Marriage rights are there to encourage men and women to form family units, screw, increase the tax base.... homosexual "unions" can't fulfill this.
Then how come heterosexual couples who are not capable of having children are still allowed to marry? Shouldn't our government, following your logic, ban their chances of marrying due to their inadequate degree of fertility? Maybe if one of those people in the couple is not sterile, the government should force them to marry someone who they can procreate with. That would make sense if marriage is only for the good of making babies.
It's just a fact that if gay marriage were allowed it would have no effect on anyone but gay people. About the only effect it would have would actually end up being positive for you if you sat down and actually read the studies that have been put out and looked at the effect it has had on other countries. We're people who contribute to society just as much as straight people do. We deserve and demand our basic rights as citizens of this country.
Actually gay marriage has had a negative impact in the countries where it was legalized. Furthermore, a gay marriage does not contribute the same things as a heterosexual marriage, it isn't even possible, but tax breaks and et al are identical so long as it is a marriage. I wouldn't be opposed to a civil union for gay people, with benefits and rights, but it shouldn't be under the legal definition of marriage.
No. Everywhere I've read it has been implemented it has insured benefits for people who once did not have them, assured that sticky legal matters were no longer a burden on the courts, gave back dignity to a group that was being oppressed by the state, kept employees with companies they were happy with, and cut down on the spread of disease since people were allowed to forge a meaningful contract of monogamy with someone else. It's also proven that having gays marry does not bring about the wrath of God upon your nation.
Palin is an idiot and I really wonder how desperate the Republicans are to put a red neck in as 2nd runner. Can anyone seriously imagine this woman being president and lets face it McCain is about to drop dead at his age so its pretty likely. There is nothing worse than a man spurting this kind of crap and that is a woman spurting this type of crap. They should know better. So she is concerned about gay marriages? Maybe she should be more concerned about the crap pile in Iraq and Afghanistan or maybe the meltdown of the economy? Maybe its just me but not letting a gay couple get married isn't going to solve any real issue except create more arm waving at church on Sunday's. Shame on politicians trying to get the red neck vote and concentrating on shite like this when the country there in is already in the gutter and its only going to get worse.
Imagine a father coming home and telling his wife and kids that he lost his job and now they need to sell their house which has negative equity and the only option is bankruptcy. Then he chirps up at the end and says, "Don't worry babe! Its going to be all just fine. The government just banned gay marriages!!"
Seriously what a bunch of idiots! I am sure half of the red necks in Palin's town will scream about gay marriages then head out to the farm to screw a pig but hey that is just fine.
You are born male, female or hemaphrodite. You do not choose that, you do not choose your hair, eye, skin color. You choose whether or not you want to love a man, woman, chimpanzee, your sister your brother, your mother. That is a "preference" not a born condition.
Wait... wait... wait...
So... you are by nature bi-sexual but you repress your homosexual yearning and choose the life of a heterosexual? And the same applies to incest and beastiality...
You must be pretty wild after a couple of drinks remove your inhibitions!
BTW, Sigmund Freud believed the same thing about humans.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
You are born male, female or hemaphrodite. You do not choose that, you do not choose your hair, eye, skin color. You choose whether or not you want to love a man, woman, chimpanzee, your sister your brother, your mother. That is a "preference" not a born condition.
Wait... wait... wait...
So... you are by nature bi-sexual but you repress your homosexual yearning and choose the life of a heterosexual? And the same applies to incest and beastiality...
You must be pretty wild after a couple of drinks remove your inhibitions!
BTW, Sigmund Freud believed the same thing about humans.
I, for one, chose being male. Chose blond hair, blue eyes, and my white skin color. I also choose to be born in the United States in the middle class. It is part of the character generation process I went through before I was born. I spent quite a bit of time experimenting with the sliders for forehead, nose, checks, chin, and mouth.
Geez, just cause some of us hit the "random" button and raced right into the world......
You are born male, female or hemaphrodite. You do not choose that, you do not choose your hair, eye, skin color. You choose whether or not you want to love a man, woman, chimpanzee, your sister your brother, your mother. That is a "preference" not a born condition.
Wait... wait... wait...
So... you are by nature bi-sexual but you repress your homosexual yearning and choose the life of a heterosexual? And the same applies to incest and beastiality...
You must be pretty wild after a couple of drinks remove your inhibitions!
BTW, Sigmund Freud believed the same thing about humans.
I think you have that ass backward.
We enter the world being largely asexual. We understand that being touched in certain places feels REALLY good, but it doesn't go any further than that. It mostly boils down to what makes the biggest impression on us as we reach puberty and the preferences we pick up by the end of that is pretty much what we're stuck with for the rest of our life.
It's kind of like why do some men like large breasts while others are all about a woman's ass? What causes these impressions differs from one person to the next, but the fact that they are acquired tastes, as opposed to a previously existing preference, doesn't change. In the case of something like bestiality or (even worse) pedophilia, I'd assume the impression occurred when desperation met opportunity.
I'm no expert, but I'm willing to guess that most of the extreme fetishes arose from a sense of self deprecation during childhood. <Shrugs> Either way, you pick up kinks, you don't repress latent kinks.
Originally posted by upallnight No government should stand in the way of that or say one church takes precedence over the other.
If you would actually read what that person wrote, you would see that you have nothing to fear. You can have your ritual, ceremony, or whatever. The government should not be involved in that, and I don't see anything prohibiting that.
Then how come heterosexual couples who are not capable of having children are still allowed to marry? <...> That would make sense if marriage is only for the good of making babies.
Because their union still ultimately benefits society as representation and encouragement for others to form. That is one of the base explanations.
Everywhere I've read it has been implemented it has insured benefits for people who once did not have them,
Hahaha, I'm cutting you off here. I told you that I agree that there should be civil unions where it understands that two people are a pair. I already said that.
and cut down on the spread of disease since people were allowed to forge a meaningful contract of monogamy with someone else.
Actually the reality is that even less people, gay or straight, stayed monogamous after gay marriage was instituted. Gay marriages were all almost open, and gay pairings have noted that.
It's also proven that having gays marry does not bring about the wrath of God upon your nation.
Not religious myself, but nice try.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
It's just a fact that if gay marriage were allowed it would have no effect on anyone but gay people. About the only effect it would have would actually end up being positive for you if you sat down and actually read the studies that have been put out and looked at the effect it has had on other countries. We're people who contribute to society just as much as straight people do. We deserve and demand our basic rights as citizens of this country.
Actually gay marriage has had a negative impact in the countries where it was legalized. Furthermore, a gay marriage does not contribute the same things as a heterosexual marriage, it isn't even possible, but tax breaks and et al are identical so long as it is a marriage. I wouldn't be opposed to a civil union for gay people, with benefits and rights, but it shouldn't be under the legal definition of marriage.
This is simply not true. We have had gay marriage in Spain since 2005 and the only impact is that some citizens have the same rights as others for the first time in history. Guess that is what you don't like.
And a gay marriage contributes more, since they have usually no children (no tax cuts) and more money than heterosexual couples. And yes it's under the legal definition of marriage, that's what is all about.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe We enter the world being largely asexual. We understand that being touched in certain places feels REALLY good, but it doesn't go any further than that. It mostly boils down to what makes the biggest impression on us as we reach puberty and the preferences we pick up by the end of that is pretty much what we're stuck with for the rest of our life. Okay, this is pretty much just wrong. I assure you, of absolutely all the things evolution hardwires, AHEAD of self preservation instinct, is a desire to reproduce. That's right, reproduction beats self-preservation. Sex isn't just some social function like handshaking that we all got together and decided on. It's pretty much the most fundamental thing we can do. And while the wiring may get screwed up (evolution is a trial-and-error process) I assure you it exists. It's kind of like why do some men like large breasts while others are all about a woman's ass? What causes these impressions differs from one person to the next, but the fact that they are acquired tastes, as opposed to a previously existing preference, doesn't change. In the case of something like bestiality or (even worse) pedophilia, I'd assume the impression occurred when desperation met opportunity. Okay, are we splitting hairs here? It seems to be a choice... that they didn't know they made... and can't change. Not sure how that's different from being born that way, from a social perspective. Sure, geneticists are probably interested, but a choice you never knew you made and 'it just happens' are fundamentally the same. I'm no expert, but I'm willing to guess that most of the extreme fetishes arose from a sense of self deprecation during childhood. <Shrugs> Either way, you pick up kinks, you don't repress latent kinks. Oddly statistics doesn't particularly bare this out. It's a commonly arrived-at hypothesis, but one that has never been verified by any facts. There's definite correlations, but fetishes coming from childhood abuse or depression isn't necessarily one (though one should note that as one hits sexual maturity, those urges may end up giving them certain complexes as they try to cope with them - a chicken/egg deal).
