Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Man's best friend
Ghost Drebin:
--- Quote from: MUHFUKKA on February 04, 2014, 02:35:01 PM ---this is one of the weirdest threads i have ever read. i dont think ill ever look at a dog the same :-*
--- End quote ---
Or tight pussy. I'm scarred for life.
Sccit:
ANY NORMAL MAN WOULD PREFER TO WATCH A DOG FUCK TIGHT PUSSY OVER A GAY PORNO....I HOPE
virtuoso:
Bananas the elite have always realised that belief in a higher power was going to be problematic if they were to ascend to god's, therefore with regards to your quip, I would suggest that you need only look at the fact that there is clear and present religious persecution going on, a demonising of believing in god so that they can pollute and pervert society to point to the fact that REGARDLESS of what you do or don't believe, the moral fabric has been largely held together by a belief in something greater than the power of the state and as for this libertarian bullshit, yes, in an ideal world we would have that, but the reality is that to ensure that new serenity would stay in place, local communities would insist that a council be elected to look after them and before you know it, you have local government all over again, and then the tentacles once again reach out.
Fraxxx:
Props for the detailed post!
--- Quote from: Aladin on January 31, 2014, 04:09:36 AM ---@ Fraxxx
LOL, this thread has got a little off track.
Forget Dogs or animals.
First we have to differentiate between, Promoting and accepting Gay as the norm.
And what people do in the privacy of their home.
As I stated before, what people do in the privacy of their home is their choice (although it is a sin.)
We don't have the right to invade people's privacy.
The public... like any public is regultated by law.
We discuss the public aspect.
--- End quote ---
The problem with 'sin' is, that hardly two people could agree on what is sin and what's not entirely. Homosexuality, yes they agree, alcohol, they disagree. Or they agree on both but disagree on something else. Cause everyone's personal belief differs from the next man's. You get what I'm aiming at. Religious beliefs are is simply too subjective to be used as an argument. No matter what you would use it for or against in a discussion, there will always be another genuinly religious person who believes otherwise.
--- Quote ---
Our religious point of view is in accordance with the natural moral norm:
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, based on love and mutual understanding and made in order to give birth to children.
--- End quote ---
I'd strongly disagree. First off, 'the norm' is everything with a majority. A variation of anything obviously isn't automatically wrong. That would include A LOT more than homosexual behaviour. So you can't simply state what's the norm in a certain regard like it would take away the validity of varying behaviour/preferences by default.
As for your second point. Marriage ain't an invention of the monotheistic religions. I, personally, would agree on the "based on love and mutual understanding" part. Should be that way IMO. Others would disagree. There are countless marriages exactly NOT based on that. For example, to this day Islam has a strong tradition of marrying women against their will. Do you think those marriages are all not justified? I don't need to know what your answer to that is. Whatever your own perspective on the topic might be, it's just supposed to demonstrate that it's not as simple as claiming what marriage is. Mind you, solely in your personal opinion.
That would also mean that every marriage without kids were a very questionable liason.
Now, I don't see why your claim what marriage is, would hold any more weight in that last aspect, "between a man and a woman", when it costs no real effort to demonstrate that, in reality, neither of the other two is a real precondition.
--- Quote ---And it is natural law. Don't get it twisted.
My family had roosters and chickens. It is a shame that we lost touch with nature.
Now it is interesting to see the rooster behaviour.
The Boss-Rooster has his own chickens.
And the other roosters are forbidden to come close to them.
They get to choose between the left-over chickens.
Now there was a case that there was rooster who had different behaviour. He could not tell the difference between rooster and chickens.
And now this is the interesting part.
You know what all the other roosters did... they picked him to death....
I am not saying that we need to do the same and start picking men to death. We got baseball bats for that... (<-- It is a joke!!)
--- End quote ---
LOL "What you got against gays?" "Baseball bats!"
Seriously, there is so much observable homosexual behaviour in so many other species, YOU PEOPLE ;) can't go and simply ignore that fact over and over again. Just for example, all the other great apes engage in homosexual activity, as well. So there goes your "natural law" claim. There even might be an evolutional purpose, I'll save that for the next part.
As for the roosters, sorry but that's your interpretation of what happened there. Here's mine (in no way I claim that's how it went down but you can't just watch chicken do chicken stuff and then conclude what is acceptable or right for everyone that is not a chicken): Chicken live in a society defined by pecking order. Let's say that one rooster was really bisexual. Every attempt to engage with another rooster in a sexual fashion must have seemed like an attempt to dominate the other rooster. That one reacted as if challenged for its position in chicken hierarchy and all the other lower-ranked roosters joined in.
