| Zelda Moderated Message: |
| Ok guys, we can all agree the Pig took it too far ok. But I am going to have to start deleting these posts now since it is technically against the rules. Just PM him this please. Same goes for replying to this criticism Pig, do it via PM. |
Good morning sweet princess
@Zelda
or could you move those last posts to the other thread called "Argument over what discussion should look like" ? I think it's pretty much on-topic there ^^
or could you move those last posts to the other thread called "Argument over what discussion should look like" ? I think it's pretty much on-topic there ^^
I think they are more relevant to this thread TBH. Since I feel like this level of ambiguity and commitment to pedantry isn't the norm for pig, or for any style of discussion, it is a specific and extreme example which does not define the discussion style.
In case I was unclear, I meant that I would delete future posts like that here, not the pre-existing ones. I feel like some leeway should always be given with such things.
In case I was unclear, I meant that I would delete future posts like that here, not the pre-existing ones. I feel like some leeway should always be given with such things.
Good morning sweet princess
Hoo boy, not getting on this site for 24 hours really makes you miss a bunch of content. ImmortalPig seems to be arguing something entirely different than all of the reasonable people in here. He says that 50 years ago, everyone had the same marriage rights. His proof of this is that Salvador Dali, a gay man, got married to two different women. He seems to think that "equal marriage rights" means that gay men can marry women just the same as straight men. I'm not sure if he is arguing this point out of stupidity, trolling, or a simple misunderstanding of the argument at hand. That said, I will ignore those parts of his argument, and he can reply later explaining his exact thought process behind why he thinks that homosexuals had the exact same rights as heterosexuals 50+ years ago. Duck already caught it and people got mad, Pig feels like he won because he trolled like three people. Moving on.
Pig, do not think that I have forgotten that you did not answer my question about the constitution.
I expect an answer.
That is just the ruling that states are required to distribute marriage licenses to same-sex couples and each judge's opinion on the ruling. I asked for the ruling that says Kim Davis is protected by the first amendment and allowed to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Sure it's always been majority Christian. But you seem to misunderstand what is meant by the phrase "Christian Nation". It means that the laws are tied to Christianity, and that there is no separation between the church and state. It would not be a conflict of interest to be a Cardinal and a judge. There would be a state religion. The government would be controlled by the church. Since none of these statements apply to US, you can agree that while the US is predominantly Christian, the nation itself is not. As for "In God We Trust", this is a trivial argument. The phrase is an expression of patriotism, it's not pushing any agenda on the population and is not coercive, and it doesn't elevate any religion above another.
This is linked to the answer I expect to get, so this will be put on hold until you answer that.
Avoiding my point, I see. How about you actually answer me instead of questioning my choice of words, hmm?
The right to marry someone of the same sex. For reference, here is a map of people that were allowed to marry someone of the same sex in 1950
And here is a map of the countries that allowed same-sex marriage in 1970
And finally, 2001
Sure, people can think whatever they want. But their freedom of expression ends at the tip of their nose. They cannot impose their beliefs onto others just because they disagree. And for the record, doing a public speech on the street is not imposing beliefs. Anyone who is annoyed or disagrees with the speaker can avoid him.
I'd like some examples please. And "A Christian sees a gay couple holding hands at the grocery store and she is offended" is not an example.
Tip of your nose. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not invalidate marriage for religious people.
So your argument is that allowing gay marriage isn't a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either, so there's no reason for it to exist. I guess the same could be said about you. And Twinkies.
It's official. Pig doesn't care about the feelings of homosexuals. And his stab at liberals tells us what party he's likely to vote for in the upcoming election.
Can you make that list for us? I just want to see what your top 1k are.
Religion hasn't exactly benefitted society for quite a while either. At one point, religion was the driving force in innovation and progression of society. But now it is a hindrance and attempts to create stagnation. By your logic, the first thing on your top 1k things to do to advance society should be to eliminate religion in its entirety.
