Dwalin2010
-
Posts
277 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dwalin2010
-
-
No, I really can't, but tell me the last time you heard a child saying they wanted a mother and a father, sincerely, and I'll think about changing my way of thinking around that.
What did you honestly expect to get when you linked an article that was fairly biased against homosexuality, and then claimed that homosexuals were shoving heterosexuals into their place? BRS up there is right, if you honestly think that, then you're terribly sheltered.
Feel free to respond to what I said with how you feel, and I'll respond to what you say calmly. Since it seems you can't handle someone being upset at what you've said.
I'll humor you.
I just thought that things mentioned in the article are extreme. If it's telling lies, it's one thing. But if it's true, do you really think it's normal? Do they really have nothing else to do apart from forbidding things like "father-daughter dances"? People are always talking about bigot Christians, but the other side can also be bigot, I just thought this was a good example. I personally would like to see a society with many different cultures, preferences etc. Isn't allowing gay marriage and give them all rights heterosexuals have not enough? That's what I don't get. It really seems to me people want more than equality, and are also being very belligerent in the process (on both sides of the conflict, of course).
-
Kids don't care about their parents' gender.
Can you REALLY speak for all kids in the world?
As for the rest, I read it, be sure of it, but answering it in any way apart from agreeing with you 100% will obviously be useless. Why do people always go on the offensive? It only casts a shadow on the ideals they root for. If I was aggressive in name of something, you could rightly call me an arrogant [censored]. Calm debates simply don't exist anymore, as it seems.
-
You need to understand this, you are so far away from reality and isolated from what you are talking about. You're protected, sheltered and privileged and enjoying respect that you do not deserve.
Are personal attacks that necessary? To make it clear, I am not against homosexuals themselves, but very much against people who just pretend to defend their rights, while in fact are just using it as an excuse for being rude and arrogant to others.
-
I usually prefer just reading, not posting in this kind of debates, but what I read today on another forum really shocked me:
--This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed.
--In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country's largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.
--Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination.
--When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other.
--Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory.
Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant.
--The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France.
--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.
This isn't fight for equality anymore, it's something else. I am for equality, but not for revenge when the formerly offended side (homosexuals) try to push the other (heterosexuals) into positions they themselves were before.
-
It's not like Dwalin chose to believe that because he wanted to spite his family or something.
No, it's not because I wanted to spite my family. I mean, they initially didn't agree, but it's not like I chose religion as a tool to prove my "independence" from them.
-
Jus a last question ; How many of you (Religious, Atheists, or others), are believer by choice ?
I am a believer by choice. In fact, my family tried to convince me for years there is no God, I was baptized only when I was a teenager.
-
The problem with showing your weak side to people is that whenever they'll see you later they will always remember that time where you were weak in front of them and they will always remember it.
If a person has a permanent negative impression about somebody just because of seeing them crying, it's not much of a person.
-
I remember there also are debates about the big differences between the Old and New Testament. Some people say God is cruel as there are many pointless cruelties in the Old Testament. But, in my opinion, some of the rules were simply made by the people's leaders, not on God's direct instructions. For example, I could never see God seriously instructing to sacrifice animals and saying about the smoke from their burning bodies "this is the smell that pleases the Lord". God isn't Satan. Also, before the Old Testament was made, the situation was even worse, there was only the law of the strongest. People back then probably simply wouldn't have accepted more merciful and altruistic laws.
-
Alright, I'll try to disprove some of this from the viewpoint of a (hopefully amiable) agnostic.
I'm not going to claim that the fundamental claim of Christianity is viably disprovable (that Christ exists and was the foremost creator) but I will assert that the Bible should not be taken literally, for some of the events detailed cannot be replicated on a corporeal plane. Instead, it should be interpreted metaphysically and followed as a discipline to guide one's behavior instead of as doctrine.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head, though I don't mind arguing over a different theater completely; hopefully this stays clean.
Even though I am a Christian, I agree completely with this post. In my opinion, if more people (both Christians and atheists) always remembered the Bible is full of allegories, there would be less fights about religion.
-
The problem is also that allowing things like that, it's not like we will have just a few perverts who go after their siblings. Somebody might start doing it just to try something "new", it may become a fashion. it may kill one of the last non-sexual love examples that exist in this society. People's worst sides may activate themselves while before they wouldn't think about it.
If most people loathe incest, I don't think it's a negative trait to be fought. Twisting nature just for the sake of it is wrong, at least in my opinion.
I have comprehension toward gays (not towards people who use the defense of gay rights as an excuse for being rude though), but incest is different. Even though I surely can't do anything about it, I really wouldn't like to live that long to see incest becoming "normal" just in the name of "freedom". Extremism is always bad in my opinion, even "freedom" extremism.
-
There's no scientific consensus that many people are born gay. There is a large debate over whether homosexuality is a solely nature or nurture phenomenon, or (most commonly) a combination of both. Why is it possible to be born homosexual but not born with a predisposition towards certain kinds of sex?
Either way, how does that argue with what he had said?
Well, I don't know what to say. It's just I am an idealist, a traditionalist, I like elevated, spiritual things. Don't really know how to explain. It's just like scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God.
Also, I am seriously worried about the fact that people could make a further step in advocating "freedom" by saying it's more important than "not harming others". I wasn't joking.
-
I am not familiar at all with operations in Italy and Russia. How does this happen?
I can't really describe the details, as I am not good in understanding economy and financial crimes and schemes, but the fact is that large sums of money directed at helping the poor, building hospitals, schools etc. are simply pocketed by the people who are supposed to organize this. In Italy, in the southern regions, there is also the demand by the local mafia (or camorra, 'ndrangheta etc.) for a cut of any money investment used on their territory. If they are supposed to spend a certain amount of money to build schools from good materials, they often pocket most of the money and buy materials of lesser quality, so the buildings later crash on the children's and teachers' heads.