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
“Foul language doesn't take away from a person's point though.”
Use of foul language is an indication of the lack of commanding one's language and mind. Such use of words degrades one's point/cause.
If you loose your cool, you loose the debate.
“He was right.”
Being in the right of this matter is based on one's perception and interpretations; it is subjective. Is being in the right in terms of civil, moral, physical health, or all or some? Neither side is evil with this issue, more of a point of view.
“That sounds more like a rant to me. Or a diversionary tactic.
I looked up defensive shootings and found nothing but a bunch of schools for concealed handgun licenses. I already have one of those. Nearly everyone in Oklahoma where I live does. I'm still not getting your point.
You'd be hard pressed to convince someone on your point that us homosexuals are out attacking straights by pointing them towards concealed handgun license schools.”
I do thank for taking the time of research, but this did prove my point, which I had hoped you would have deducted on your own (one of the best ways to learn).
As you stated:
“You're not going to find them. You can say that it's because of the media or whatever, but I'm sure that some media source somewhere would have picked up on those cases. There are plenty of right wing blogs and online news sources out there on the Internet. So, I challenge you to find only 5 of those cases.”
You challenged me to find sources in regards of homosexuals committing crimes against heterosexuals; stating that I would be hard pressed. What I challenged with was a counter-example to show that even though the difficulty of finding sources can be hard or near impossible, such events do happen.
As with Defensive Shootings, there is at least one a day, but such an event goes unreported in the sources of media. It is not sensational or does not support one's agenda. What does get reported is when crimes are committed with guns. I can apply the same argument against your challenge, with substituting defensive shootings with homosexual related crimes. By the way, a starting point for researching Defensive Shootings is looking over events, with the words, “Castle Defense.”
Unlike racial and gender related crimes, homosexual related crimes are difficult to report as there is no visual identification of a person being a homosexual (profile). It is a mental or genetic state (and before anyone assumes, I did not state abnormal or any other such terms to that effect).
You however did make an attempt, so I'll provide your 5, plus more.
I'll start off with these two quotes:
“As with heterosexual offenses, the cause of death in fatal cases is almost always some form of general trauma, such as strangulation or head injuries. Homosexual activity, however, may be a parallel event; it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.”
- Dr. William Eckert, Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004)
“Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime.”
- Dr. Knight and Dr. Saukko, The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers
Murdered by Homosexuals:
- Mary Stachowicz, 2006, murdered; stabbed, strangled and beaten by Nicholas Gutierrez
- Joe Geeling, 2006, murdered; beaten and stabbed 16 times by Michael Hamer
- Haroon Paryan, 2005, murdered; ran over, not once, but three times by Michael Jackson (not the singer).
- Jeffrey Curley, 2004, choked to death and then molested by Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari
- Jesse Dirkhising, 1999, suffocated to death after being bound, drugged, gagged and sodomized by Davis Don Carpenter and Joshua Macabe Brown
- Shanda Sharer, 1992, beaten, sodomized, and burned to death by Loveless, Tackett and Rippey
Homosexual Serial Killers (US from 1980 to present; murders only, does not include other crimes):
Donald Harvey (37 murders), Jeffrey Dahmer (17 murders), Andrew Cunanan (5 murders), Randy Steven Kraft (~65 murders), Michael Swango (35-60 murders), Wayne Williams (27 murders), Larry Eyler (19 murders), Huang Yong (~17 murders), Henry Lee Lucas (~12 murders), Ottis Toole (~12 murders), David Bullock (6 murders), Michael Terry (6 murders), Arthur Gary Bishop (5 murders), David Edward Maust (~5 murders), David P. Brown (~3 murders)
Homosexuals are just as capable of murdering and performing vicious and heinous crimes as heterosexuals. I also did not list the crimes committed by homosexuals onto homosexuals, some of which are unfortunately too graphic for these forums.
My mentioning of hatred exist for both sides started off with a report of a Prop 8 Supporter who was assaulted in Modesto, CA. It is unknown if the attacker was a homosexual or homosexual supporter. Which is why I did not list this report, the attacker may have been a homosexual or not one. Either way, it shows (as well as the murders above) that hatred exists on both sides.
“No offense Dracus, but your arguments don't make any sense. It's kind of easy to write you off.
There are some that make arguments that are at least honest and not senseless in their approach. But you seem driven by an agenda more than just making things right.”
No offense taken.
Actually, I have dropped some hints (in this thread and others) of my actual reasoning for the Prop 8 in California; as well as providing some information which could be used against me. I am surprised that the information was not taken into consideration and researched.
My use of religion is not my number one priority point (I never stated my listings were based on priority), but I have used such a principle, because it is what will drive the thread. Anything else would have made it boring, lasting about 2 pages.
Actually my religious viewpoints is not mainstream Christianity. I however support the argument of religion against certain types of personalities (of which is not you), until an understanding is reached (not a complete change of view, mind you), give up, or keep going at it until all points are exhausted.
“Draenor is a good example. He disagrees with me, but I don't think he hates me or tries to make non-sense statements to put me in categories that me or any other gay person don't fit into. We're not out to change anyones life but our own. It's just a fact that if gay marriage were allowed it would have no effect on anyone but gay people. About the only effect it would have would actually end up being positive for you if you sat down and actually read the studies that have been put out and looked at the effect it has had on other countries.”
I don't hate you or anyone else in these forums. Fighting for equality is a noble cause, but it must be done in a manner in which the opinion of the majority can be persuaded. What needs to be discussed is how a working solution can be made in which the majority will support and the lines drawn. For example, if and only if, Same-Sex Marriages were to be allowed and no others, and then minor details worked out, something most likely can be made acceptable. But when broad statements are used, then no; no such agreement can be made.
People do not like change and so a Change Management Process is needed. Sudden changes are bad. Drawn out changes with discussion is the better way.
“We're people who contribute to society just as much as straight people do. We deserve and demand our basic rights as citizens of this country. It's just that the time has come when we are losing our patience with this group that is intent on oppressing us. It's the same patience that was lost by women and blacks in this country and their change came about. Ours will too. We're not just going to sit aside and wait any longer. You all have had your chance, now we're ready to stand up for what we believe is ours.”
Tell you what, this is your moment here to make your case (this is not to come across as mocking by the way). I will not even make counter-statements with you. Tell me (or us) what you want, with details and specifics. I'm not asking for a term or white paper, but something with definition to it (of which I will not nit-pick as it is not a full paper), say to the effect of a short Abstract of a Legal Bill and then we can go from there. I'll even help you with it.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is.
The belief of people being an intelligent multi-celled animal is a belief system of its own, and in my opinion a bleak way of looking at life.
No one here is going to be able to change one's belief system; however what I do ask is, if willing, to look at things from a different perspective; for example “with an open mind.” Observe how certain events play out, of why certain paths are easy and others are difficult. I'm not asking to “find God,” rather the aspect that if there is good thoughts, good things happen. So is that from, Angles, Karma, Energy, Psionics, Spirits, Animal Guardians, Synchronicity, Metachlorines, or just Coincidences?
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Aren't religious nutters so kind and understanding. They don't cast stones in glass houses, they don't judge others, they live by peace, harmoney, understanding, and in accordance with God's wishes. They never bomb abortion clinics, or attack anyone that doesn't believe like they believe. And they teach their kids the value of Killing for Christ......
Oh come now, I thought you were better than resorting to stereotyping.
It is just the same as making the stereotype of Liberals only believe in the First Amendment when the speech is to their liking.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
“Foul language doesn't take away from a person's point though.”
Use of foul language is an indication of the lack of commanding one's language and mind. Such use of words degrades one's point/cause.
If you loose your cool, you loose the debate.
“He was right.”
Being in the right of this matter is based on one's perception and interpretations; it is subjective. Is being in the right in terms of civil, moral, physical health, or all or some? Neither side is evil with this issue, more of a point of view.
“That sounds more like a rant to me. Or a diversionary tactic.
I looked up defensive shootings and found nothing but a bunch of schools for concealed handgun licenses. I already have one of those. Nearly everyone in Oklahoma where I live does. I'm still not getting your point.
You'd be hard pressed to convince someone on your point that us homosexuals are out attacking straights by pointing them towards concealed handgun license schools.”
I do thank for taking the time of research, but this did prove my point, which I had hoped you would have deducted on your own (one of the best ways to learn).