That would have actually been a good parallel if the iPhone 6 existed ten years ago but no one bought it until recently.
Pig, do not think that I have forgotten that you did not answer my question about the constitution.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Since you've said that the Constitution is not a set of laws, I would like you to confirm on the record that soldiers can commandeer your home, you are not entitled to a trial if arrested, you can keep slaves, and the government can deny blacks and women from voting. Unless you meant to say that the constitution as a whole is "the law" but is composed of "a laws".
I expect an answer.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf
ctrl+f "first amendment"
That is just the ruling that states are required to distribute marriage licenses to same-sex couples and each judge's opinion on the ruling. I asked for the ruling that says Kim Davis is protected by the first amendment and allowed to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
USA has always been majority Christian, this majority extends from general population, to gov't employees, senate, cabinet, at every level USA is Christian.
"In God We Trust" - does this ring in bells? It's only the official motto of the USA, and part of the lyrics of the national anthem, and printed on the currency.
USA is secular in name only, but it is and always was a Christian nation.
Sure it's always been majority Christian. But you seem to misunderstand what is meant by the phrase "Christian Nation". It means that the laws are tied to Christianity, and that there is no separation between the church and state. It would not be a conflict of interest to be a Cardinal and a judge. There would be a state religion. The government would be controlled by the church. Since none of these statements apply to US, you can agree that while the US is predominantly Christian, the nation itself is not. As for "In God We Trust", this is a trivial argument. The phrase is an expression of patriotism, it's not pushing any agenda on the population and is not coercive, and it doesn't elevate any religion above another.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Oh, did Christianity only just start disliking gays?
Oh wait no, the USA only just changed the definition of marriage.
How about you take a more /realistic/ metaphor and say that you are against slavery, and suddenly the gov't institutes slavery and tells you it's your job to register people as slaves. Of course, it's the law so you have no qualms with doing this because as previously established, law = morality.
This is linked to the answer I expect to get, so this will be put on hold until you answer that.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
lol who said anything about taking a vacation.
Avoiding my point, I see. How about you actually answer me instead of questioning my choice of words, hmm?
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
What rights were they lacking then?
The right to marry someone of the same sex. For reference, here is a map of people that were allowed to marry someone of the same sex in 1950
map
.svg/2000px-Flag_of_Taliban_(original).svg.png)
And here is a map of the countries that allowed same-sex marriage in 1970
map2
1980
1990
2000
And finally, 2001
map3
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
We are talking about thought policing and legislating the likes and dislikes of people, whom I think should have the right to free thought.
Sure, people can think whatever they want. But their freedom of expression ends at the tip of their nose. They cannot impose their beliefs onto others just because they disagree. And for the record, doing a public speech on the street is not imposing beliefs. Anyone who is annoyed or disagrees with the speaker can avoid him.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Firstly gay marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum, everyone in the entire society is affected.
I'd like some examples please. And "A Christian sees a gay couple holding hands at the grocery store and she is offended" is not an example.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Secondly what we are talking about is the feelings of gays vs the feelings of Christians
Tip of your nose. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not invalidate marriage for religious people.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Thirdly, just because something does "no harm" doesn't mean it does any good, and doesn't mean it should be allowed.
So your argument is that allowing gay marriage isn't a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either, so there's no reason for it to exist. I guess the same could be said about you. And Twinkies.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
If you want to advance civilization and the world, then I don't think legalizing gay marriage would even make it on the top 1000 things to do, heck, it would be closer to the bottom of the list than the top. How exactly does it benefit civilization or the world at all? It's pointless on every level - apart from the "feelings of homosexuals who want to get married and liberals who want to showcase just how tolerant they are" level.
It's official. Pig doesn't care about the feelings of homosexuals. And his stab at liberals tells us what party he's likely to vote for in the upcoming election.
Can you make that list for us? I just want to see what your top 1k are.
