By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - What do you think of this anti-religious statement.

pizzahut451 on 07 May 2010
pearljammer said:
pizzahut451 said:
pearljammer said:

Yeesh, I couldn't have been more wrong with my earlier post.

Is anyone else baffled how anyone can say these two contradicting phrases and still take themselves seriously?

"My opinion is in a BIG MAJORITY anyways, and that's all that matters to me..."; and

"i think that because of my own reasons"

Also:

"i never said they shouldn't have have sex, just getting married and adopting kids because that's a tradition between a man and a woman"

The absurdity of this post aside, how can you even remotely consider adoption a tradition? It's hardly something to be considered as such. So long as a child is placed in a loving, nurturing home it matters not to me what home they're going to.

My parents are foster parents and from what they witness on a regular basis, your worries about same sex adoption, however unfounded they are, are insignificant considering what many of these children presently face.

this is such a incredibly stupid post its not even worht argueing with this guy

Then why even bother responding? Surely, it's at the very least worthy of a response with proper grammar.

To be honest, I could care less if you think either I or my post are stupid, but I am curious as to what in particular made you say so? If it wasn't at all worth responding to, the logical thing to do would be to not bother responding at all. However, you take a dismissive, bully-type approach in your response. It's really quite ineffective and, frankly, revealing.

...Irrespective of the first half of my post (upon further reflection, you could have meant something differently than what I thought by "My opinion is in a BIG MAJORITY anyways, and that's all that matters to me" - though by the bolding of 'big' and 'majority', I remain doubtful), I'm still quite amazed how anyone would consider adoption a tradition.

i just wanted to show i could be arrogant too. i dont care if you agree with me or not. Are you people so damn arrogant that you cant accept other people's opinnion????

Im done talking to you and dunno001. More than half of the world agrees with me, thats enough for me.



Around the Network
pizzahut451 on 07 May 2010
SciFiBoy said:
pizzahut451 said:
SciFiBoy said:
pizzahut451 said:
SciFiBoy said:
pizzahut451 said:
SciFiBoy said:

that is an incredibly stupid argument, HUMANS CANNOT FLY, we can have sex and stuff with whomever we desire though, thats how we evolved, deal with it...

 

i never said they shouldnt have have sex, just getting married and adopting kids because thats a tradition betwwen a men and a women

thats like saying its a tradition that black people are slaves...

thats incredibly stupid example. Treating people as slaves because of their skin coloor is horrible and barbaric and im glad thats over. Slavery is illegal, marrige is not (for straights)

both involve denying basic rights that most people have to one group of society purely because people dont like them.

but they are both completly diffrent things, how an you use them as an example to prove me wrong? Also black people are not slaves for over 200 years now, thats not even a tradition anymore, while people are still getting maried, so there goes your entire logic

thanks for missing the point I was making.

of course they are different things, BUT they are both an example of a majourity of people oppressing a minority of people.

slavery was also a tradition, people used the same kind of justification as you are to defend it.

Homophobia is just another form of bigotry, plain and simple.

 

so not being able to get married and adopt is the same as someone treating you as slave???? Im sure it was hard for gays not to get married and adopt. Its not like they were slaves or something (*sarcasam*)

 

 



pizzahut451 on 07 May 2010
mirgro said:
SciFiBoy said:
pizzahut451 said:
SciFiBoy said:
pizzahut451 said:
SciFiBoy said:
pizzahut451 said:
SciFiBoy said:

that is an incredibly stupid argument, HUMANS CANNOT FLY, we can have sex and stuff with whomever we desire though, thats how we evolved, deal with it...

 

i never said they shouldnt have have sex, just getting married and adopting kids because thats a tradition betwwen a men and a women

thats like saying its a tradition that black people are slaves...

thats incredibly stupid example. Treating people as slaves because of their skin coloor is horrible and barbaric and im glad thats over. Slavery is illegal, marrige is not (for straights)

both involve denying basic rights that most people have to one group of society purely because people dont like them.

but they are both completly diffrent things, how an you use them as an example to prove me wrong? Also black people are not slaves for over 200 years now, thats not even a tradition anymore, while people are still getting maried, so there goes your entire logic

thanks for missing the point I was making.

of course they are different things, BUT they are both an example of a majourity of people oppressing a minority of people.

slavery was also a tradition, people used the same kind of justification as you are to defend it.

Homophobia is just another form of bigotry, plain and simple.

 

I'd like to pointout that black people haven't been slaves for a little over 100 years, not 200. It was also a tradition up until 50 or 60 years ago.

So you cant see a diffrence between slavery and discrimination??? Becuase as far as i can remember, slavery was very ilegal in 50s and 60s



FaRmLaNd on 07 May 2010

The thing is, the opinion that gays cannot get married and adopt limits the rights of a lot of people in society. Whereas the viewpoint that allows people to marry and adopt if their gay gives more people the same rights.

I know which society I'd prefer to live in (the latter...)

The assumption that adoption and marriage are only between man and woman is actually a very narrow and ill-researched assumption because several societies have allowed gay marriage (of some form) in the past (read Ancient Greece and Rome the two countries that essentailly created the western world, some native American Indian tribes had religious same sex unions) and several within the world do today (Belgium I believe).

It may not be the widest held view, but the whole poing of most western systems of rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Direct democracy is simply not what we live in and thus the assumption that the majority view it as wrong and thus it should be illegal because of majority opinion simply isn't a valid reason to stop it and its an increadibly logically hypocritical viewpoint.