As you stated:
“You're not going to find them. You can say that it's because of the media or whatever, but I'm sure that some media source somewhere would have picked up on those cases. There are plenty of right wing blogs and online news sources out there on the Internet. So, I challenge you to find only 5 of those cases.”
You challenged me to find sources in regards of homosexuals committing crimes against heterosexuals; stating that I would be hard pressed. What I challenged with was a counter-example to show that even though the difficulty of finding sources can be hard or near impossible, such events do happen.
As with Defensive Shootings, there is at least one a day, but such an event goes unreported in the sources of media. It is not sensational or does not support one's agenda. What does get reported is when crimes are committed with guns. I can apply the same argument against your challenge, with substituting defensive shootings with homosexual related crimes. By the way, a starting point for researching Defensive Shootings is looking over events, with the words, “Castle Defense.”
Unlike racial and gender related crimes, homosexual related crimes are difficult to report as there is no visual identification of a person being a homosexual (profile). It is a mental or genetic state (and before anyone assumes, I did not state abnormal or any other such terms to that effect).
You however did make an attempt, so I'll provide your 5, plus more.
I'll start off with these two quotes:
“As with heterosexual offenses, the cause of death in fatal cases is almost always some form of general trauma, such as strangulation or head injuries. Homosexual activity, however, may be a parallel event; it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.”
- Dr. William Eckert, Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004)
“Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime.”
- Dr. Knight and Dr. Saukko, The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers
Murdered by Homosexuals:
- Mary Stachowicz, 2006, murdered; stabbed, strangled and beaten by Nicholas Gutierrez
- Joe Geeling, 2006, murdered; beaten and stabbed 16 times by Michael Hamer
- Haroon Paryan, 2005, murdered; ran over, not once, but three times by Michael Jackson (not the singer).
- Jeffrey Curley, 2004, choked to death and then molested by Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari
- Jesse Dirkhising, 1999, suffocated to death after being bound, drugged, gagged and sodomized by Davis Don Carpenter and Joshua Macabe Brown
- Shanda Sharer, 1992, beaten, sodomized, and burned to death by Loveless, Tackett and Rippey
Homosexual Serial Killers (US from 1980 to present; murders only, does not include other crimes):
Donald Harvey (37 murders), Jeffrey Dahmer (17 murders), Andrew Cunanan (5 murders), Randy Steven Kraft (~65 murders), Michael Swango (35-60 murders), Wayne Williams (27 murders), Larry Eyler (19 murders), Huang Yong (~17 murders), Henry Lee Lucas (~12 murders), Ottis Toole (~12 murders), David Bullock (6 murders), Michael Terry (6 murders), Arthur Gary Bishop (5 murders), David Edward Maust (~5 murders), David P. Brown (~3 murders)
Homosexuals are just as capable of murdering and performing vicious and heinous crimes as heterosexuals. I also did not list the crimes committed by homosexuals onto homosexuals, some of which are unfortunately too graphic for these forums.
My mentioning of hatred exist for both sides started off with a report of a Prop 8 Supporter who was assaulted in Modesto, CA. It is unknown if the attacker was a homosexual or homosexual supporter. Which is why I did not list this report, the attacker may have been a homosexual or not one. Either way, it shows (as well as the murders above) that hatred exists on both sides.
“No offense Dracus, but your arguments don't make any sense. It's kind of easy to write you off.
There are some that make arguments that are at least honest and not senseless in their approach. But you seem driven by an agenda more than just making things right.”
No offense taken.
Actually, I have dropped some hints (in this thread and others) of my actual reasoning for the Prop 8 in California; as well as providing some information which could be used against me. I am surprised that the information was not taken into consideration and researched.
My use of religion is not my number one priority point (I never stated my listings were based on priority), but I have used such a principle, because it is what will drive the thread. Anything else would have made it boring, lasting about 2 pages.
Actually my religious viewpoints is not mainstream Christianity. I however support the argument of religion against certain types of personalities (of which is not you), until an understanding is reached (not a complete change of view, mind you), give up, or keep going at it until all points are exhausted.
“Draenor is a good example. He disagrees with me, but I don't think he hates me or tries to make non-sense statements to put me in categories that me or any other gay person don't fit into. We're not out to change anyones life but our own. It's just a fact that if gay marriage were allowed it would have no effect on anyone but gay people. About the only effect it would have would actually end up being positive for you if you sat down and actually read the studies that have been put out and looked at the effect it has had on other countries.”
I don't hate you or anyone else in these forums. Fighting for equality is a noble cause, but it must be done in a manner in which the opinion of the majority can be persuaded. What needs to be discussed is how a working solution can be made in which the majority will support and the lines drawn. For example, if and only if, Same-Sex Marriages were to be allowed and no others, and then minor details worked out, something most likely can be made acceptable. But when broad statements are used, then no; no such agreement can be made.
People do not like change and so a Change Management Process is needed. Sudden changes are bad. Drawn out changes with discussion is the better way.
“We're people who contribute to society just as much as straight people do. We deserve and demand our basic rights as citizens of this country. It's just that the time has come when we are losing our patience with this group that is intent on oppressing us. It's the same patience that was lost by women and blacks in this country and their change came about. Ours will too. We're not just going to sit aside and wait any longer. You all have had your chance, now we're ready to stand up for what we believe is ours.”
Tell you what, this is your moment here to make your case (this is not to come across as mocking by the way). I will not even make counter-statements with you. Tell me (or us) what you want, with details and specifics. I'm not asking for a term or white paper, but something with definition to it (of which I will not nit-pick as it is not a full paper), say to the effect of a short Abstract of a Legal Bill and then we can go from there. I'll even help you with it.
It's really hard to reply to your statements when you put your comments in between peoples. I would love to make a reply to you, but I'm afraid it would turn out looking like like a battle scene of colors to put WoW graphics to shame.
In regards to your violent homosexuals statements, I never said that there aren't some criminally minded homosexuals out there. That is a mindset that shows no boundaries, especially when you are dealing with mentally insane types like serial killers. My original challenge was this...
Show me 5 articles of gay on straight violence. Go ahead, find me 5 articles anywhere in history where there was a case of violence categorized as "straight bashing" that is equivelant to the violence we gays are careful and cautious of everywhere we go.
Listing a serial killer is not "straight bashing". I'm talking about cases like where you hear of beatings that happen to gay people where while all the punching and kicking is going on there are statements made by the aggressors that clearly show their intent was to hurt someone who is gay.
I am gay and I have run around with gay groups for a long time. I would be honest with you if this were not the case, but I have honestly NEVER been with a group of any types of gay people and had the proposition come up to go beat up some straight person just for being straight. Sorry, we just do not sit around and do that kind of crap. And I know that everyone who is also being honest would agree that they know this is the case.
Maybe it's just our genetically different brains. Maybe it's just the fact that we have been put down and beat up so much that we don't want to be a part of that crud. Who knows what it is, but we just don't go out "straight bashing" on the weekends to get rid of some breeder.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is.
The belief of people being an intelligent multi-celled animal is a belief system of its own, and in my opinion a bleak way of looking at life.
No one here is going to be able to change one's belief system; however what I do ask is, if willing, to look at things from a different perspective; for example “with an open mind.” Observe how certain events play out, of why certain paths are easy and others are difficult. I'm not asking to “find God,” rather the aspect that if there is good thoughts, good things happen. So is that from, Angles, Karma, Energy, Psionics, Spirits, Animal Guardians, Synchronicity, Metachlorines, or just Coincidences?
So humans aren't intelligent? Humans are composed of only a single cell? We don't have any place on the phylogenetic tree?
Statements like this are the reason I have a hard time taking you seriously. There is a difference between belief and knowledge of facts.
Yes, the idea that you have only one life and no one to forgive you for the wrongs you do to others is a bleak outlook. It helps you understand how precious and valuable the little time you have really is.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is.
The belief of people being an intelligent multi-celled animal is a belief system of its own, and in my opinion a bleak way of looking at life.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is.
What you have stated is a fact. We are intelligent primates, and as all animals, we consist of cells. (Plants and micro-organisms cosist of that too...) That is a fact, and not a belief.
To believe is the same as to choose something while still not being entirely sure, you know, to believe.
I believe.... I think... Means the same.
You can't deny fact.
You're wrong! Haha.
(Okay, that wasn't neccesary.)
So half of your sentence is rubbish.
The other half ain't.
You might believe it to be something, again, THAT IS a personal, subjective thing, it ain't a fact that it's a bleak way of looking at life.