Religion hasn't exactly benefitted society for quite a while either. At one point, religion was the driving force in innovation and progression of society. But now it is a hindrance and attempts to create stagnation. By your logic, the first thing on your top 1k things to do to advance society should be to eliminate religion in its entirety.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
lol ok mate, fyi we are up 100% iPhone 6 ownership from a decade ago too. iPhone 6 inequality C O N F I R M E D.
That would have actually been a good parallel if the iPhone 6 existed ten years ago but no one bought it until recently.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
I expect an answer.
I already posted about that just scroll up...
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
That is just the ruling that states are required to distribute marriage licenses to same-sex couples and each judge's opinion on the ruling. I asked for the ruling that says Kim Davis is protected by the first amendment and allowed to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Why do you think she wasn't thrown in jail? Because it was ruled that she had protection of the first amendment, I linked the full discourse so you could see yourself that the idea that the first amendment protects religious freedom is unanimous.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Sure it's always been majority Christian. But you seem to misunderstand what is meant by the phrase "Christian Nation". It means that the laws are tied to Christianity, and that there is no separation between the church and state. It would not be a conflict of interest to be a Cardinal and a judge. There would be a state religion. The government would be controlled by the church. Since none of these statements apply to US, you can agree that while the US is predominantly Christian, the nation itself is not. As for "In God We Trust", this is a trivial argument. The phrase is an expression of patriotism, it's not pushing any agenda on the population and is not coercive, and it doesn't elevate any religion above another.
How can you argue that "In God We Trust" is an expression of patriotism AND that there is separation of church and state?
Like I said there may be "technical" reasons why you can claim that USA is not a Christian nation, it most certainly is. North Korea is called a democratic republic, does that mean it is? Of course not. Merely stating that there is separation of church and state does not enforce it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapla..._States_Senate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi..._States_Senate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...us_affiliation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi..._United_States
Claiming USA is not a Christian nation just because they told you so, despite OVERWHELMING evidence that they are, is perhaps a bit too trusting.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Avoiding my point, I see. How about you actually answer me instead of questioning my choice of words, hmm?
So not everyone can afford to take a vacation to Europe, but certainly I'm sure they can find a weekend off to visit Vermont or whatever. Look if you are so worried about vacations, then maybe you should save up, start a bank account and make sure to deposit just a small amount every week, it will add up in no time. You can always take cheap vacations to close by places or heck even have a vacation at home, read some books and drink some coffee, you don't always have to go over seas to relax.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
The right to marry someone of the same sex.
Sorry to break it to you mate, but heterosexuals didn't have that right either.......................
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
For reference, here is a map of people that were allowed to marry someone of the same sex in 1950
map
And here is a map of the countries that allowed same-sex marriage in 1970
map2
1980
1990
2000
And finally, 2001
map3
Lol I guess the Taliban were pretty progressive then.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Sure, people can think whatever they want. But their freedom of expression ends at the tip of their nose. They cannot impose their beliefs onto others just because they disagree. And for the record, doing a public speech on the street is not imposing beliefs. Anyone who is annoyed or disagrees with the speaker can avoid him.
What you said sounds fine, until you consider that you think "doing your job in a Christian compliant manor" is not OK. What exactly do you consider freedom to be? The freedom to think and say but never to act? Are churches an imposition on their neighbourhood? Is wearing regalia an imposition on the eye? Such a broad and non-specific statement is very troubling, and what it boils down to is a license to persecute.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
I'd like some examples please. And "A Christian sees a gay couple holding hands at the grocery store and she is offended" is not an example.
Lol you do realize this thread started because someone was arrested for not complying with gay agenda?
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Tip of your nose. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not invalidate marriage for religious people.
Who ever said it did? Nice strawman :^) (le tip of my nose)
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
So your argument is that allowing gay marriage isn't a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either, so there's no reason for it to exist. I guess the same could be said about you. And Twinkies.
No, as above, my argument is that it does harm, and that "just because something does 'no harm' doesn't mean it does any good, and doesn't mean it should be allowed".
