The CIC OT Zone's Official You're All Huge Idiots Religion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Napoleon said:
Preacher and Vindicator, your positions in respect to homosexuals, especially about allowing them to adopt children, makes me ASHAMED to be a human
If it makes you feel any better, Napoleon, we're ashamed to HAVE you as a human as well...
;)

(sorry, I couldn't resist; you left yerself wide-open for that one):

Major Burns:
"I don't have to take this abuse!"

Hawkeye:
"Frank, you invite abuse; it would be rude to refuse it..."
 

vindicator

Rear Admiral
I came upon an intresting tidbit

I think I will be straight because if I join the mormon faith and have 11 kids I can have my own planet that's so awesomer

Honey get on the bed we got work to do

-Rance-
 

Ripper

Peace Through Superior Firepower
Bandit LOAF said:
I don't know -- there are a lot of starving children in the world... if a gay couple wants to feed and clothe them, isn't that better than letting them die?

It's what the two guys want to feed the little boy that I have a problem with. :(
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
vindicator said:
...because if I join the mormon faith and have 11 kids I can have my own planet that's so awesomer...
Indeed. :rolleyes:

Are you sure it's not 12?... 12 is a more...standard sort of number. Mebbe it was a typo.

Ripper said:
It's what the two guys want to feed the little boy that I have a problem with.
Eeeeeeeewwwww!.....
Allright everybody BACK off! I'm gonna hurl!...:CLEAR!:

BLORG!

::shudders::
 

vindicator

Rear Admiral
Ripper you are an ass

I used to think preacher was but no you are
and first of all being a homosexual doesn't make you attracted to children I would apreciate if you wouldn't post such an idiotic statment and would summarly kill yourself upon reading this post and rid us of your prejudice and stupidity

-Rance-

PS. the mormon thing might be 12 my point is if I am going to be straight and suffer I might as well be rewarded for it
 

Bob McDob

Better Health Through Less Flavor
I said I needed a time-out from this thread. And ... I was right! But I'm back now :)

-- You've yet to prove that the French are a "race" :D
Well, they aren't technically French, they're Celts, I think. You're also ignoring the general acceptance of the term "racist"; it's dismissing someone solely on the basis of their ethnicity - which you did, by arguing that my example was somehow irrelevent because the people in question were supposdely French, and then providing no backup to support this.

Furthermore, the French Foreign Legion is not French; they're made up entirely of non-Frenchmen. It's why it's called the French *Foreign* Legion. (They also have a pretty good combat record, as I recall).

-- Well, so long as yer not trying to say that there aren't SOME (heck, prolly MOST) folks that are "100%" one way or the other, as I know I am...
That's ... almost exactly what I've been arguing for the last three posts :p

-- So?... your original statement was "...I don't believe that legalizing an institution is necessarily a step to promoting it". Them examples I gave said otherwise: Once the thing was legalized, the instance of people using/utilizing it increased. Hence, legalization DID serve to "promote" the thing in question.
Let me put it another way: do you honestly believe that "100% straight" men will try to become gay just so they can be married to a man?.

-- On that point, you ain't successfully pointed out or exhibited squat. I'd be interested in seeing you try, though. The fact is, if you do a survey of all the great world Empires of the past (those from which we have sufficient information extant, that is), you'll see that more often than not, their downfall came as a result of corruption from within, rather than a superior enemy from without. And said corruption could be traced back, in large part, to the breakdown of the family unit and the resulting breakdown of morality of that culture.
I was too lazy to research this myself, so I got some help. That means I'll be replying to your quote with ... another quote! Hurrah! With more coming soon! Probably!

Now, on Rome (I assume you're referring to Rome because everyone knows Rome and there's all that stuff about Rome in the Bible and it's only one syllable long):

Hell, just read Toynbee. Rome didn't collapse because of problems relating to homosexuality. It collapsed because it was a militaristic society that got too big for its britches, and because the Roman central authority depopulated the provinces through taxation. See, Italy was exempt from taxes, so all the funds for running the empire had to come from the conquered territories. When Rome hit its boundaries and couldn't expand anymore, it was unable to loot these conquests for cash, which put a big crimp on an Empire based on paying soldiers to fight. Couple that with the Volkwanderung creating a huge amount of pressure on the borders, the only source of income came from taxing the provinces into oblivion. Eventually, when the Imperial government couldn't pay the legions any more, they would go around on their own extorting money from towns and villages.

Finally, people just left the cities because then they could avoid the tax collectors, as it's hard to track people down in a sparsely-populated countryside. Disintegration proceeded from there.

The oft-claimed "moral collapse" of the Roman Empire is just silly. People who say this are just repeating nonsense they've heard passed down from ignorant moralist to ignorant moralist. Hey, since the Empire converted to Christianity more than a hundred years before the West collapsed, what would such a theory say about Christian morality?