You can believe in hell and damnation and heaven and salvation and karma and reborns and whatever else. That's believing.
You can believe that you ARE a animal with intelligence, but was created thus, and thus you've got a soul and you will live forever due to that.
You can't however believe that you don't consist of cells, and that you ain't an intelligent primate, since that would be denial of facts.
You can believe what happened to make you an animal such as that, or what will happen when you die.
Oh, by the way, I guess you believe looking at milk as something to drink is a very dread way of looking at milk.
And just quote it and answer it part for part, don't bother with that inside thingie.
It's really hard to reply to your statements when you put your comments in between peoples. I would love to make a reply to you, but I'm afraid it would turn out looking like like a battle scene of colors to put WoW graphics to shame. In regards to your violent homosexuals statements, I never said that there aren't some criminally minded homosexuals out there. That is a mindset that shows no boundaries, especially when you are dealing with mentally insane types like serial killers. My original challenge was this... Show me 5 articles of gay on straight violence. Go ahead, find me 5 articles anywhere in history where there was a case of violence categorized as "straight bashing" that is equivelant to the violence we gays are careful and cautious of everywhere we go.
Listing a serial killer is not "straight bashing". I'm talking about cases like where you hear of beatings that happen to gay people where while all the punching and kicking is going on there are statements made by the aggressors that clearly show their intent was to hurt someone who is gay. I am gay and I have run around with gay groups for a long time. I would be honest with you if this were not the case, but I have honestly NEVER been with a group of any types of gay people and had the proposition come up to go beat up some straight person just for being straight. Sorry, we just do not sit around and do that kind of crap. And I know that everyone who is also being honest would agree that they know this is the case. Maybe it's just our genetically different brains. Maybe it's just the fact that we have been put down and beat up so much that we don't want to be a part of that crud. Who knows what it is, but we just don't go out "straight bashing" on the weekends to get rid of some breeder.
Roger that.
Ok, going with say, Hate Crimes committed by Homosexuals against Heterosexuals. This is indeed very difficult to find (in a short amount of time) due to that there is no physical character traits (profile) of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. In addition the suspect or criminal would need to state that he/she is a homosexual. For example, with the attack in Modesto, CA; there is no news yet as to who the attacker was, a homosexual or a homosexual supporter.
However, when reviewing the Hate Crimes by the FBI, the following can be provided (the 2007 study is not available yet, so the 2006 will be used):
Only 15.3% were related to Sexual Orientation (1,472 victims)
While the majority of the victims of these Hate Crimes were of homosexual bias (not specific as to the victim being a homosexual or a supporter of homosexuality); there were 29 heterosexual victims (but with 28 offenses); of those, 50% were against the person and the other 50% against property.
Unfortunately the data presented does not specify if the offenders were homosexuals, or heterosexuals supporting homosexuals; it does not even list offenders by gender (just race).
So would that qualify for the 5 in terms of Hate Crimes; showing that such incidents have occurred; unfortunately the data does no specify offenders by Sexual Orientation; perhaps the 2007 report will.
I know the serial killer listings was not part of the 5, that was something to toss in. Which in truth surprised me when I came across them (made some follow-up checks).
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is.
Fine, you want logic and facts; here you go, I'll let your fingers choke on it.
US Supreme Court, 7th Circuit (KAUFMAN v. MCCAUGHTRY):
"Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though
it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. As he explained in his application, the group wanted to
study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective."
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is.
Fine, you want logic and facts; here you go, I'll let your fingers choke on it.
US Supreme Court, 7th Circuit (KAUFMAN v. MCCAUGHTRY):
"Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though
it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. As he explained in his application, the group wanted to
study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective."
I will quote from this decision. Everyone here must judge for themselves if this man has decided to lie about what the court said and misrepresent them. Hint: He didn't link to the full text. I did.
for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different
question than whether its adherents believe in a
supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or
have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a
religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct
from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by
philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns.
[...]
Without venturing too far into the realm of the
philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a
person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate
concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that
filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those
beliefs represent her religion. ... We have already indicated that
atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a
religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934
(7th Cir. 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position
on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).
Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role
in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs
are deeply and sincerely held.
In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of
Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the
First Amendment mandates government neutrality between
religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
Did he lie about the court's position? Read it and judge for yourselves. Hint: Yes.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Did he lie about the court's position? Read it and judge for yourselves. Hint: Yes.
Well so much for playing nice, short lived it was. Very well.
Where did I lie?
Atheism is considered a religion in the legal sense, that is a fact. To say otherwise, involves "nonfactual" or "illogical" reasoning. To prove a soul exist is not possible in scientific terms, and therefore not a fact or by cold logic; but yet there are people who believe in it, and for some experienced it. Atheism is a belief system and has the same legal right as other forms of religions. A belief system is the political correctness version of religion.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Did he lie about the court's position? Read it and judge for yourselves. Hint: Yes.
Well so much for playing nice, short lived it was. Very well.
Where did I lie?
Atheism is considered a religion in the legal sense, that is a fact. To say otherwise, involves "nonfactual" or "illogical" reasoning. To prove a soul exist is not possible in scientific terms, and therefore not a fact or by cold logic; but yet there are people who believe in it, and for some experienced it. Atheism is a belief system and has the same legal right as other forms of religions. A belief system is the political correctness version of religion.
Atheism is not a belief system.
Okay, I'll first start of with the politicalness of having atheism as a religion. (If I state something as wrong, please remember that laws differ from place to place and that I haven't studied them at all, I'm just using logic.)
Since people are "monitored" (couldn't find a better word) and has their information written down in official papers, and one of theese thingies is which religion you has, it might be stated 'atheism' in such a paper.
Thus atheism just count as a group to categorize people under, people who has no beliefs.
Now I'll go onto proving that atheism ain't a belief. (If you've got no logical sense, don't botter reading.)
My first proof will be derived from the word 'atheism' itself. As in asocial, it's absence of something. Asocial, is absence of sociality (for various reasons, you might just be bored.)
Thus atheism is absence of theism, and theism is belief. Is not believing a belief? Nay, 'cause that'd be self-contradictory.( Might have misspelt that.)
If you've had a glass of lemonade ( I love lemonade ^^) and you've drunk all the lemonade (as I would) and you had somehow managed to drink absolutely all of it, would you have a glass of lemonade? No.
You would have had a glass, and you might imagine the glass as the human and the lemonade as a religion. That'd make (GASP!) a human, without a religion (also known as a non-believer, atheist or, to some people, a heretic .)
~Conclusion derived from this is that: Atheism ain't a religion. However, you could say that not all words make sense, and thus this means nothing on it's own.
Okay, for this next thing, I'll use an example. The example will be known as person A (that was a shock, wasn't it?)
person A don't believe in flying dragons with three heads. Does that make person A believe in flying dragons with three heads? No.
Does that make person A believe in a 'no flying dragons with three heads' religion? No.
It simply makes person A not believe in flying dragons with three heads. Just as with atheism. Only that most religions doesn't cover flying dragons with three heads. It's an example!
Now we'll go on to cover some differences between some religions and atheism (and don't ye say that not all religions are like this or that, if you can't cover 'em al and write a book about each religion. I'm fully aware of buddhism without gods, and other minor religions which may differ strongly from what stated here.)
Does a religion have belief in gods or other supernatural beings? Yes |||Does atheism have belief in gods or other supernatural beings? No
Does a religion have prayers? Yes ||| Does atheism have prayers? No
Churches, temples, holy buildings? Yes||| No
Holy books and such? Yes||| No
Priests / religious leaders?Yes||| No
Miracles? Yes||| No
Afterlife
Holy wars
Heaven / Hell
Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc. etc.)
Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue)
Belief despite conflicting evidence
Supernatural origins of universe and / or humans
Murderous fundamentalist extremists
Annoying street / doorstep preachers
The soul
Regular ceremonies / acts of worship
Sin
Blasphemy
We are God's chosen people
This would have been able to put into a similar pattern, but I couldn't be bothered.
(Heres the link to the site from which the above was taken, though it contains some flaws, it's quite good:
Originally posted by Dracus Originally posted by Sharajat Did he lie about the court's position? Read it and judge for yourselves. Hint: Yes.
Well so much for playing nice, short lived it was. Very well.
Where did I lie?
Atheism is considered a religion in the legal sense, that is a fact. To say otherwise, involves "nonfactual" or "illogical" reasoning. To prove a soul exist is not possible in scientific terms, and therefore not a fact or by cold logic; but yet there are people who believe in it, and for some experienced it. Atheism is a belief system and has the same legal right as other forms of religions. A belief system is the political correctness version of religion.
