of the dead and dying rotting religion known as christianity. orly Considering the crapload of idiotic old testament laws that christians today conveniently disregard or ignore, this latest ruling is a massive setback for them as the law against homosexuality is one among few of the idiotic OT rules christians still trumpet around. So I would say a big, "ya rly!" with the owl picture but won't.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 16:50 What God says is right or wrong should not come into the picture. This is because religion is not supposed to interfere with government regulations.
The policy was merely inspired by religion.
i don't think this benefits gays or homosexuals .. they're still going to take shit lmao not like everyones going to be like oh you're gay? that's cool wtih me cause DONT ASK DONT TELL GOT REPEALED ... i don't know why you think this is such a huge step forward lmao ... you're obviously democratic starbuzz but come on hahah you think they're not going to still get made fun of for being in the military? there was a reason dont ask dont tell was in place in the beginning .. it's because people generally still aren't accepting of homosexuals and it was to protect them .. this will probably make it worse for them .. but whatever
M0FiR3 wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 17:20 i don't think this benefits gays or homosexuals .. they're still going to take shit lmao not like everyones going to be like oh you're gay? that's cool wtih me cause DONT ASK DONT TELL GOT REPEALED ... i don't know why you think this is such a huge step forward lmao ... you're obviously democratic starbuzz but come on hahah you think they're not going to still get made fun of for being in the military? there was a reason dont ask dont tell was in place in the beginning .. it's because people generally still aren't accepting of homosexuals and it was to protect them .. this will probably make it worse for them .. but whatever That's not the point. They don't need your elitist sympathy or protection. It was their choice to live that way and they have to live with that responsibility. That means defending their own life style. It isn't about people 'getting made fun of' it's about what they can and can't legally do. There is no logical means to deny a person entry to the military just because they are gay. What difference does it make? How will a gay soldier cause any functionality issues in the military? The military will work so long as its soldiers are disciplined enough. What difference does the soldier's sexuality make? It isn't like someone who is gay is going to have some learning defect that will make it impossible to discipline them... It's 100% discrimination. Don't try to cover up that fact with "it's for their protection" or "it's for their own good" because that isn't for you to decide.
are you gay or something? that would explain the anime fetish i guess .. just the fact that you got so defensive about the stuff i was saying .. not trying to be ad hominem but i don't personally really care what the fuck gays and lesbians do .. i don't really support their life choice but as long as they dont bother me whatever haha ... i just have a lot of friends in the military that were pretty upset by this shit ... not everyone is so accepting of guys plowing other guys buttholes as you bleeding liberals on this forum
Quote: .. just the fact that you got so defensive about the stuff i was saying .. I get defensive over it because I realize that it is attitudes like yours that are what is tearing the country apart. There are way too many pointless restrictions on people that have no real reason to exist. Living in America grants you liberty. But liberty doesn't give you the ability to deny it to someone else. Quote: ... i just have a lot of friends in the military that were pretty upset by this shit ... not everyone is so accepting of guys plowing other guys buttholes as you bleeding liberals on this forum It isn't my concern that your friends are so insecure and fearful about their sexuality. Just because someone is a homosexual doesn't make them a barbarian. They are exactly like everyone else. It isn't like they are going to mindlessly hunt down and rape everyone if they had the chance. It's a totally baseless fear. Also, for the record: I'm not gay.
no one's afraid of them or insecure with their sexuality .. they just dont like them because its kinda gross for one guy to put it up another dudes pooper .. i don't get why people get so defensive about that .. it's not very proper .. are there any other animals that try to mate with their own gender?
M0FiR3 wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 23:16 no one's afraid of them or insecure with their sexuality .. they just dont like them because its kinda gross for one guy to put it up another dudes pooper .. i don't get why people get so defensive about that .. it's not very proper .. are there any other animals that try to mate with their own gender? http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-02-07/news/17414549_1_bruce-bagemihl-homosexual- gay-penguins
M0fir3 dam ur argument made me laugh.. good 1 dude
M0FiR3 wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 20:34 are you gay or something? that would explain the anime fetish i guess .. No, it wouldn't. Has anyone even given a reason why homosexuals shouldn't be in the army? Excepting religion, and that homosexuality is wrong.
Pyr0man1c wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 04:51 M0FiR3 wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 20:34 are you gay or something? that would explain the anime fetish i guess .. No, it wouldn't. Has anyone even given a reason why homosexuals shouldn't be in the army? Excepting religion, and that homosexuality is wrong.
M0FiR3 wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 16:20 i don't think this benefits gays or homosexuals .. they're still going to take shit lmao not like everyones going to be like oh you're gay? that's cool wtih me cause DONT ASK DONT TELL GOT REPEALED ... i don't know why you think this is such a huge step forward lmao ... you're obviously democratic starbuzz but come on hahah you think they're not going to still get made fun of for being in the military? there was a reason dont ask dont tell was in place in the beginning .. it's because people generally still aren't accepting of homosexuals and it was to protect them .. this will probably make it worse for them .. but whatever the important thing isn't whether a bunch of homophobic idiots are nice, the important thing is whether a minority of people actually have their civil rights taken away or not Quote: no one's afraid of them or insecure with their sexuality .. they just dont like them because its kinda gross for one guy to put it up another dudes pooper i don't like anal sex either, why would that make me act like a prick towards another heterosexual man who does like it? you think i want a law supporting my opinion? Quote: are there any other animals that try to mate with their own gender? yes, lots... homosexuality's been observed in lots of animals. but so what?
i dont get it ... how come anyone that doesnt like gays is a homophobe? is everyone that's racist afraid of that race? not really .. people make comments about jews .. doesn't mean they're afraid of them ... anyone that doesnt like a gay person must be confused about their own sexuality!!! lol give me a break like i already stated i don't really GIVE A SHIT about gays or lesbians being in the military ... i just think it's funny that all you liberals are like OMG U DONT LIKE GAYS U HOMOPHOBE!!!! OMG U MUST BE A CLOSET HOMO U R SO INSECURE WITH UR SEXUALITY!!!!! ... not really ... gays just bring nothing to the table evolution wise .. they won't procreate which is the only purpose of being on earth anyways.
Also, a huge amount of gay men have characteristics that are pretty fucking annoying. Oops, guess I'm a homophobe too now...
SSADMVR wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 11:12 Also, a huge amount of gay men have characteristics that are pretty fucking annoying. Oops, guess I'm a homophobe too now... Yes. yes you are.