As I said previously: "How about you take a more /realistic/ metaphor and say that you are against slavery, and suddenly the gov't institutes slavery and tells you it's your job to register people as slaves. Of course, it's the law so you have no qualms with doing this because as previously established, law = morality."
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
It's official. Pig doesn't care about the feelings of homosexuals.
And you don't care about the feelings of Christians.
Oh wait, saying that appeasing homosexuals is NOT an efficient way to advance civilization is NOT the same as saying "I don't care about the feelings of gays". Shit, almost got sucked into the "Hawkes' Alternate Dimension" with that one. I felt my body turning to straw for a second before I snapped back!
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
And his stab at liberals tells us what party he's likely to vote for in the upcoming election.
Lol yeah because I'm totally American. America is the only country that exists, so of cour- Oh shit, almost got sucked in again!!!
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Can you make that list for us? I just want to see what your top 1k are.
XD no I'm not doing that, but I can guarantee none of them would have anything to do with deviant sexuality, or marriage of any kind.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Religion hasn't exactly benefitted society for quite a while either. At one point, religion was the driving force in innovation and progression of society. But now it is a hindrance and attempts to create stagnation. By your logic, the first thing on your top 1k things to do to advance society should be to eliminate religion in its entirety.
By my logic? Sorry but how exactly does my logic lead to that conclusion? Is this more of the Hawkes' Alternate Dimension (now to be called HAD to save typing)? Saying that legalizing gay marriage is a very ineffective way to advance civilization somehow implies that removing religion is? I'm trying to even figure out what this means, if we invert the statement then "legalizing gay marriage means that keeping religion is a good thing"?? in the HAD are religious extremists pro-homo? What the heck is going on..! I guess in the HAD the Taliban are the most progressive nation of the last century, so anything's possible?!?
Sorry but I'm not going to fight that one lol, not even going to try and reply XD
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
That would have actually been a good parallel if the iPhone 6 existed ten years ago but no one bought it until recently.
Nonsense, just because the Netherlands had the iPhone 6 doesn't mean the rest of us did. You are talking about instantaneous global
Originally Posted by cowmeat
Too much troll/stupidity, I'm out. I'm just going to get too upset.
"I am so mad that someone would say that apples aren't dairy, I've always considered them to be and it makes me so mad whenever someone says they aren't. Actually what makes me the maddest is when people think that not thinking apples are dairy is different to actively hunting down and persecuting apples!!!"
Originally Posted by deprav
It was so fuckin obvious someone explained/worded his "same sex marriage" point poorly and you clung to it for 8 fucking pages...
It always is possible to understand what someone means depending on the context, and reply accordingly to his/her idea even if the wording wasn't perfect, especially after 8 pages if you're not stupid af. This is an international community, english isn't everyone's mother tongue, and even anglophones make mistake.
I'm alright with arguing a point for the sake of arguing and pushing people to think, but destroying/trolling a whole discussion because you think it's funny to base your whole "position" on someone's formulation mistake, then I don't know why the fuck they allow you to speak on the discussion board in the first place.
The distinction between "change the definition of marriage" and "ban people with deviant sexualities from marrying" is non-trivial.
In most (all?) countries same sex marriage simply does not exist by definition, social norm, and cultural custom - this is not at all the same as persecution of sexual minorities, and shouldn't be framed as such.
The perversion of reality to the point where "marriage equality" means "being able to marry whatever you want" is ridiculous. That's like complaining that apples aren't in the dairy section - they aren't dairy, so why would they be? Are fruits being denied their dairy equality? No, of course not, that argument is beyond absurd, the truth of the situation is that the term 'dairy' does not encompass apples, or any fruit, it actually refers to milk products.
Although it does amuse me when people spouting loaded propaganda are called out and get really mad/whiny, it's much more interesting if the crying is kept to a minimum, so try stay on topic and cut the flaming next time (don't want to get yourself banned do you?).
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
