Inconsiderate: 1. without due regard for the rights or feelings of others: It was inconsiderate of him to keep us waiting. 2. acting without consideration; thoughtless; heedless. 3. overhasty; rash; ill-considered: slovenly, inconsiderate reasoning. Fascism: ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. Racism: 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Cran, this video applies to you: And frankly, until you prove that you're not utterly intolerant of differing, potentially opposite beliefs, and opinions...? Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Lets just change the meaning of the word as that is the problem. It doesn't conform to suit the needs of the ones that it is being used against. Why did this turn into a religious debate. It wasn't supposed to be that way. I am not intolerant, but some people want world domination. Discrimination
Just so. But here's where I doubt you agree: Religious discrimination and open hostility, with intent to eliminate, originating from Homosexuals, with gay marriage serving as a legal vehicle in the existing system to legitimize their lawfare. Or if you agree? I doubt you care. Because there are examples in the United States, Britain, and elsewhere of just this occurrence.
Your legal system is not ready to handle any kind of equality. Your whole shit is fucked up, that's why i refuse to argue about how things should go in the US. As you said, you need major reforms. And not with any kind of religion involved in it!
Uh, no. Why should religious organizations be denied a place at the table when discussing the future of legal organization in the United States?
Oh, okay. Let's redefine marriage to fit what we want, because what we want doesn't currently qualify as marriage. I see.
What about that? That phrase and concept appears nowhere in the United States constitution or bill of rights. Early examinations of the history of the United States show that religion was a constant presence, but not as is expressly forbidden by the Constitution: That of an official state religion, or state sanctioned religion. In fact it's only RECENTLY, within the last few decades, that this has even become a problem. And then generally for those who want to never, ever come into contact with religion as they live their lives. I'm sorry, but you don't have a right to shut me up and silence me so that I don't inconvenience you indirectly by my mere existence. THAT is bigotry, THAT is intolerance.
This did apply to a sentence that you wrote about your religion not having a place at the table. Until you edited it because it violates the First Amendment and the argument that you just made. I do not want to shut anyone up. I will respect anyone's opinion be it communist or those that enforce jihad, but I do not have to agree with them. Nor do you to an agnostic.
It's still there. It's up the page in another post. But let's look at the First Amendment, shall we? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Bolded portion is the only relevant portion to our discussion on your idea of separation of church and state, and my idea of religion being permitted to participate in a national discourse on legal reform. Where, in that amendment, is Religion prohibited from being involved in government? Not agreeing with someone isn't the same as demonizing anyone who doesn't share the same one. (Which is what you did, first and second post in this thread) I can disagree with someone, like yourself, without demonizing you. I called you a bigot, because you fit the definition. Simple extrapolation based on the facts in evidence. The key there being there may well be more facts that enlarge the context and information such that would invalidate the previous conclusion. They are not as yet in evidence. That said, I'm not going to respect the opinion and culture of a person whose sole existence is to end mine. That's fairly suicidal. (I am not saying you are one. I'm just mentioning it since you brought up Jihad.) You may want to reexamine the benefits of an "all cultures are equally respectable" viewpoint. Because there are some cultures that are definitely worse, and some that are definitely better. It's not racism or some superiority complex that brings me to say this. Simple analysis of the facts show one is better, one is worse. Which is which is up to your own determination, but humans will be humans, and not all cultures are inherently good.
Or you that every atheist and homosexual has the same morals and opinions, a proverbial unified bloc. There are, absolutely, advocates of homosexual marriage that have publicly stated they are using it more as a way to cripple and attack religion, and less of a way to provide tax benefits to married homosexual couples. The "Freedom From Religion" foundation comes to mind. They are very well named.
There are too religious dumbasses who try to push their religious shit on everyone (i.e. just same sex marriage because a book says so). Why don't you pray for yourself, go to church every sunday and enjoy your life and let the smart people who believe in science and actual evidence sort things out? I mean, that's what your country would need, but it's either religious and corporate bullshit or just corporate bullshit.
Nice of me for not being a christian. I have more of a view that people have the freedom to do what they want. Especially Murica and all that (bar the consequences) Even if 2 guys want to smash their privates together and maybe get married, settle down and who knows maybe pay some taxes and help the economy. Unlike some organizations. and with that I bid you adieu.
Nope, because of your massive, blanket statements that anyone who doesn't agree with you is racist, fascist, inconsiderate, greedy, douch-bag, etc. If that's not bigoted, dunno what is, good sir. I don't care if two men want to smash their privates together. It's not relevant to me. At all. What is relevant, and as I mentioned previously, has some significant and lasting long-term negative consequences for me and my way of life, is granting them what they want unilaterally and out of hand, without careful consideration and implementation, and dare I say it, equality. Because as it stands, homosexuality being the media darling, if they are simply granted what they want out of hand, I will be penalized, demonized, attacked, restricted, taken to court, harassed, and so on and so forth, and in fact already am, because careful consideration, careful implementation, and analysis of tangential and far-reaching consequences was not undertaken. (And if you don't think there are any, you have not done enough research.) Making the whites enslaved to the blacks is not going to restore equality, good sir, if you understand where I'm going with that.
I would read whats on this thread on the page, but it would probably just put me to sleep, you know?, this is just one of those topics.