M0FiR3 wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 10:54 i dont get it ... how come anyone that doesnt like gays is a homophobe? because that's the word for it i think it's misnamed, since "homo" means "same", so "homo-phobic" means fear of the same... but whatever Quote: is everyone that's racist afraid of that race? not really .. people make comments about jews .. doesn't mean they're afraid of them ... that wasn't what you said in the first sentence. it's true fear is not always the reason for the prejudice. so what? Quote: anyone that doesnt like a gay person must be confused about their own sexuality!!! lol give me a break i agree, it would be silly to say that everyone who dislikes gay people is confused about their own sexuality. who says that? Quote: like i already stated i don't really GIVE A SHIT about gays or lesbians being in the military ... i just think it's funny that all you liberals are like OMG U DONT LIKE GAYS U HOMOPHOBE!!!! again, "homophobe" is the word for that. Quote: OMG U MUST BE A CLOSET HOMO U R SO INSECURE WITH UR SEXUALITY!!!!! ... again, it's unwise to assume that. who is saying this? Quote: not really ... gays just bring nothing to the table evolution wise .. they won't procreate which is the only purpose of being on earth anyways. what do you bring to the table evolution-wise, mofire? what shall we do about people who don't want kids? (such as myself) as for "purpose", fuck off
M0FiR3 wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 10:54 i dont get it ... how come anyone that doesnt like gays is a homophobe? is everyone that's racist afraid of that race? not really .. It's just an insult, really. That's all. No true meaning behind it. On the other coin, gays often get called fa**ots and other such names as well. The term "homophobe" can accurately describe some people who are against homosexuality, but not all of them. Same with the other terms. It's generalization.
Phobia is a fear or something, not a dislike. Not all dislikes are based on fear ... homophobe is NOT the word for anyone that doesn't like gays ... it's a term for people who are afraid of gays ... don't lump all gay haters together please. I fuck women so obviously I bring a lot more to the table in the fact that if I was the last person on Earth except for one woman, I could continue the human race. A gay guy would just try to make her go shopping with him.
M0FiR3 wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 11:38 I fuck women so obviously I bring a lot more to the table in the fact that if I was the last person on Earth except for one woman, I could continue the human race. A gay guy would just try to make her go shopping with him. That sounds like a movie plot or something.
Oops... Homophobia can mean contempt for homosexuals too, in fact that's what it most commonly means, I don't know many people that are afraid of gays...
I agree the word is poorly constructed, both of its component parts are misleading.
Rocko wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 17:18 god will destroy us for this Lies. Credit To reddit.
M0FiR3 wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 11:54 i dont get it ... how come anyone that doesnt like gays is a homophobe? I'm taking that as a reply to what I said about your military friends. I did not imply that disliking gays means you're homophobic. But you said: Quote: ... i just have a lot of friends in the military that were pretty upset by this shit ... not everyone is so accepting of guys plowing other guys buttholes as you bleeding liberals on this forum This implies that you're friends are afraid that a gay guy is going to rape them. That's the essence of homophobia. Not liking/agreeing with their lifestyle is one thing. Fearing that their integration into the military will mean gay butt sex for all the straight soldiers is another.
LMFAO @ snpr! Good piece...yeah, the religion is so full of contradictory bullshit like this that they are helping themselves to their own demise by simply persisting with their dogma. Pyr0man1c wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 04:51 Has anyone even given a reason why homosexuals shouldn't be in the army? Excepting religion, and that homosexuality is wrong. funny after having nothing to say about the unfairness of the DADT law nor able to answer the question you posed, the anti-homosexuals in this thread have latched on to the discussion of the correct usage of the word "homophobe." Situation must be desperate for them I guess. Altzan wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 12:50 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 16:50 What God says is right or wrong should not come into the picture. This is because religion is not supposed to interfere with government regulations. Even if we quote-pyramid that post all day long, it doesn't stop the religious institutions from doing exactly that. The religion itself is parasitically contagious in its nature as it tries to cancererously worm its way into the foundations of a free society that's on a slow march to peaceful secularism. ----- Churces in America routinely go out-of-their way to try to define the political landscape in their favour. This is a known deal so there's no point denying this. This November I got to see this for myself, first hand. And it was scary to see the illegal powers churches have. Before the November elections, for almost a month, the church I am taken to against my will (a megachurch with perhaps millions in revenue) went out of its way as it does every election year to try to get people to vote. What was most disturbing was the distribution of a specially prepared and innocently named "Voter Guide" designed to influence the minds right before the elections. Along with voter registration kiosks and the pastor's insistence on "go vote! endtimes!" during the sermon, this "guide" was included with the regular pamphlet that are distributed for Sunday services. I took some photos of this guide. First off, I am not sure why churches should be doing this in the first place...is this the kind of thing you would expect to see in a church where you came to hear about how to reach the kingdom of god? EVEN IF they can, it is blatantly obvious that this certainly is a artificial unnecessary influence; an intrusion by church powers into the political process to influence/steal the vote. With millions of church going zombies, we can begin to see how such illegal church powers have kept this country in the dark ages for so long by manipulating the vote this way. Front: Back: Here are a few of the issues that are relevant to this topic: Voluntary prayer in public schools and facilities Seriously? This is getting old. I don't care if atheletes "pray" before a game...not like it's going to help their game. Making sexual preference a protected minority status under existing civil rights laws Quick, let's vote for a politician that opposes this! The homophobic nature of these church thugs shines thru and thru on this one. The awful fact here is that this actually tramples upon someone's basic civil right! wow Enforcing the 1993 law banning homosexuals in the military yeah, we all know where this went this week LMFAO! Prohibit federal funding of medical benefits for "domestic partners" of govt. workers This is completly idiotic given our society's current move towards a future where more people will cohabitate with less people marrying. Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent same sex marriage yeah, we know this one too well. So you can see that these points are critical issues that our society faces moving forward that a monolithic outdated institution as a church should have ZERO say in in the first place. But here's the one that makes my blood boil: Legislation allowing physician-assisted suicide The outdated entity known as the church has no say in this absolutely critical matter W H A T S O E V E R. Case closed. So in light of such criminal intrusion into government (thru trying to influence and manipulate the vote of the church members), we have the repeal of the DADT law. What I don't understand is why exactly does a church have to do this? i.e, intrude into the democratic government of the country? It doesn't make any sense...it's the kingdom of god these folks should be concerned about; not fucking up the most free nation to ever light the planet. Anyway, getting back to those that claim homosexuality is "out of the ordinary," one thing to bear in mind is that our collective moral values changes over and over. It is never a constant. It never was. But religious fanatics lie and lie and lie and lie about this over and over and over and over. A good example is with sexuality and it's appropriate to discuss this here. For example, during ancient times, it was common for kings to collect all attractive looking girls and women to be put in the harem. The king can then use them as nightly sex slaves. This practice continued with almost every old testament king including the much hyped David and the over-rated Solomon. You had the domination of the Greek culture, Alexander the Great's march across the known world and much later, the Romans that followed. Goddesses were worshipped in their temples and sexual acts with the temple pristesses was normal. It was around this time that Christianity began to spread into Asia Minor and later Europe eventually toppling all the dominant religions there and replacing them with the newer idiotic standard we are dealing with today. Now in 2010, we have had 2000 years of the grip of this sadistic self-punishing degrading religion that had created a completely different reality than what was before it (the only reason the religion thrived for so long was the absence of science-as-we-know it, which only truly came in the last 500 years). So the funny thing is it was not at all always this way yet christians claim complete nonsense such as "sanctity of marriage" and other moral absolutes as if it were always this way since the beginning of time. Just flipping thru the bible tells you that polygamy was the norm of the day...why are Christians living in such denial? This cracks me up. Our morals changed a lot in the 20th century and we have loosened up a lot. We are headed more in the direction of the "Brave New World" in terms of sexuality with casual sex, extensive usage of contraceptive devices and pills, artifical insemination and cohabitation. Marriage itself is steadily losing popularity along with the dying idea of the "purpose of life being able to marry and popping out a few kids." Marriage itself would be around though a lot of people are starting to feel that there is no need for a ring or a expensive ceremony (I feel its overrated bullshit but that's my opinion). Some form of this will be around but the most important thing to note is nothing is going to be permanent and the collective culture will keep changing over and over. Anything is possible but definitely I feel that we will be more tolerant in the future and a lot more critical civil rights laws will be in place along with a much more superior form of government than the blundering faith-befuddled entities we have today. ----- @Anthrax: I am sorry your whiny military friends are "disgusted" by gays. Listen, I could care less. Your friends' forefathers that served in the military when this country was a dangerous racist hellhole were also "disgusted" by the black skin of the first black soldiers to fight and die for this country. Funny how homosexuality is all about raw sex to you. I guess "love" doesn't matter to you though if I brought up hetrosexual sex acts, love would automatically matter to you. Getting back to the once male dominated military, they once made a good movie about the West Point military academy. There used to be a time when female cadets weren't allowed to join. And they faced so much misplaced phobia (yes, phobia) from their whiny bitch male counterparts who couldn't handle the changing social conditions. Now look where your country's military is: women fly F-15's, F-16's, Apache gunships, operate the chain gun on the AC-130 gunships along with easily flying the F/A-18 from aircraft carriers not to mention being in positions of high ranked command. This exact same process can be seen with how blacks integrated in your once despicably racist military...now blacks being in a positon to pilot submarines and having top leadership positions. To learn that 14,000 homosexuals were dismissed from the military since this bastard act was law is shocking. We are talking skilled people like pilots, snipers, engineers, technicians across many ranks...all dismissed for being gay! No different in the least from the earlier struggle that blacks had to face just for having a darker colour and what women had to face just for not being a man. We learn through mistakes and wrongs and that's how we term it "progress"...we just need to re-educate every little brainwashed idiot that grew up with mommy, daddy and sunday school over and over till their shit-shaded glasses come off and they begin to see reality and stop denying history. This is a great day for every soldier in your country. You should tell your whiny military friends to get over themselves just as their forefathers got over their bitching of black soldiers and female pilots. As far as your argument as to what homosexuals bring to the table "evolution-wise" and your vain daydreaming fantasies about being the last person on earth, I can tell your are just a ignorant teenager because they say the same nonsense I have heard from people of that age group. You must be pretty arrogant to think the last surviving women in the world would be willing to fuck you to further the human race LMFAO. Most probably they would kick your tiny ass down a cliff. Now Altzan, THAT is what will make a blockbuster movie ending that will pick up the awards.
Pyr0man1c wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 11:57 http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/11/homophobia.html LMFAO that blogger is a pure idiot. When the process of a oppressed minority getting their justice finally is portrayed by the posting of a apocalyptic picture... you KNOW how dangerous homophobic people are. They have got to be thick as fuck! incredible lol
maybe you missed the part where i said i didn't care what gays did in the military? but im glad you spent 4 hours typing up a response to me .. i like how you keep saying my military? i didn't realize i was robert gates .. but thanks ... oh yeah you're a minority aren't you like indian or something? so by me prejudicing gays you must feel like im somehow indirectly insulting you too and therefore i must hate blacks and women? lmao get over yourself dude i already stated i don't really care what gays do as long as they don't bother me .. my best friend is black lol .. i have a girlfriend .. i think it's good women and minorities are in the military .. i don't care if uphill gardeners are in the military .. but i hope your buddys give you a virtual highfive for those lines you had about me not getting the last woman on earth to sleep with me .. im still laughing at your comedic genius
Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 23:08 funny after having nothing to say about the unfairness of the DADT law nor able to answer the question you posed, the anti-homosexuals in this thread have latched on to the discussion of the correct usage of the word "homophobe." Situation must be desperate for them I guess. Yet you throw a mile-long post about politics and religion right after saying this.
i can just see starbuzz typing out that last line about the last woman on earth wanting to push me off a cliff instead of continue the human race and think to himself " OH MAN THIS IS REALLY GOING TO GET HIM ... ALL MY E-BUDDIES WILL SLAP ME HUGE HIGHFIVES FOR THIS" ... and then you even type LMFAO at your own joke .. good one dude you're not an idiot at all
spoony has infected starbuzz with the 'must type essay at every subject at hand' syndrome... another one bites the dust.