You know what that meant IF you were right? That chicken society is designed in a way that leaves no room for that kind of behaviour. But like I mentioned before, there are many, many other species that show different behaviour towards homosexual advances.
I'll definitely adress your other points later, gotta go now.
Sccit:
--- Quote from: Fraxxx on February 05, 2014, 12:55:28 PM ---Props for the detailed post!
--- Quote from: Aladin on January 31, 2014, 04:09:36 AM ---@ Fraxxx
LOL, this thread has got a little off track.
Forget Dogs or animals.
First we have to differentiate between, Promoting and accepting Gay as the norm.
And what people do in the privacy of their home.
As I stated before, what people do in the privacy of their home is their choice (although it is a sin.)
We don't have the right to invade people's privacy.
The public... like any public is regultated by law.
We discuss the public aspect.
--- End quote ---
The problem with 'sin' is, that hardly two people could agree on what is sin and what's not entirely. Homosexuality, yes they agree, alcohol, they disagree. Or they agree on both but disagree on something else. Cause everyone's personal belief differs from the next man's. You get what I'm aiming at. Religious beliefs are is simply too subjective to be used as an argument. No matter what you would use it for or against in a discussion, there will always be another genuinly religious person who believes otherwise.
--- Quote ---
Our religious point of view is in accordance with the natural moral norm:
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, based on love and mutual understanding and made in order to give birth to children.
--- End quote ---
I'd strongly disagree. First off, 'the norm' is everything with a majority. A variation of anything obviously isn't automatically wrong. That would include A LOT more than homosexual behaviour. So you can't simply state what's the norm in a certain regard like it would take away the validity of varying behaviour/preferences by default.
As for your second point. Marriage ain't an invention of the monotheistic religions. I, personally, would agree on the "based on love and mutual understanding" part. Should be that way IMO. Others would disagree. There are countless marriages exactly NOT based on that. For example, to this day Islam has a strong tradition of marrying women against their will. Do you think those marriages are all not justified? I don't need to know what your answer to that is. Whatever your own perspective on the topic might be, it's just supposed to demonstrate that it's not as simple as claiming what marriage is. Mind you, solely in your personal opinion.
That would also mean that every marriage without kids were a very questionable liason.
Now, I don't see why your claim what marriage is, would hold any more weight in that last aspect, "between a man and a woman", when it costs no real effort to demonstrate that, in reality, neither of the other two is a real precondition.
--- Quote ---And it is natural law. Don't get it twisted.
My family had roosters and chickens. It is a shame that we lost touch with nature.
Now it is interesting to see the rooster behaviour.
The Boss-Rooster has his own chickens.
And the other roosters are forbidden to come close to them.
They get to choose between the left-over chickens.
Now there was a case that there was rooster who had different behaviour. He could not tell the difference between rooster and chickens.
And now this is the interesting part.
You know what all the other roosters did... they picked him to death....
I am not saying that we need to do the same and start picking men to death. We got baseball bats for that... (<-- It is a joke!!)
--- End quote ---
LOL "What you got against gays?" "Baseball bats!"
Seriously, there is so much observable homosexual behaviour in so many other species, YOU PEOPLE ;) can't go and simply ignore that fact over and over again. Just for example, all the other great apes engage in homosexual activity, as well. So there goes your "natural law" claim. There even might be an evolutional purpose, I'll save that for the next part.
As for the roosters, sorry but that's your interpretation of what happened there. Here's mine (in no way I claim that's how it went down but you can't just watch chicken do chicken stuff and then conclude what is acceptable or right for everyone that is not a chicken): Chicken live in a society defined by pecking order. Let's say that one rooster was really bisexual. Every attempt to engage with another rooster in a sexual fashion must have seemed like an attempt to dominate the other rooster. That one reacted as if challenged for its position in chicken hierarchy and all the other lower-ranked roosters joined in.
You know what that meant IF you were right? That chicken society is designed in a way that leaves no room for that kind of behaviour. But like I mentioned before, there are many, many other species that show different behaviour towards homosexual advances.
I'll definitely adress your other points later, gotta go now.
--- End quote ---
great apes also engage in incest and pedophilia
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version