As for Russia, I haven't been there for years, maybe things got better now, but there is really a strong association between the concepts "big businessman" and "mafia boss". The violent solution of business conflicts is rather common.
Don't get me wrong, these countries aren't war zones (at least no more), but the organized crime problem is VERY strong.
-
Pedophiles most definitely do harm the kids on mental (and in quite a few cases physical) level. If pedophilia was completely and utterly harmless to the kid and s/he wanted it, it would be ok from my POV. However its harmful and thus not acceptable. Very different from bro/sis coitus. As for beauty of pure relationships, being gay is these days okay and normal. Where did the world end up? We got better relationships all around as people get more accepting of gay love. Being gay is normal but not very common. The fact that being gay is ok does not change a damn thing relationships. If bro/sis coitus is accepted it will likely be just as accepting gays. Not very common and not harmful outside shallow minded people giving you hard time for it
Many people are born gay, they can't be blamed for that. Have you ever heard about a person born with a sexual obsession for relatives?
-
It defeats the purpose of altruism so --so long as you are arguing from this position as I assume you are-- because it is mandatory. How is something charitable if it is a requirement? Do you consider taxes charity? If so then the rich give out quite a bit more in charity than anyone else.
If it won't be charity anymore, it's still better if it will help starving people. As for taxes, much of the public money is simply stolen by people in the government administration and never reaches its charitable purpose. Don't know how much this fact is valid in the USA, but in the country where I come from (Russia) and the country I live in now (Italy) it's pretty much common practice.
To be honest, you were the last person on this forum I expected to try to find a justification of social injustices. From you position in the "Truman war criminal" topic I thought you were more compassionate towards the suffering.
-
There is clear difference between letting someone do something that has absolutely no harm to others or themselves and letting someone do something that harms others or themselves. Why is the "next you allow murder and shit" argument used every time old tabus are reconsidered?
Theoretically someone could say that pedophiles don't "harm" children because they "seduce" them, not "rape" them, Still, nobody advocates pedophilia. And it isn't only about taboos. It's also about the beauty of pure relationships. If it starts to be normal for brothers and sisters to have sex with each other, where will the world end up? Seriously, I understand that "freedom" is a good concept, but why be so extreme?
-
Can you substantiate that claim?
I don't like having things forcibly taken from me, the rich probably don't either. You shouldn't expect charity from people simply because they have more. That defeats the purpose of altruism.
I was mostly referring to the tycoons of organized crime who continue to kill for money even when they already have enough to live 100 lives without problems.
As for the rest, I don't really understand what you are saying. Why shouldn't I expect it from them and why does it defeat the purpose of altruism? I you already have hundreds of millions, what will you do with billions? Just lie on them and guard them like a dragon with its treasure?
-
This is a too complicated discussion for me, but usually richer the people are, greedier they are. Robbing the rich isn't a method, but somebody who has 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 billions and refuses to part with even one of them to help others is just a piece of dung, I don't see how somebody could deny it. Riches and politics corrupt and change most people completely. I really don't see how could somebody have any desire to debate this fact.
The fact that it's not that simple to solve the worldwide problems just by taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a completely different matter though.
-
There's a world of difference between "can" and "must." People here are simply saying that incest can be okay, not that it's necessary or an ideal of some kind.
Don't know what to say to this, apart from that it's really a pity the concept of "morality" has absolutely no importance nowadays. Every time somebody raises this point, they are told that "morality isn't universal, even pedophiles have their own concept of morality". Soon people will start advocating murder and rape as well, the only thing that still prevents them from doing so is the fact that, fortunately, the ideal of "not harming others" is still considered more important than "individual freedom".
-
Really, if incest is okay, where will such tender and sublime things as brotherly/sisterly affection end up? Must really EVERYTHING be reduced to sex?
-
I wish they do so! I tried it with an english patch but it was hardly tolerable....
The one I had had "theif" instead of "thief" in it
-
Maybe it's a dumb question, but does it mean it will have improved 3d graphics or will it be the same pictures on a different console?
-
I absolutely disagree with this phrase. I am a very emotional person. Not that I cry every day for every little thing, but sometimes it's better to cry then just wait for months for the end of the depression.
-
A New Jersey court ruled not allowing a gay civil union ceremony in a church as discrimination.
I join the people who asked here the question: what's the point of trying to force a church at all costs to hold the ceremony when they can have a civil union or something without any problems?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer%C3%ADa
It may seem extremely distasteful to the overwhelming majority of people in the US, but not liking something shouldn't be grounds for banning it. It may seem like senseless violence to you and me, but what about to Santerians?
I understand the logic, but I still think that there should be a limit even to the respect of the historical traditions of different cultures. As few as they may be, there are still places on this planet where humans eat other humans, but nobody says it shouldn't be banned. If animals were intelligent, they too could have started human sacrifices for retaliation, and probably wouldn't have given a damn about the humans' opinions about it. Just because animals are less intelligent, that doesn't mean their life has no value.
Anti-Gay Marriage
in Serious Discussion
Posted · Edited by Dwalin2010
If many people think like that, it's perfectly ok with me, as long as they keep it to themselves. I wouldn't like to have a family where there is no distinction between father and mother, brother and sister etc. I wouldn't like ALL things to be the same in the world. Not every difference involves discrimination. And many people think in the same way. If we don't touch you and don't force our ideals on you, why would you want to impose your ideals and change OUR families?
However, I am thankful for you being willing to talk calmly. You are really only the 2nd or 3d person in my life ever wiliing to do that in such debates on internet.