Hitman wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 00:43 spoony has infected starbuzz with the 'must type essay at every subject at hand' syndrome... another one bites the dust. lol Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 23:09 Pyr0man1c wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 11:57 http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/11/homophobia.html LMFAO that blogger is a pure idiot. When the process of a oppressed minority getting their justice finally is portrayed by the posting of a apocalyptic picture... Maybe, maybe not. I just found the whole thing quite funny... Quote: For one thing, practically all the arguments that have been set forth in favor of legitimizing homosexuality can be applied with equal effectiveness by advocates for any kind of perversion involving consensual partners, inanimate objects, animals, or whatever. Quote: But if the arguments in favor of normalizing homosexuality are valid, then every kind of sexual debauchery (from pederasty to necrophilia and beyond) will ultimately be able to campaign for acceptance on those same grounds. (Actually, that process is already well underway.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
Hitman wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 00:43 spoony has infected starbuzz with the 'must type essay at every subject at hand' syndrome... another one bites the dust. not really, just when there's a lot to say, and a lot of what he said there is a damning criticism of religious homophobia i've never been certain why people are angry at the thought someone has more to say than they do, maybe it's just the intellectual jealousy it looks like
im not angry spooner, if anything i was just joking
Hitman wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 06:35 im not angry spooner, if anything i was just joking this looks like intellectual jealousy to me
Altzan wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 23:52 Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 23:08 funny after having nothing to say about the unfairness of the DADT law nor able to answer the question you posed, the anti-homosexuals in this thread have latched on to the discussion of the correct usage of the word "homophobe." Situation must be desperate for them I guess. Yet you throw a mile-long post about politics and religion right after saying this. Looks like I have your attention finally. Don't embarrass yourself any further, Altzan. I started the topic intending to discuss it to the fullest and I had A LOT to say. So then, it was funny to see the usual anti-homosexuals latch on to the discussion of the appropriate uses of a word while conveniently ignoring the accurate rebuttals brought against their side. I thought this was ridiculous. This is typical internet mentality for the losing side...they would rather talk about ANYTHING irrelevant to keep their drivel steaming on than to admit they are plain wrong on the main debate at hand. Worse, at the same time, they completely ignore the argument presented to them and don't refute it. As I mentioned, I had A LOT to say ever since I ripped that idiotic voter guide from church 2 months ago. This topic all of a sudden presented the perfect opportunity to post the voter guide along with it's extensive negative impacts considering one of the main "issues" in it was embarrasingly wiped out in Congress this week never to be made into law again (a victory for humanity). And so, it was coincidently the right time to post about how much illegal powers churches have hoarded up over the past decades. Your dishonest irrelavent one-liner here along with Anthrax's immature high school rubbish is proof that the pro-homosexual rebuttals and questions as presented so far in this thread by Spoony, Nuke, Pyro and myself along with the all important issue of the seperation of church and state as detailed above will never be refuted. You think I made the post because I was desperate? Of course you are welcome to attempt to tear apart what we have written so far quote-by-quote and offering credible refutations to everything I have said so far in the "mile-long post" that clearly has had you bitterly frustrated. Or you can just gracefully withdraw-in-defeat as you did to Spoony's last unanswered question in the Catholic debate thread (btw, for someone who claimed god as non-interfering, it sure was hard for you to say "yes" to that simple question; caught in a dogmatic contradiction of your own making I suppose). I didn't mean to bring this dead topic back up and put you on the spot, but I am getting sick of your dishonesty. @Anthrax: Spoony and I refuted all your misinformed homophobic inhibitions to which you haven't yet responded to and probably won't. Still don't know why you keep ignoring what we have said so far and still keep throwing out irrelevant drivel. As far as me being minority and somehow that being the reason why I care so much for homosexuals for my own benefit (lol), it must be the TOP of the bullshit I have ever read on these forums! @ Pyro: yeah, this guy is whack. homophobic blogger For one thing, practically all the arguments that have been set forth in favor of legitimizing homosexuality can be applied with equal effectiveness by advocates for any kind of perversion involving consensual partners, inanimate objects, animals, or whatever. Religious fanatics like this guy will go to any lengths necessary to demonize those they disagree with. This guy is obviously full of bullshit. Having consensual partners is part of the incoming cultural changes so he is just wasting his breath ranting about it. As far as inanimate objects and animals, he is sounding desperate. homophobic blogger But if the arguments in favor of normalizing homosexuality are valid, then every kind of sexual debauchery (from pederasty to necrophilia and beyond) will ultimately be able to campaign for acceptance on those same grounds. (Actually, that process is already well underway.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association Again, he is being extremely dishonest and desperately trying to use ANY excuse he can grab. Oh no the "process is already underway!!!" He must know that the website for that criminal organization is down for like forever and they have been shutdown or dispersed away. lol Eventhough he is full of bullshit that can be easily refuted, atleast he is sticking up for what he belives in and has made a blog post of it...unlike pulling one-liners like Altzan.
i havent said anything except personal opinions so im glad you refuted those dude lmao im not exactly trying to argue with you but you sure are whooping my ass
Far be from it as the issue has real-life consequences for many people. Of course, it doesn't affect you (it never did) so I can't blame you for mistakenly seeing it as another internet debate where I am supposdely out to "whoop your ass." It's the exact opposite.
haha well you've just gotten so defensive about everything i've said .. you're obviously looking for an arguement. but i already said i don't really give a shit what faggots and dykes do with their lives so you're just preaching to the choir
i don't care what you do with your life either, but if someone was trying to deny you your basic rights just because they personally found you disgusting, i'd be on your side even though i find you disgusting too
I am not interested in this subject in the slightest, Starbuzzz. If you're trying to draw me into a debate about it, I'll have to disappoint. Why? Well, I know perfectly well how it will play out in the end, I am quite familiar with our last discussion. An issue this fierce, if it cannot be solved in vast society, certainly won't be solved on a gaming forum. You've got opinions, Starbuzz, and I respect that. But you simply can't express them without sounding like a self-rightous know-it-all. Yes, that's harsh, especially coming from me. But your word choice says it all. Seriously, dude. Your attitude has dramatically changed. For the worse. Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 18:01 Looks like I have your attention finally. Don't embarrass yourself any further, Altzan. I'm not the one embarrassing myself. Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 18:01 they would rather talk about ANYTHING irrelevant to keep their drivel steaming on than to admit they are plain wrong on the main debate at hand. Worse, at the same time, they completely ignore the argument presented to them and don't refute it. It's not a contest, Starbuzzz. And nobody said it was a required one. Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 18:01 Your dishonest irrelavent one-liner here along with Anthrax's immature high school rubbish is proof that the pro-homosexual rebuttals and questions as presented so far in this thread by Spoony, Nuke, Pyro and myself along with the all important issue of the seperation of church and state as detailed above will never be refuted. Wow. You sure are being a model example of nearly every atheist I've heard express himself/herself. Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 18:01 Of course you are welcome to attempt to tear apart what we have written so far quote-by-quote and offering credible refutations to everything I have said so far in the "mile-long post" that clearly has had you bitterly frustrated. Or you can just gracefully withdraw-in-defeat as you did to Spoony's last unanswered question in the Catholic debate thread (btw, for someone who claimed god as non-interfering, it sure was hard for you to say "yes" to that simple question; caught in a dogmatic contradiction of your own making I suppose). I didn't mean to bring this dead topic back up and put you on the spot, but I am getting sick of your dishonesty. If I recall, I wasn't the one who "Gracefully withdrawed in defeat". My last "essay" went unanswered. That discussion is dead to me though. Act like it's a major victory if that makes you feel better. Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 18:01 ...unlike pulling one-liners like Altzan. You're implying - incorrectly - that that "one-liner" is all I can say on the subject. I'm not going to change it though, as I said I have no interest in debating it. ---------------------------------- I'm under the impression that you have changed based on pressures put on you by your family and church. If that's not the case, forgive my assumption. But if it is, why take it up here, of all places? It's the least likely place to influence anyone's opinion of the subject. I know I will be flamed for this. I know you all will think I am "gracefully withdrawing in defeat", "bitterly frustrated" with nothing to prove. Think that if you want. But not everything is a debate with a clear winner or loser, Starbuzzz. And I'm not obligated to enter it. Especially when you feel so compelled to insert thinly veiled contempt and insult every chance you get.
Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 19:01 homophobic blogger For one thing, practically all the arguments that have been set forth in favor of legitimizing homosexuality can be applied with equal effectiveness by advocates for any kind of perversion involving consensual partners, inanimate objects, animals, or whatever. I really laughed at that. He just basically said that sex is unnatural in any circumstance. And that's not even talking about what he said about homosexuality.
Spoony wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 22:12 i don't care what you do with your life either, but if someone was trying to deny you your basic rights just because they personally found you disgusting, i'd be on your side even though i find you disgusting too thats the point ive been making this whole time
The News America is today enacting legislation that will prevent openly heterosexual people from serving in the military... Sounds perfectly reasonable, with servicemen and women in close quarters, with emotionally intense situations occurring almost daily... that could get distracting... Any objections?
CarrierII wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 02:30 The News America is today enacting legislation that will prevent openly heterosexual people from serving in the military... Sounds perfectly reasonable, with servicemen and women in close quarters, with emotionally intense situations occurring almost daily... that could get distracting... Any objections? Ye /agree. Pull every straight man and women out of service this instant.
@ Altzan: opinions? The fact that sexual morals have changed over and over is not an opinion. The fact that your favorite bible kings had hundreds of sex slaves with polygamy being the norm of the day is not an opinion. The fact that religions fail and get replaced by other religions is not an opinion. You deny basic middle school history and call me a " self-righteous know-it-all?" You don't want to get involved in the debate and I can understand why. So be it. Altzan wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 22:15 issue this fierce, if it cannot be solved in vast society, certainly won't be solved on a gaming forum. One such issue got solved this week in Congress fyi. We will move on and solve problems just fine just as we "solved" racism and women's rights. Despite the people who once stood against it and still do, we are better off now than before. Altzan wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 22:15 I'm under the impression that you have changed based on pressures put on you by your family and church. If that's not the case, forgive my assumption. But if it is, why take it up here, of all places? It's the least likely place to influence anyone's opinion of the subject. This is not at all true. Plus, there is no harm in discussing these here. You seem to mistake discussion as some some form of infectious "propaganda" out to chnage your opinion! wow... Many traumatized victims of crimes end up fighting for a cause against the crime. The internet is a suitable medium in this day among many others and there is no harm in disussing important issues. It is only a matter of time I see myself speaking openly in public about what I have endured so far. You seem to mistake me as using only this internet forum; how do you know that I have not contacted and am in touch with powerful organizations that can help me? When you live under a tyranny and are dragged to a mosque, forced to worship facing mecca 5 times a day, and continualy mind-raped over and over and forced to believe something you can't, you would take to doing the same; using any communication medium to get your voice heard and speak out against the tyrants. It doesn't matter if they are the victims of rape, pedopilia, torture, or any other forms of tyranny. So your statment of a person changing under pressure is irrelavent. Yes, they do. Some end up adapting to the pressure and some fight against it in anyway they can. I am obviously the latter. It's as silly as asking the persecuted chinese bloggers to quit whining about their freedom because they can't influence anbody. Yeah, they can and they are making the world know of their problems. Because not everyone leads a comfortable life with basic civil rights insured such as you. Altzan wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 22:15 I know I will be flamed for this. I know you all will think I am "gracefully withdrawing in defeat", "bitterly frustrated" with nothing to prove. Think that if you want. But not everything is a debate with a clear winner or loser, Starbuzzz. And I'm not obligated to enter it. Especially when you feel so compelled to insert thinly veiled contempt and insult every chance you get. After the "mile-long-post" which clearly unsettled you, you made a one-liner about me "throwing a mile long post about politics and religion." Why did you do that first? Considering that was not all aimed at anyone in particular. Have a nice holidays, Altzan. Maybe during this quiet time, you will finally think about all the people who are not as well-off as you elsewhere in the world and would finally stop whining about being insulted.
Altzan wrote But if it is, why take it up here, of all places? It's the least likely place to influence anyone's opinion of the subject. i've heard this sort of question before. "the internet isn't the right place to talk about this", sort of thing. well, for most of history christianity didn't want you talking about it at all. you think books are a better option than the internet? you weren't allowed to own a bible in your own language for over 1000 years, they'd kill you if you tried. most people couldn't read AT ALL for most of christian history, the content of the bible was a secret the clergy had no interest in sharing with the common people. then you've got the vatican's long track record of banning books it doesn't like, etc etc etc... the internet, by contrast, is great. not much censorship, much more accessible to people than the Bible used to be when the churches really had things their own way. long live e-debates! merry christmas everyone, have a nice day with your families
Altzan wrote But if it is, why take it up here, of all places? Yeah! What's up with all this discussing and debating that goes on in this sub-forum entiled "Heated Discussions and Debates"? It's just about the least appropriate place for this kind of thing.