I believe you're right about atheism being a religion, after all atheists believe there is no supreme being but that in itself is a belief and such a "religion", but its not a system. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in such a figure.
I would consider myself atheist (I believe life is more important then and such "afterlife" and that God is just our attempt to comfort ourselves about death.).
And to turn away from straying straight into religion, I think a Federal ban on gay marriage is just unconstitutional, people should have the right to marry whoever they want; disallowing it just because of a religion is a direct violation of separation of church and state created by the founder fathers. lulz
Did he lie about the court's position? Read it and judge for yourselves. Hint: Yes.
Well so much for playing nice, short lived it was. Very well.
Where did I lie?
Atheism is considered a religion in the legal sense, that is a fact. To say otherwise, involves "nonfactual" or "illogical" reasoning. To prove a soul exist is not possible in scientific terms, and therefore not a fact or by cold logic; but yet there are people who believe in it, and for some experienced it. Atheism is a belief system and has the same legal right as other forms of religions. A belief system is the political correctness version of religion.
I believe you're right about atheism being a religion, after all atheists believe there is no supreme being but that in itself is a belief and such a "religion", but its not a system. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in such a figure.
I would consider myself atheist (I believe life is more important then and such "afterlife" and that God is just our attempt to comfort ourselves about death.).
And to turn away from straying straight into religion, I think a Federal ban on gay marriage is just unconstitutional, people should have the right to marry whoever they want; disallowing it just because of a religion is a direct violation of separation of church and state created by the founder fathers. lulz
Saying that its a religion because its a belief is a strange argument. Nearly every healthy thinking person also believes in gravity, is this also a religion, because all these people share the same belief? Ofcourse not.
"Theism" in itself isn't a religion either. Not every Theist is religious (although the vast majority of them are and you'll probably never meet a non - religious theist). A mistake many people make is to think that religion has everything to do with a deity (God), but that belief in a god is not what makes a religion a religion.
I believe you're right about atheism being a religion, after all atheists believe there is no supreme being but that in itself is a belief and such a "religion", but its not a system. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in such a figure.
And that is a good way of putting it.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Comments
Then how come heterosexual couples who are not capable of having children are still allowed to marry? Shouldn't our government, following your logic, ban their chances of marrying due to their inadequate degree of fertility? Maybe if one of those people in the couple is not sterile, the government should force them to marry someone who they can procreate with. That would make sense if marriage is only for the good of making babies.
--------------------------------------
Actually gay marriage has had a negative impact in the countries where it was legalized. Furthermore, a gay marriage does not contribute the same things as a heterosexual marriage, it isn't even possible, but tax breaks and et al are identical so long as it is a marriage. I wouldn't be opposed to a civil union for gay people, with benefits and rights, but it shouldn't be under the legal definition of marriage.
No. Everywhere I've read it has been implemented it has insured benefits for people who once did not have them, assured that sticky legal matters were no longer a burden on the courts, gave back dignity to a group that was being oppressed by the state, kept employees with companies they were happy with, and cut down on the spread of disease since people were allowed to forge a meaningful contract of monogamy with someone else. It's also proven that having gays marry does not bring about the wrath of God upon your nation.
--------------------------------------
Palin is an idiot and I really wonder how desperate the Republicans are to put a red neck in as 2nd runner. Can anyone seriously imagine this woman being president and lets face it McCain is about to drop dead at his age so its pretty likely. There is nothing worse than a man spurting this kind of crap and that is a woman spurting this type of crap. They should know better. So she is concerned about gay marriages? Maybe she should be more concerned about the crap pile in Iraq and Afghanistan or maybe the meltdown of the economy? Maybe its just me but not letting a gay couple get married isn't going to solve any real issue except create more arm waving at church on Sunday's. Shame on politicians trying to get the red neck vote and concentrating on shite like this when the country there in is already in the gutter and its only going to get worse.
Imagine a father coming home and telling his wife and kids that he lost his job and now they need to sell their house which has negative equity and the only option is bankruptcy. Then he chirps up at the end and says, "Don't worry babe! Its going to be all just fine. The government just banned gay marriages!!"
Seriously what a bunch of idiots! I am sure half of the red necks in Palin's town will scream about gay marriages then head out to the farm to screw a pig but hey that is just fine.
gay marriage = bad
teen pregnancy = good
...just checking
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
Wait... wait... wait...
So... you are by nature bi-sexual but you repress your homosexual yearning and choose the life of a heterosexual? And the same applies to incest and beastiality...
You must be pretty wild after a couple of drinks remove your inhibitions!
BTW, Sigmund Freud believed the same thing about humans.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Wait... wait... wait...
So... you are by nature bi-sexual but you repress your homosexual yearning and choose the life of a heterosexual? And the same applies to incest and beastiality...
You must be pretty wild after a couple of drinks remove your inhibitions!
BTW, Sigmund Freud believed the same thing about humans.
I, for one, chose being male. Chose blond hair, blue eyes, and my white skin color. I also choose to be born in the United States in the middle class. It is part of the character generation process I went through before I was born. I spent quite a bit of time experimenting with the sliders for forehead, nose, checks, chin, and mouth.
Geez, just cause some of us hit the "random" button and raced right into the world......
Wait... wait... wait...
So... you are by nature bi-sexual but you repress your homosexual yearning and choose the life of a heterosexual? And the same applies to incest and beastiality...
You must be pretty wild after a couple of drinks remove your inhibitions!
BTW, Sigmund Freud believed the same thing about humans.
I think you have that ass backward.
We enter the world being largely asexual. We understand that being touched in certain places feels REALLY good, but it doesn't go any further than that. It mostly boils down to what makes the biggest impression on us as we reach puberty and the preferences we pick up by the end of that is pretty much what we're stuck with for the rest of our life.
It's kind of like why do some men like large breasts while others are all about a woman's ass? What causes these impressions differs from one person to the next, but the fact that they are acquired tastes, as opposed to a previously existing preference, doesn't change. In the case of something like bestiality or (even worse) pedophilia, I'd assume the impression occurred when desperation met opportunity.
I'm no expert, but I'm willing to guess that most of the extreme fetishes arose from a sense of self deprecation during childhood. <Shrugs> Either way, you pick up kinks, you don't repress latent kinks.
If you would actually read what that person wrote, you would see that you have nothing to fear. You can have your ritual, ceremony, or whatever. The government should not be involved in that, and I don't see anything prohibiting that.
Because their union still ultimately benefits society as representation and encouragement for others to form. That is one of the base explanations.
Hahaha, I'm cutting you off here. I told you that I agree that there should be civil unions where it understands that two people are a pair. I already said that.
Actually the reality is that even less people, gay or straight, stayed monogamous after gay marriage was instituted. Gay marriages were all almost open, and gay pairings have noted that.
Not religious myself, but nice try.___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
Actually gay marriage has had a negative impact in the countries where it was legalized. Furthermore, a gay marriage does not contribute the same things as a heterosexual marriage, it isn't even possible, but tax breaks and et al are identical so long as it is a marriage. I wouldn't be opposed to a civil union for gay people, with benefits and rights, but it shouldn't be under the legal definition of marriage.
This is simply not true. We have had gay marriage in Spain since 2005 and the only impact is that some citizens have the same rights as others for the first time in history. Guess that is what you don't like.
And a gay marriage contributes more, since they have usually no children (no tax cuts) and more money than heterosexual couples. And yes it's under the legal definition of marriage, that's what is all about.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Ultimately, it is hard to imagine a serious country, in crisis, so willingly able and capable to "amend" their own rights to say, "we hate gays."
It is, as we all know, embarrasing to do THAT to any state Constitution.
God Help those people. Just tax 'em. LOL.
“Foul language doesn't take away from a person's point though.”
Use of foul language is an indication of the lack of commanding one's language and mind. Such use of words degrades one's point/cause.
If you loose your cool, you loose the debate.
“He was right.”
Being in the right of this matter is based on one's perception and interpretations; it is subjective. Is being in the right in terms of civil, moral, physical health, or all or some? Neither side is evil with this issue, more of a point of view.
“That sounds more like a rant to me. Or a diversionary tactic.
I looked up defensive shootings and found nothing but a bunch of schools for concealed handgun licenses. I already have one of those. Nearly everyone in Oklahoma where I live does. I'm still not getting your point.
You'd be hard pressed to convince someone on your point that us homosexuals are out attacking straights by pointing them towards concealed handgun license schools.”