And coming from a family that has adopted a child (my brother) I can tell you that the psychological damage that a child can recieve by being in an orphanage is terrible and the longer a child is in an institution the worse it gets. Getting children out of such places as fast as possible if very important and I see no reason why gay couples shouldn't be able to apply because I can tell you it'd be FAR BETTER to have gay parents then spend an extre couple of years in an orphanage.



sapphi_snake on 07 May 2010
FaRmLaNd said:
The thing is, the opinion that gays cannot get married and adopt limits the rights of a lot of people in society. Whereas the viewpoint that allows people to marry and adopt if their gay gives more people the same rights.

I know which society I'd prefer to live in (the latter...)

The assumption that adoption and marriage are only between man and woman is actually a very narrow and ill-researched assumption because several societies have allowed gay marriage (of some form) in the past (read Ancient Greece and Rome the two countries that essentailly created the western world, some native American Indian tribes had religious same sex unions) and several within the world do today (Belgium I believe).

It may not be the widest held view, but the whole poing of most western systems of rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Direct democracy is simply not what we live in and thus the assumption that the majority view it as wrong and thus it should be illegal because of majority opinion simply isn't a valid reason to stop it and its an increadibly logically hypocritical viewpoint.

And coming from a family that has adopted a child (my brother) I can tell you that the psychological damage that a child can recieve by being in an orphanage is terrible and the longer a child is in an institution the worse it gets. Getting children out of such places as fast as possible if very important and I see no reason why gay couples shouldn't be able to apply because I can tell you it'd be FAR BETTER to have gay parents then spend an extre couple of years in an orphanage.

Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Norway, Sweden and South Africa (this one was totallly unexpected)



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
SciFiBoy on 07 May 2010
pizzahut451 said:
SciFiBoy said:
pizzahut451 said:

but they are both completly diffrent things, how an you use them as an example to prove me wrong? Also black people are not slaves for over 200 years now, thats not even a tradition anymore, while people are still getting maried, so there goes your entire logic

thanks for missing the point I was making.

of course they are different things, BUT they are both an example of a majourity of people oppressing a minority of people.

slavery was also a tradition, people used the same kind of justification as you are to defend it.

Homophobia is just another form of bigotry, plain and simple.

 

so not being able to get married and adopt is the same as someone treating you as slave???? Im sure it was hard for gays not to get married and adopt. Its not like they were slaves or something (*sarcasam*)

 

 

so youre basically just going to keep trolling and ignoring my points (and other peoples points for that matter) then?



FaRmLaNd on 07 May 2010

It doesn't really matter at this point. The Zeitgeist is already changing and more and more western countries are taking up pro gay rights laws. Whilst most of that movement is in Europe at the moment in say twenty to thirty years I think pretty much every western country will support gay marriage and adoption. I certainly hope my country (Australia) decides to legislate before the rest of the western world begins to play catch up.



pearljammer on 07 May 2010
pizzahut451 said:
pearljammer said:

Then why even bother responding? Surely, it's at the very least worthy of a response with proper grammar.

To be honest, I could care less if you think either I or my post are stupid, but I am curious as to what in particular made you say so? If it wasn't at all worth responding to, the logical thing to do would be to not bother responding at all. However, you take a dismissive, bully-type approach in your response. It's really quite ineffective and, frankly, revealing.

...Irrespective of the first half of my post (upon further reflection, you could have meant something differently than what I thought by "My opinion is in a BIG MAJORITY anyways, and that's all that matters to me" - though by the bolding of 'big' and 'majority', I remain doubtful), I'm still quite amazed how anyone would consider adoption a tradition.

i just wanted to show i could be arrogant too. i dont care if you agree with me or not. Are you people so damn arrogant that you cant accept other people's opinnion????

Im done talking to you and dunno001. More than half of the world agrees with me, thats enough for me.

I can certainly appreciate another's opinion so long as it is of sound logic. I'm unsure of others' posts, but I was mainly concerned with your appeal to the majority as well as your classification of adoption as a tradition. It isn't an attack on your opinion so much as it is on your logic.

Your opinion being of the majority speaks nothing to the validity of it all. That isn't to say your opinion isn't valid, simply that your reasoning is. If the majority were in the right in every point of history, there'd be no such a thing as heroes.

As to the second point, on tradtion, I've said everything I've wanted to thusfar. I'm waiting on a response.



zexen_lowe on 07 May 2010
sapphi_snake said:
FaRmLaNd said:
The thing is, the opinion that gays cannot get married and adopt limits the rights of a lot of people in society. Whereas the viewpoint that allows people to marry and adopt if their gay gives more people the same rights.

I know which society I'd prefer to live in (the latter...)

The assumption that adoption and marriage are only between man and woman is actually a very narrow and ill-researched assumption because several societies have allowed gay marriage (of some form) in the past (read Ancient Greece and Rome the two countries that essentailly created the western world, some native American Indian tribes had religious same sex unions) and several within the world do today (Belgium I believe).

It may not be the widest held view, but the whole poing of most western systems of rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Direct democracy is simply not what we live in and thus the assumption that the majority view it as wrong and thus it should be illegal because of majority opinion simply isn't a valid reason to stop it and its an increadibly logically hypocritical viewpoint.

And coming from a family that has adopted a child (my brother) I can tell you that the psychological damage that a child can recieve by being in an orphanage is terrible and the longer a child is in an institution the worse it gets. Getting children out of such places as fast as possible if very important and I see no reason why gay couples shouldn't be able to apply because I can tell you it'd be FAR BETTER to have gay parents then spend an extre couple of years in an orphanage.

Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Norway, Sweden and South Africa (this one was totallly unexpected)

And, hopefully in two or three weeks, Argentina will be able to be on that list too




mrstickball on 07 May 2010

I wonder what would happen if I tried to post a thread on VGC that started with 'What do you think about this anti-homosexual statement'



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.