Dover wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 08:01 This thread is pretty gay. I don't like gay things :/
Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:14 opinions? The fact that sexual morals have changed over and over is not an opinion. The fact that your favorite bible kings had hundreds of sex slaves with polygamy being the norm of the day is not an opinion. The fact that religions fail and get replaced by other religions is not an opinion. You deny basic middle school history and call me a " self-righteous know-it-all?" Your belief on how homosexuals should be treated is indeed an opinion. That's what I was getting at. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:14 You don't want to get involved in the debate and I can understand why. So be it. If that's true, I'm glad. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:14 One such issue got solved this week in Congress fyi. We will move on and solve problems just fine just as we "solved" racism and women's rights. Despite the people who once stood against it and still do, we are better off now than before. Good. But beside the point. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:14 Plus, there is no harm in discussing these here. Of course. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:14 You seem to mistake discussion as some some form of infectious "propaganda" out to chnage your opinion! wow... Your post earlier was not even close to neutral. It was heavily laced with pride and contempt. If I heard you speak it face-to-face, it would disgust me. You have valid points, but speaking them the way you do indicates you're not out to change anyone's thoughts, you're out to rub it in their faces. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:14 Many traumatized victims of crimes end up fighting for a cause against the crime. The internet is a suitable medium in this day among many others and there is no harm in disussing important issues. It is only a matter of time I see myself speaking openly in public about what I have endured so far. You seem to mistake me as using only this internet forum; how do you know that I have not contacted and am in touch with powerful organizations that can help me? If it's just for expression and not to start a fight, then it's great. I'd think that if you did get in touch with a "powerful organization," it would be something you'd share, anyhow. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:14 When you live under a tyranny and are dragged to a mosque, forced to worship facing mecca 5 times a day, and continualy mind-raped over and over and forced to believe something you can't, you would take to doing the same; using any communication medium to get your voice heard and speak out against the tyrants. It doesn't matter if they are the victims of rape, pedopilia, torture, or any other forms of tyranny. I understand what you mean. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:14 So your statment of a person changing under pressure is irrelavent. Yes, they do. Some end up adapting to the pressure and some fight against it in anyway they can. I am obviously the latter. It's as silly as asking the persecuted chinese bloggers to quit whining about their freedom because they can't influence anbody. Yeah, they can and they are making the world know of their problems. Because not everyone leads a comfortable life with basic civil rights insured such as you. Assuming I do? Although you're correct. Unfortunately. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:14 After the "mile-long-post" which clearly unsettled you, Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:14 you made a one-liner about me "throwing a mile long post about politics and religion." Why did you do that first? Considering that was not all aimed at anyone in particular. It was more of a surprised response on how eloquent you suddenly became on the subject... as if you were waiting for a long time to express yourself. Yeah, my "one-liner" was poorly worded, I admit. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:14 Have a nice holidays, Altzan. Maybe during this quiet time, you will finally think about all the people who are not as well-off as you elsewhere in the world and would finally stop whining about being insulted. Firstly, thanks. I hope you do as well. Second, go ahead and view it as whining. Perhaps it is. But a discussion laced with such obscenities isn't a worthy discussion in my book. Or a discussion at all. Spoony wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 09:29 the internet, by contrast, is great. not much censorship, much more accessible to people than the Bible used to be when the churches really had things their own way. long live e-debates! Oh, I agree. Perhaps I wasn't really clear on what I meant. I just thought it wasn't as good as other websites or groups. But as Starbuzzz said, he might have done so anyway.
"Heated Discussions and Debates" section, while on a website intended for a video game, has absolutely nothing to do with said game. This section is for general topics. As such, two people with opposing opinions are encouraged to post in this section. While it might be true that winning or losing such debate on a website like this probably wont have any effect on the grander stance on the issue, that does not mean that it can't or shouldn't be discussed here period. Saying that this is no place to discuss such a topic is merely a way of implying you don't want to argue anymore. As such, you no longer want to defend your position. But, since you also don't want to admit defeat on the issue, you're continuing to participate in the conversation. Moral of the story: Don't enter an argument that you have no intention of finishing.
Altzan can't be serious. No one can be that dumb.
R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 15:00 "Heated Discussions and Debates" section, while on a website intended for a video game, has absolutely nothing to do with said game. This section is for general topics. As such, two people with opposing opinions are encouraged to post in this section. While it might be true that winning or losing such debate on a website like this probably wont have any effect on the grander stance on the issue, that does not mean that it can't or shouldn't be discussed here period. Saying that this is no place to discuss such a topic is merely a way of implying you don't want to argue anymore. As such, you no longer want to defend your position. But, since you also don't want to admit defeat on the issue, you're continuing to participate in the conversation. Moral of the story: Don't enter an argument that you have no intention of finishing. It was more of a "relativity" issue. I didn't mean it was pointless, although I came off that way. Well said.