I do thank for taking the time of research, but this did prove my point, which I had hoped you would have deducted on your own (one of the best ways to learn).
As you stated:
“You're not going to find them. You can say that it's because of the media or whatever, but I'm sure that some media source somewhere would have picked up on those cases. There are plenty of right wing blogs and online news sources out there on the Internet. So, I challenge you to find only 5 of those cases.”
You challenged me to find sources in regards of homosexuals committing crimes against heterosexuals; stating that I would be hard pressed. What I challenged with was a counter-example to show that even though the difficulty of finding sources can be hard or near impossible, such events do happen.
As with Defensive Shootings, there is at least one a day, but such an event goes unreported in the sources of media. It is not sensational or does not support one's agenda. What does get reported is when crimes are committed with guns. I can apply the same argument against your challenge, with substituting defensive shootings with homosexual related crimes. By the way, a starting point for researching Defensive Shootings is looking over events, with the words, “Castle Defense.”
Unlike racial and gender related crimes, homosexual related crimes are difficult to report as there is no visual identification of a person being a homosexual (profile). It is a mental or genetic state (and before anyone assumes, I did not state abnormal or any other such terms to that effect).
You however did make an attempt, so I'll provide your 5, plus more.
I'll start off with these two quotes:
“As with heterosexual offenses, the cause of death in fatal cases is almost always some form of general trauma, such as strangulation or head injuries. Homosexual activity, however, may be a parallel event; it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.”
- Dr. William Eckert, Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004)
“Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime.”
- Dr. Knight and Dr. Saukko, The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers
Murdered by Homosexuals:
- Mary Stachowicz, 2006, murdered; stabbed, strangled and beaten by Nicholas Gutierrez
- Joe Geeling, 2006, murdered; beaten and stabbed 16 times by Michael Hamer
- Haroon Paryan, 2005, murdered; ran over, not once, but three times by Michael Jackson (not the singer).
- Jeffrey Curley, 2004, choked to death and then molested by Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari
- Jesse Dirkhising, 1999, suffocated to death after being bound, drugged, gagged and sodomized by Davis Don Carpenter and Joshua Macabe Brown
- Shanda Sharer, 1992, beaten, sodomized, and burned to death by Loveless, Tackett and Rippey
Homosexual Serial Killers (US from 1980 to present; murders only, does not include other crimes):
Donald Harvey (37 murders), Jeffrey Dahmer (17 murders), Andrew Cunanan (5 murders), Randy Steven Kraft (~65 murders), Michael Swango (35-60 murders), Wayne Williams (27 murders), Larry Eyler (19 murders), Huang Yong (~17 murders), Henry Lee Lucas (~12 murders), Ottis Toole (~12 murders), David Bullock (6 murders), Michael Terry (6 murders), Arthur Gary Bishop (5 murders), David Edward Maust (~5 murders), David P. Brown (~3 murders)
Aileen Wuornos (Lesbian; ~7 murders), Catherine Wood and Gwen Graham, (6 murders)
Homosexuals are just as capable of murdering and performing vicious and heinous crimes as heterosexuals. I also did not list the crimes committed by homosexuals onto homosexuals, some of which are unfortunately too graphic for these forums.
My mentioning of hatred exist for both sides started off with a report of a Prop 8 Supporter who was assaulted in Modesto, CA. It is unknown if the attacker was a homosexual or homosexual supporter. Which is why I did not list this report, the attacker may have been a homosexual or not one. Either way, it shows (as well as the murders above) that hatred exists on both sides.
“No offense Dracus, but your arguments don't make any sense. It's kind of easy to write you off.
There are some that make arguments that are at least honest and not senseless in their approach. But you seem driven by an agenda more than just making things right.”
No offense taken.
Actually, I have dropped some hints (in this thread and others) of my actual reasoning for the Prop 8 in California; as well as providing some information which could be used against me. I am surprised that the information was not taken into consideration and researched.
My use of religion is not my number one priority point (I never stated my listings were based on priority), but I have used such a principle, because it is what will drive the thread. Anything else would have made it boring, lasting about 2 pages.
Actually my religious viewpoints is not mainstream Christianity. I however support the argument of religion against certain types of personalities (of which is not you), until an understanding is reached (not a complete change of view, mind you), give up, or keep going at it until all points are exhausted.
“Draenor is a good example. He disagrees with me, but I don't think he hates me or tries to make non-sense statements to put me in categories that me or any other gay person don't fit into. We're not out to change anyones life but our own. It's just a fact that if gay marriage were allowed it would have no effect on anyone but gay people. About the only effect it would have would actually end up being positive for you if you sat down and actually read the studies that have been put out and looked at the effect it has had on other countries.”
I don't hate you or anyone else in these forums. Fighting for equality is a noble cause, but it must be done in a manner in which the opinion of the majority can be persuaded. What needs to be discussed is how a working solution can be made in which the majority will support and the lines drawn. For example, if and only if, Same-Sex Marriages were to be allowed and no others, and then minor details worked out, something most likely can be made acceptable. But when broad statements are used, then no; no such agreement can be made.
People do not like change and so a Change Management Process is needed. Sudden changes are bad. Drawn out changes with discussion is the better way.
“We're people who contribute to society just as much as straight people do. We deserve and demand our basic rights as citizens of this country. It's just that the time has come when we are losing our patience with this group that is intent on oppressing us. It's the same patience that was lost by women and blacks in this country and their change came about. Ours will too. We're not just going to sit aside and wait any longer. You all have had your chance, now we're ready to stand up for what we believe is ours.”
Tell you what, this is your moment here to make your case (this is not to come across as mocking by the way). I will not even make counter-statements with you. Tell me (or us) what you want, with details and specifics. I'm not asking for a term or white paper, but something with definition to it (of which I will not nit-pick as it is not a full paper), say to the effect of a short Abstract of a Legal Bill and then we can go from there. I'll even help you with it.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
The belief of people being an intelligent multi-celled animal is a belief system of its own, and in my opinion a bleak way of looking at life.
No one here is going to be able to change one's belief system; however what I do ask is, if willing, to look at things from a different perspective; for example “with an open mind.” Observe how certain events play out, of why certain paths are easy and others are difficult. I'm not asking to “find God,” rather the aspect that if there is good thoughts, good things happen. So is that from, Angles, Karma, Energy, Psionics, Spirits, Animal Guardians, Synchronicity, Metachlorines, or just Coincidences?
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Oh come now, I thought you were better than resorting to stereotyping.
It is just the same as making the stereotype of Liberals only believe in the First Amendment when the speech is to their liking.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
“Foul language doesn't take away from a person's point though.”
Use of foul language is an indication of the lack of commanding one's language and mind. Such use of words degrades one's point/cause.
If you loose your cool, you loose the debate.
“He was right.”
Being in the right of this matter is based on one's perception and interpretations; it is subjective. Is being in the right in terms of civil, moral, physical health, or all or some? Neither side is evil with this issue, more of a point of view.
“That sounds more like a rant to me. Or a diversionary tactic.
I looked up defensive shootings and found nothing but a bunch of schools for concealed handgun licenses. I already have one of those. Nearly everyone in Oklahoma where I live does. I'm still not getting your point.
You'd be hard pressed to convince someone on your point that us homosexuals are out attacking straights by pointing them towards concealed handgun license schools.”
I do thank for taking the time of research, but this did prove my point, which I had hoped you would have deducted on your own (one of the best ways to learn).
As you stated:
“You're not going to find them. You can say that it's because of the media or whatever, but I'm sure that some media source somewhere would have picked up on those cases. There are plenty of right wing blogs and online news sources out there on the Internet. So, I challenge you to find only 5 of those cases.”
You challenged me to find sources in regards of homosexuals committing crimes against heterosexuals; stating that I would be hard pressed. What I challenged with was a counter-example to show that even though the difficulty of finding sources can be hard or near impossible, such events do happen.
As with Defensive Shootings, there is at least one a day, but such an event goes unreported in the sources of media. It is not sensational or does not support one's agenda. What does get reported is when crimes are committed with guns. I can apply the same argument against your challenge, with substituting defensive shootings with homosexual related crimes. By the way, a starting point for researching Defensive Shootings is looking over events, with the words, “Castle Defense.”
Unlike racial and gender related crimes, homosexual related crimes are difficult to report as there is no visual identification of a person being a homosexual (profile). It is a mental or genetic state (and before anyone assumes, I did not state abnormal or any other such terms to that effect).
You however did make an attempt, so I'll provide your 5, plus more.