What's ironic is that Rome was far more moral in a Christian sense during its final decline than at any other time. Its most libertine period was the early time of its greatest glory. If it had any impact at all, Christianity actually hurt Rome by destroying families, because many noblemen decided to enter monasteries instead of making heirs, so many great houses went extinct. There is even a story about a young noblewoman who was Christian and decided to remain celibate. She had a hard time convincing her young husband, but when their only child was stillborn, he converted. They spent the rest of their days living as siblings and giving away all their inherited wealth to build monasteries and feed the poor (the story is also a testament to the incredible wealth enjoyed by the small upperclass in Rome).
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Bob McDob said:
...Well, they aren't technically French, they're Celts, I think. You're also ignoring the general acceptance of the term "racist"; it's dismissing ....French Foreign Legion is not French; they're made up entirely of non-Frenchmen. It's why it's called the French *Foreign* Legion. (yadda yadda yadda...)
::snickers & guffaws up his sleeve::

...Wow, that's a lot of verbiage to spew (and over 3 or 4 posts now), when all you had to do was check your sarcasmometer back before this trip got on the road...

Silly Bob... :p
 
i agree with vin, though i see nothing wrong with homosexuals loving each other or being with each other thast there choice if they were born that way there really is no other choice.

but to bring a child into a family, no matter how loving, that are of both same sex or in a same sex relationship more so, is morally wrong, fine i agree alot of children are sick and dying in the world and that is also wrong........but as much as i accept and welcome homosexcuals to express there rights i do not belive they are the type of parents a child should have.

more to the fact that not only does the kid have a massive chance of becomeing homosexual himself but the ridicule and hate that the child will suffer in the world would be horrendouse....these ppl were NOT MENT TO HAVE KIDS biologically or psyically they have no right to do so. so i say love each other thats fine, but if u want a kid do it the way nature intended not the UNATURAL morally wrong way
 

Hobbie

Spaceman
Lord_Nathrakh said:
more to the fact that not only does the kid have a massive chance of becomeing homosexual himself but the ridicule and hate that the child will suffer in the world would be horrendouse
Think before you speak, we have established that you are born with your sexual preference (IT HAS BEEN PROVEN), so it really doesn't matter whether a child has gay parents or not. And according to you, if that child endures much hardship, I would imagine that would influence them to be LESS gay. To be honest, I think you are just making shit up in order to have an opinion on the subject, when in reality all you know is what you have heard on the playground.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Hobbie said:
...Think before you speak, we have established that you are born with your sexual preference (IT HAS BEEN PROVEN), so it really doesn't matter whether a child has gay parents or not.
...I think you are just making shit up...when in reality all you know is what you have heard on the playground.
-- Really? When? Where?... I don't recall reading any blaring headlines or seeing any newsflashes on TV that ANY genetic evidence has been "PROVEN" that gays are *born* that way... That infamous study that came out a few years back that purported to have ID'd a "gay gene" was later disproved... Wake up & smell the coffee, bub.

::SNIKT!::
::bitchslaps Hobbie into the 21st Century::

All "we" have *established* is that there are two schools of thought on the issue. And, as vin (a gay guy, no less) has himself opined, it DOES make a difference whether or not one's parents are gay.

-- Given the above, it seems that YOU, sir, are the one that is "making shit up".... and I must say, it is a particularly malodorous pile of feces indeed. Obviously there's someone ELSE here that needs to think B4 they speak... :rolleyes:
 
lol thanks preacher i couldnt have said it better.....the simple fact is a child may well be gay.....but there are alot of men who CHOOSE to be gay such as bi-sexual males who have both male and female partners, what happesn if they want a child with the male partner......it is wrong legally morally and phsically.....they should not be having kids when they can not biologicly do it.

your a fool hobbie your own oppion is more repressed and narrow minded then most but u dont hear me complaing that your an idiot cause i dont agree with u....think befor u type.

alot of men turn gay simply because they can, they have no right to have children after that happens nor do any1 thats born gay for that matter its a harsh lesson but a valid 1.....children are ment to learn that marrage and sex are for a man and woman who love each other very much not a man and a man.....to belive this has no moral grounding on the kids upbringing it to belive facist narrow minded dribble.

i have nothing against gays i have a few gay freinds matter of factly but they also know that being born without a womb does not entitle them to have a child u cannot have a male-male baby it isnt possible and to have 1 without doing anything to get it especially for ppl who can physically have 1 is obcene....

the fact is the torment would be horrible amplifie being a nerd or a person who wants to make somthing with his life by 300 and u still have no way near the torment or beatings or humiliations that kid will have for having male-male parents....i can hear it now.... "what do your parents do for work jimmy?" "well my daddy works in an office, and my other dady trades stocks" hmmm insert laughter and there u have it the start of a horrid life
 

vindicator

Rear Admiral
yeah

I'm scared why is it though that when refering to homosexuals you guys always say he or him or little boy that's really kind of sexist you know stupid rosie odonnel and her 40 children

-Rance-
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
The heat is rising in here, which is my cue to drop liquid nitrogen on this thread.

This thread is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top