I rather think that, aside from the ones that degenerate into flame-fests, some of the most informative discussions about controversial issues happen on forums not dedicated to the subject at hand. The reason is because, lacking a narrowly-defined topic, the discussion is more likely to go off on related-but-not-on-topic tangents... and people are more likely to say what's really on their minds instead of trying to sound reasonable. Nobody is afraid of being banned because they punched a prominent member's buttons... especially here. Punching peoples' buttons has been pretty much the way of life on Renforums since the bloody place came into being, even back when Westwood was running the place. And now that I've spouted that bit of touchy-feely crap... The fundies in here are full of shit. Sorry if I offended anybody, but... well, nobody has a right not to be offended. And that is the real heart of the issue, isn't it? Because ultimately, that's what it all comes down to- people getting offended at the idea that something that disgusts them (homosexuality) is allowed to be shown the light of day. Yes, I'm well aware that it was considered taboo for most of human history (we have no way of knowing before history began, do we?)... but we live in a culture that accepts "get the government to ban it" as an acceptable way to hide the things that bother us. It is long past time for human society as a whole to grow the hell up and get over that shit. I consider the issues of gay rights and censorship to be inextricably linked. Both revolve around the idea that, if the majority (or as the case may be, the minority with all the power) doesn't like something, they can make it go away. History tells us that this doesn't work- and tells us this over and over and over so many times you'd think you were listening to a broken record. Forget about nature. It isn't about nature, or reproduction. Putting aside the fact that other species have demonstrated homosexual behavior, how many things do humans do that has nothing to do with our most basic biological purpose? How many of those things could potentially be offensive to a large and vocal minority of the population? Now, how many of those things have any provable effect whatsoever on people who have access to, but choose not to use, participate, read, or have anything to do with those things? Whatever that very, very small number may turn out to be, homosexuality is not on the list. Being around gay people doesn't make you gay. Knowing that people are gay doesn't make you gay. Watching gay people having gay sex doesn't make you gay. So far, the only two ways to become gay are to either be born that way, or to make a conscious choice to engage in a homosexual lifestyle. Any free society depends on the rule of liberty, not law, for its continued existence. Laws can be made and enforced in error; to deny that fact is to deny reality. The idea that a free person has the right to do as a free person will, without any interference, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another free person- that is fundamental. And thus we come back to the root of the issue: that, because it is so inevitable that everyone will be offended by something and there is something out there to offend everyone, no one has a right not to be offended. The fact that a person is gay may offend you, what they do may offend you, what they say may offend you... but none of that matters worth a damn. What matters is that you would impose your will upon another free person so that you won't have to be offended by them. You are saying, in effect, that you are not the master of your own eyes- that you do not have the ability to simply look away from things that bother you, and that you do not have the courage to face them. You want the things- and the people- that bother you to be made to go away. No, you're not saying they should all be killed. You're saying that they should all be silent because you don't want to be offended. Whether it is because of your religion, or a phobia, or just a simple dislike of the mental image of two men buttfucking, ultimately you want gays to go away- by law- because you can't or won't handle the fact that they exist. And you've got no problem with offending anyone else without realizing or caring about the hypocrisy of it all. And you know what? You've got every right to believe and say all that bunk, because the gays and gay rights advocates don't have a right not to be offended by you. But you do not have the right to impose your will as policy- and they do have the right to impose their will as policy. They have that right because their will does not infringe upon any of your rights, while your will does infringe upon theirs. Am I getting up on my high horse? Yep. Can't deny it... because sometimes it is possible for one point of view to be right, and another to be wrong. There's no sense apologizing for that; the tides are changing. Sooner or later, humanity will get over this foolishness. I just hope I'm still alive to see that happen, at least in my own country if not the world.
wow nukeit that was fantastic, I completely agree
i love when nukeit comes through and blows the place up, 100% without warning his name makes sense i suppose
Rocko wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 17:22 Altzan can't be serious. No one can be that dumb. Par for the course in Tennessee.
Dover wrote on Sat, 25 December 2010 11:51 Rocko wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 17:22 Altzan can't be serious. No one can be that dumb. Par for the course in Tennessee. ?
Altzan wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 13:11 Your post earlier was not even close to neutral. There is something incredibly odd about a christian demanding neutrality. In any issue. PERIOD. Altzan wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 13:11 Your belief on how homosexuals should be treated is indeed an opinion. Altzan wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 13:11 Your belief on how blacks should be treated is indeed an opinion. Altzan wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 13:11 Your belief on how women should be treated is indeed an opinion. No, it isn't. See what I did there? Here is a fine example of what dogmatic religious indoctrination from a religion such as christianity can do to a person. It's sad we have to deal with people like this every generation for needless problems that we get over in the next generation. We actually have a concept now of basic "human rights" that didn't exist when abraham's god was busy giving those despicable commandantments in Deutronomy such as ordering those who don't worship "him" to be taken out of the camp to be killed and giving out the correct guidelines for using slaves (wow). Thousands of years later after "he" gave these commandments, what do we see? We see that the absolute rules from such a power-crazed man-made god is not absolute afterall and humanity as a whole have rejected those idiotic rules (thru many struggles). If such a god did forbid the use of slaves and promoted the concept that all humans have some form of basic rights, the religion would be growing, not shamefully dying as a laughingstock as it is. Our morals today are lightyears ahead of what the judeo-christian god came up with and it will be ever better as we move into the future. @Nuke: hotly-condensed and very effective post right there. While eveything you said makes sense to anyone not clouded by religious indoctination, this is the part that is the mental blocker: NukeIt15 wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 23:58 But you do not have the right to impose your will as policy- and they do have the right to impose their will as policy. They have that right because their will does not infringe upon any of your rights, while your will does infringe upon theirs. From strong personal experience, it is extremely difficult for a religiously indoctrinated person to understand this. ^ The religious have 1 gold standard, i.e, the instructions of their god are absolute and CORRECT. Nobody can challenge it and add or take away from it and abolutely nobody can void it. This by itself is hypocritical considering the wide range of biblical laws that they conveneintly ignore because it will be too stupid to follow them now! The other standard they see (which is our basic constantly evolving commonsense as the human journey continues) is what they automatically demonize as "ways of the world," "wickedness of the lost" and other drivel. This is a pure isolationist self-deceiving way of looking at our progress (which they ridicule). So that is the absolute root of the problem and the challenge we get from the dogmatically indoctrinated. So no matter how often and how hard we repeat that, the religious find it very hard to accept it. You explained very well with the homosexuals example but no matter how much, their gold standard is there so they have incredible mental difficulty to accept that "allright, he is a homosexual and I find him disgusting but he is not doing anything whatsoever to hurt me and so I should fuck off." Instead, they feel compelled to act to stop it proving the power trip nature of their quest. This just shows the man-made nature of the religion and its use for pure purposes of control and power. If christians actually cared for the souls of the homosexuals (thy don't cos that's was bullshit from day 1), they won't be pathetically pleading to "enforce the 1993 law banning homosexuals from serving in the military" in a equally pathetic voter guide. They would be instead reaching out and pleading with compassion to try to change them (very few do this). It shows how in the end, it is all about trying to forcefully conform everyone to their standard so they can just sleep tight at night knowing they don't have to worry about facing reality. This probably defines the word, "pathetic." ----- I have read countless christian bloggers who, like that lunatic's blog Pyr0 linked to, are convinced that we are headed to moral decay in the issue of homosexuality and generally into the future. Funny thing is, if I were half-honest, I would admit "moral decay" was at it's height during biblical times and many times directly precipitated by the the judeo-christian god (mass-killing children anyone?). The bible stories aside, thousands of years before biblical chastity grasped the collective human mind thousands of years ago as christian replaced then-exisitng religions in western lands, women were just sex slaves. They were like property, infact even the judeo-christian god put women (wife) as not to be coveted in the last of the ten commandments along with the rest of the things not to be coveted! Showed where things stood then. Kings grabbed any attractive females they saw and had thousands of sex slaves (innocently named as "concubines" in the bible). Humans were handled like animals as slaves. If this was the norm then, why bitch about where we are headed now? You see so many bible nuts whine about how "sex is becoming more and more casual, oh noes!" and "how the world is becoming dangerous!"...these idiots should take a look at history and see how it has been constantly changing. Yes, sex is more recreational now (and so?) but atleast now it is widely consensual and much safer as opposed to what amounted to sadistic kidnap-rape in biblical times.
Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 10:55 There is something incredibly odd about a christian demanding neutrality. In any issue. PERIOD. How cute. Is that the best counter you came up with? Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 10:55 Changing quotes is fun! Nice try. Don't drag the "right and wrong" aspect into it, buddy - it wasn't my point, not by a long shot. My point stands as thus: Quote: Your belief on how homosexuals should be treated is indeed an opinion. And you have yet to prove it false.
Altzan wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 17:05 Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 10:55 There is something incredibly odd about a christian demanding neutrality. In any issue. PERIOD. Is that the best counter you came up with? You are raging about how I hurt your feelings by speaking my mind on a crucial issue while you are ready to crush and oppress people into behaving the way you want them to by supporting/favouring laws that are made to control and oppress people to your liking. Still whining about how my "post didn't even come close to neutral?" Take a wild guess. Altzan wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 17:05 Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 10:55 Changing quotes is fun! Nice try. My point went flying over your head. Altzan wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 17:05 Don't drag the "right and wrong" aspect into it, buddy - it wasn't my point, not by a long shot. You are going to have to try a lot harder to worm out of this one, rookie. Besides "right and wrong" which you are so quick to pull out of and deny here (!!!), most importantly and foremost, it's a issue of "will you mind your own business and allow people to be themselves" or "will you continue to intrude into the personal lives and life choices of others." The choice should be VERY easy considering they (homosexuals) have done NO WRONG TO YOU. Altzan wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 17:05 My point stands as thus: Quote: Your belief on how homosexuals should be treated is indeed an opinion. And you have yet to prove it false. No, that is most certainly NOT your point. Did you think it's going to be this easy? Your dishonest statement of "your belief on how homosexuals should be treated is indeed an opinion" is a cunningly veiled translation of "I have a right to tell people (homosexuals) how to behave and will use the law to make them comply; and what anyone else says including yourself doesn't matter because it is only your opinion and a belief." And now you are demanding me to disprove this absurdity?! If you think you can hide behind such a wretched statement using words like "your opinion" and "belief" and think it will do your side any good...well, no it doesn't. We went thru this SAME word-play dishonesty in the Catholic debate thread. It's extremely alarming to see such a dishonest religiously-intoxicated individual put the crucial civil rights issue of how certain people should be treated in the same sentence with "belief" and "an opinion." Very dangerous times indeed. You only give me hyper-encouragement for fighting for the civil rights of those oppressed by the likes of short-sighted, history-denying individuals like yourself. You have yet to counter any 1 single pro-homosexual argument presented here so far, not even having the decency to make a first point as to WHY these laws should be in place. Yet you demand disprovement for a lame one-liner which has already been destroyed over and over. In the meantime, you continue to ignore the exponential historical irrelavency of your entire belief system (as well as any other competing belief system) as pointed out here repeatedly.
take it easy on this guy Starbuzz, he spends quite a lot of time in Renegade build servers
Imo: this whole debate is somewhat moot. Gays have been allowed to openly serve in the military whether some people like it or not. Personally I would have preferred DADT, with the clause inserted that if someone is 3rd person outed they shouldn't have been kicked out, as it should have been quite effective at getting rid of the the Gay community complaints* about wanting to be able to serve in the military and not have to lie about being straight in order to do so. I have absolutely 0 problems with that, everyone should be able to serve our country in the military if they qualify physically and mentally. However, DADT advocates are now being called bigots and homophobes for defending DADT. Yet before, they would have been called a bigot or homophobe for not wanting gays in the military at all*. Funny how when the right side of the political spectrum decides to compromise, which may not have been the case then it is now though, the left seems to want to continue pushing their agenda under the guise of equal rights. It's not the fight for equal rights, it is elevating a minority over the majority. Now because of this, homosexuals that have been passed up for a promotion, demoted, dishonorably discharged, left on the field injured for whatever reason, etc. can now claim that is was because they were gay that what happened to them happened. I know most of them will not do that, but there are some who will. And on this note, let me also state that I'm for civil unions or something along those lines replacing marriage in the state's eyes and allowing religion to keep their version of marriage. If this makes me a bigot for not believing in gay marriage, you've got a huge problem. Tl:dr(not really)==> Churches can call marriages marriages. They'll have their right to. But in the eyes of the law, straight/gay/etc should be called a civil union, or mmarriage, or commonlaw, or anything else other than marriage. The religious connotation stays for the churches that wish to continue that tradition, and in the eyes of the law, everybody is equal and nothing is separate. And if you have churches that allow marriages of homosexual couples, then great, the homosexual couples can be a part of -those churches-. Also on a slightly humorous note: Think of the pinups girls on the walls. Do you really think that gays aren't going to participate in that longstanding army tradition? They will put guy pinups which in all honesty no straight guy wants to see. Which means that someone will tear it down, the guy who had it will get butt hurt over it and as a result pinup girl and guy posters are banned. no one is happy. *best wording I can come up with atm
Sheesh. Only one part of your reply is even worth touching, since you refuse to stop trying to drag me into conversations I want no part with. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 20:06 You are raging Really, now. It's obvious you're raging a lot more than I am. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 20:06 about how I hurt your feelings Not really. Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 20:06 while you are ready to crush and oppress people into behaving the way you want them to by supporting/favouring laws that are made to control and oppress people to your liking. Quote me where I said I support those laws. Go on.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 23:29 Also on a slightly humorous note: Think of the pinups girls on the walls. Do you really think that gays aren't going to participate in that longstanding army tradition? They will put guy pinups which in all honesty no straight guy wants to see. Which means that someone will tear it down, the guy who had it will get butt hurt over it and as a result pinup girl and guy posters are banned. no one is happy. Yeah, and I'm sure women who serve aren't terribly enthusiastic about pinup chicks either. Besides, gay dudes aren't into that stuff, and they don't care. So yeah, it's entirely fair to ban pinup posters if straight dudes bitch about seeing men more attractive than them on the wall. Gay people are portrayed as being effeminate girls, and yet it seems in this debate, it's the straight people who are being the total c#nts.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 21:29 Imo: dgaf