I'll start off with these two quotes:
“As with heterosexual offenses, the cause of death in fatal cases is almost always some form of general trauma, such as strangulation or head injuries. Homosexual activity, however, may be a parallel event; it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.”
- Dr. William Eckert, Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004)
“Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime.”
- Dr. Knight and Dr. Saukko, The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers
Murdered by Homosexuals:
- Mary Stachowicz, 2006, murdered; stabbed, strangled and beaten by Nicholas Gutierrez
- Joe Geeling, 2006, murdered; beaten and stabbed 16 times by Michael Hamer
- Haroon Paryan, 2005, murdered; ran over, not once, but three times by Michael Jackson (not the singer).
- Jeffrey Curley, 2004, choked to death and then molested by Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari
- Jesse Dirkhising, 1999, suffocated to death after being bound, drugged, gagged and sodomized by Davis Don Carpenter and Joshua Macabe Brown
- Shanda Sharer, 1992, beaten, sodomized, and burned to death by Loveless, Tackett and Rippey
Homosexual Serial Killers (US from 1980 to present; murders only, does not include other crimes):
Donald Harvey (37 murders), Jeffrey Dahmer (17 murders), Andrew Cunanan (5 murders), Randy Steven Kraft (~65 murders), Michael Swango (35-60 murders), Wayne Williams (27 murders), Larry Eyler (19 murders), Huang Yong (~17 murders), Henry Lee Lucas (~12 murders), Ottis Toole (~12 murders), David Bullock (6 murders), Michael Terry (6 murders), Arthur Gary Bishop (5 murders), David Edward Maust (~5 murders), David P. Brown (~3 murders)
Aileen Wuornos (Lesbian; ~7 murders), Catherine Wood and Gwen Graham, (6 murders)
Homosexuals are just as capable of murdering and performing vicious and heinous crimes as heterosexuals. I also did not list the crimes committed by homosexuals onto homosexuals, some of which are unfortunately too graphic for these forums.
My mentioning of hatred exist for both sides started off with a report of a Prop 8 Supporter who was assaulted in Modesto, CA. It is unknown if the attacker was a homosexual or homosexual supporter. Which is why I did not list this report, the attacker may have been a homosexual or not one. Either way, it shows (as well as the murders above) that hatred exists on both sides.
“No offense Dracus, but your arguments don't make any sense. It's kind of easy to write you off.
There are some that make arguments that are at least honest and not senseless in their approach. But you seem driven by an agenda more than just making things right.”
No offense taken.
Actually, I have dropped some hints (in this thread and others) of my actual reasoning for the Prop 8 in California; as well as providing some information which could be used against me. I am surprised that the information was not taken into consideration and researched.
My use of religion is not my number one priority point (I never stated my listings were based on priority), but I have used such a principle, because it is what will drive the thread. Anything else would have made it boring, lasting about 2 pages.
Actually my religious viewpoints is not mainstream Christianity. I however support the argument of religion against certain types of personalities (of which is not you), until an understanding is reached (not a complete change of view, mind you), give up, or keep going at it until all points are exhausted.
“Draenor is a good example. He disagrees with me, but I don't think he hates me or tries to make non-sense statements to put me in categories that me or any other gay person don't fit into. We're not out to change anyones life but our own. It's just a fact that if gay marriage were allowed it would have no effect on anyone but gay people. About the only effect it would have would actually end up being positive for you if you sat down and actually read the studies that have been put out and looked at the effect it has had on other countries.”
I don't hate you or anyone else in these forums. Fighting for equality is a noble cause, but it must be done in a manner in which the opinion of the majority can be persuaded. What needs to be discussed is how a working solution can be made in which the majority will support and the lines drawn. For example, if and only if, Same-Sex Marriages were to be allowed and no others, and then minor details worked out, something most likely can be made acceptable. But when broad statements are used, then no; no such agreement can be made.
People do not like change and so a Change Management Process is needed. Sudden changes are bad. Drawn out changes with discussion is the better way.
“We're people who contribute to society just as much as straight people do. We deserve and demand our basic rights as citizens of this country. It's just that the time has come when we are losing our patience with this group that is intent on oppressing us. It's the same patience that was lost by women and blacks in this country and their change came about. Ours will too. We're not just going to sit aside and wait any longer. You all have had your chance, now we're ready to stand up for what we believe is ours.”
Tell you what, this is your moment here to make your case (this is not to come across as mocking by the way). I will not even make counter-statements with you. Tell me (or us) what you want, with details and specifics. I'm not asking for a term or white paper, but something with definition to it (of which I will not nit-pick as it is not a full paper), say to the effect of a short Abstract of a Legal Bill and then we can go from there. I'll even help you with it.
It's really hard to reply to your statements when you put your comments in between peoples. I would love to make a reply to you, but I'm afraid it would turn out looking like like a battle scene of colors to put WoW graphics to shame.
In regards to your violent homosexuals statements, I never said that there aren't some criminally minded homosexuals out there. That is a mindset that shows no boundaries, especially when you are dealing with mentally insane types like serial killers. My original challenge was this...
Show me 5 articles of gay on straight violence. Go ahead, find me 5 articles anywhere in history where there was a case of violence categorized as "straight bashing" that is equivelant to the violence we gays are careful and cautious of everywhere we go.
Listing a serial killer is not "straight bashing". I'm talking about cases like where you hear of beatings that happen to gay people where while all the punching and kicking is going on there are statements made by the aggressors that clearly show their intent was to hurt someone who is gay.
I am gay and I have run around with gay groups for a long time. I would be honest with you if this were not the case, but I have honestly NEVER been with a group of any types of gay people and had the proposition come up to go beat up some straight person just for being straight. Sorry, we just do not sit around and do that kind of crap. And I know that everyone who is also being honest would agree that they know this is the case.
Maybe it's just our genetically different brains. Maybe it's just the fact that we have been put down and beat up so much that we don't want to be a part of that crud. Who knows what it is, but we just don't go out "straight bashing" on the weekends to get rid of some breeder.
--------------------------------------
The belief of people being an intelligent multi-celled animal is a belief system of its own, and in my opinion a bleak way of looking at life.
No one here is going to be able to change one's belief system; however what I do ask is, if willing, to look at things from a different perspective; for example “with an open mind.” Observe how certain events play out, of why certain paths are easy and others are difficult. I'm not asking to “find God,” rather the aspect that if there is good thoughts, good things happen. So is that from, Angles, Karma, Energy, Psionics, Spirits, Animal Guardians, Synchronicity, Metachlorines, or just Coincidences?
So humans aren't intelligent? Humans are composed of only a single cell? We don't have any place on the phylogenetic tree?
Statements like this are the reason I have a hard time taking you seriously. There is a difference between belief and knowledge of facts.
Yes, the idea that you have only one life and no one to forgive you for the wrongs you do to others is a bleak outlook. It helps you understand how precious and valuable the little time you have really is.
The belief of people being an intelligent multi-celled animal is a belief system of its own, and in my opinion a bleak way of looking at life.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is.
What you have stated is a fact. We are intelligent primates, and as all animals, we consist of cells. (Plants and micro-organisms cosist of that too...) That is a fact, and not a belief.
To believe is the same as to choose something while still not being entirely sure, you know, to believe.
I believe.... I think... Means the same.
You can't deny fact.
You're wrong! Haha.
(Okay, that wasn't neccesary.)
So half of your sentence is rubbish.
The other half ain't.
You might believe it to be something, again, THAT IS a personal, subjective thing, it ain't a fact that it's a bleak way of looking at life.
You can believe in hell and damnation and heaven and salvation and karma and reborns and whatever else. That's believing.
You can believe that you ARE a animal with intelligence, but was created thus, and thus you've got a soul and you will live forever due to that.
You can't however believe that you don't consist of cells, and that you ain't an intelligent primate, since that would be denial of facts.
You can believe what happened to make you an animal such as that, or what will happen when you die.
Oh, by the way, I guess you believe looking at milk as something to drink is a very dread way of looking at milk.
And just quote it and answer it part for part, don't bother with that inside thingie.
Roger that.
Ok, going with say, Hate Crimes committed by Homosexuals against Heterosexuals. This is indeed very difficult to find (in a short amount of time) due to that there is no physical character traits (profile) of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. In addition the suspect or criminal would need to state that he/she is a homosexual. For example, with the attack in Modesto, CA; there is no news yet as to who the attacker was, a homosexual or a homosexual supporter.
However, when reviewing the Hate Crimes by the FBI, the following can be provided (the 2007 study is not available yet, so the 2006 will be used):
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/index.html
In 2006, there were 9,652 victims of Hate Crimes
Only 15.3% were related to Sexual Orientation (1,472 victims)
While the majority of the victims of these Hate Crimes were of homosexual bias (not specific as to the victim being a homosexual or a supporter of homosexuality); there were 29 heterosexual victims (but with 28 offenses); of those, 50% were against the person and the other 50% against property.
Unfortunately the data presented does not specify if the offenders were homosexuals, or heterosexuals supporting homosexuals; it does not even list offenders by gender (just race).
So would that qualify for the 5 in terms of Hate Crimes; showing that such incidents have occurred; unfortunately the data does no specify offenders by Sexual Orientation; perhaps the 2007 report will.
I know the serial killer listings was not part of the 5, that was something to toss in. Which in truth surprised me when I came across them (made some follow-up checks).
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Fine, you want logic and facts; here you go, I'll let your fingers choke on it.
US Supreme Court, 7th Circuit (KAUFMAN v. MCCAUGHTRY):
"Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though
it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. As he explained in his application, the group wanted to
study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective."
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Fine, you want logic and facts; here you go, I'll let your fingers choke on it.
US Supreme Court, 7th Circuit (KAUFMAN v. MCCAUGHTRY):
"Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though
it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. As he explained in his application, the group wanted to
study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective."
I will quote from this decision. Everyone here must judge for themselves if this man has decided to lie about what the court said and misrepresent them. Hint: He didn't link to the full text. I did.
www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/HY0VVO0R.pdf
But whether atheism is a “religion”
for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different
question than whether its adherents believe in a
supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or
have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a
religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct
from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by
philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns.
[...]
Without venturing too far into the realm of the
philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a
person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate
concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that
filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those
beliefs represent her religion. ... We have already indicated that
atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a
religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934
(7th Cir. 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position
on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).
Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role
in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs
are deeply and sincerely held.
In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of
Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the
First Amendment mandates government neutrality between
religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
Did he lie about the court's position? Read it and judge for yourselves. Hint: Yes.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Well so much for playing nice, short lived it was. Very well.
Where did I lie?
Atheism is considered a religion in the legal sense, that is a fact. To say otherwise, involves "nonfactual" or "illogical" reasoning. To prove a soul exist is not possible in scientific terms, and therefore not a fact or by cold logic; but yet there are people who believe in it, and for some experienced it. Atheism is a belief system and has the same legal right as other forms of religions. A belief system is the political correctness version of religion.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Well so much for playing nice, short lived it was. Very well.
Where did I lie?
Atheism is considered a religion in the legal sense, that is a fact. To say otherwise, involves "nonfactual" or "illogical" reasoning. To prove a soul exist is not possible in scientific terms, and therefore not a fact or by cold logic; but yet there are people who believe in it, and for some experienced it. Atheism is a belief system and has the same legal right as other forms of religions. A belief system is the political correctness version of religion.
Atheism is not a belief system.
Okay, I'll first start of with the politicalness of having atheism as a religion. (If I state something as wrong, please remember that laws differ from place to place and that I haven't studied them at all, I'm just using logic.)
Since people are "monitored" (couldn't find a better word) and has their information written down in official papers, and one of theese thingies is which religion you has, it might be stated 'atheism' in such a paper.
Thus atheism just count as a group to categorize people under, people who has no beliefs.
Now I'll go onto proving that atheism ain't a belief. (If you've got no logical sense, don't botter reading.)
My first proof will be derived from the word 'atheism' itself. As in asocial, it's absence of something. Asocial, is absence of sociality (for various reasons, you might just be bored.)
Thus atheism is absence of theism, and theism is belief. Is not believing a belief? Nay, 'cause that'd be self-contradictory.( Might have misspelt that.)
If you've had a glass of lemonade ( I love lemonade ^^) and you've drunk all the lemonade (as I would) and you had somehow managed to drink absolutely all of it, would you have a glass of lemonade? No.
You would have had a glass, and you might imagine the glass as the human and the lemonade as a religion. That'd make (GASP!) a human, without a religion (also known as a non-believer, atheist or, to some people, a heretic .)
~Conclusion derived from this is that: Atheism ain't a religion. However, you could say that not all words make sense, and thus this means nothing on it's own.
Okay, for this next thing, I'll use an example. The example will be known as person A (that was a shock, wasn't it?)
person A don't believe in flying dragons with three heads. Does that make person A believe in flying dragons with three heads? No.
Does that make person A believe in a 'no flying dragons with three heads' religion? No.
It simply makes person A not believe in flying dragons with three heads. Just as with atheism. Only that most religions doesn't cover flying dragons with three heads. It's an example!
Now we'll go on to cover some differences between some religions and atheism (and don't ye say that not all religions are like this or that, if you can't cover 'em al and write a book about each religion. I'm fully aware of buddhism without gods, and other minor religions which may differ strongly from what stated here.)
Does a religion have belief in gods or other supernatural beings? Yes |||Does atheism have belief in gods or other supernatural beings? No
Does a religion have prayers? Yes ||| Does atheism have prayers? No
Churches, temples, holy buildings? Yes||| No
Holy books and such? Yes||| No
Priests / religious leaders?Yes||| No
Miracles? Yes||| No
Afterlife
Holy wars
Heaven / Hell
Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc. etc.)
Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue)
Belief despite conflicting evidence
Supernatural origins of universe and / or humans
Murderous fundamentalist extremists
Annoying street / doorstep preachers
The soul
Regular ceremonies / acts of worship
Sin
Blasphemy
We are God's chosen people
This would have been able to put into a similar pattern, but I couldn't be bothered.
(Heres the link to the site from which the above was taken, though it contains some flaws, it's quite good:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html )
Does that make atheism a sorta anti religion? No. Then you'd need anti-prayers and anti-all kinda stuff.
(And anti-prayer is kinda fun to imagine. )
The lack of something get's the value to 0 (If that's understandeable.)
The lack of faith doesn't get the value down to negative, it's a lack, not an opposive!
(Oh, and I read some kinda stupid thing about atheism denying god, while they in their heart knew him to be true. I couldn't help but to laugh.)
And now I have proved atheism to not be a religion, trough reason and logic.
You'd need actual proof of the opposite, and not just a short sentence about how it is recorded down if you are to prove the opposite.
I can't await your atempt.
(Oh, and by the way, flying dragons with three heads would have been really cool xD)
Where did I lie?
Atheism is considered a religion in the legal sense, that is a fact. To say otherwise, involves "nonfactual" or "illogical" reasoning. To prove a soul exist is not possible in scientific terms, and therefore not a fact or by cold logic; but yet there are people who believe in it, and for some experienced it. Atheism is a belief system and has the same legal right as other forms of religions. A belief system is the political correctness version of religion.
I believe you're right about atheism being a religion, after all atheists believe there is no supreme being but that in itself is a belief and such a "religion", but its not a system. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in such a figure.
I would consider myself atheist (I believe life is more important then and such "afterlife" and that God is just our attempt to comfort ourselves about death.).
And to turn away from straying straight into religion, I think a Federal ban on gay marriage is just unconstitutional, people should have the right to marry whoever they want; disallowing it just because of a religion is a direct violation of separation of church and state created by the founder fathers. lulz
Well so much for playing nice, short lived it was. Very well.
Where did I lie?
Atheism is considered a religion in the legal sense, that is a fact. To say otherwise, involves "nonfactual" or "illogical" reasoning. To prove a soul exist is not possible in scientific terms, and therefore not a fact or by cold logic; but yet there are people who believe in it, and for some experienced it. Atheism is a belief system and has the same legal right as other forms of religions. A belief system is the political correctness version of religion.
I believe you're right about atheism being a religion, after all atheists believe there is no supreme being but that in itself is a belief and such a "religion", but its not a system. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in such a figure.
I would consider myself atheist (I believe life is more important then and such "afterlife" and that God is just our attempt to comfort ourselves about death.).
And to turn away from straying straight into religion, I think a Federal ban on gay marriage is just unconstitutional, people should have the right to marry whoever they want; disallowing it just because of a religion is a direct violation of separation of church and state created by the founder fathers. lulz
Saying that its a religion because its a belief is a strange argument. Nearly every healthy thinking person also believes in gravity, is this also a religion, because all these people share the same belief? Ofcourse not.
"Theism" in itself isn't a religion either. Not every Theist is religious (although the vast majority of them are and you'll probably never meet a non - religious theist). A mistake many people make is to think that religion has everything to do with a deity (God), but that belief in a god is not what makes a religion a religion.
And that is a good way of putting it.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.