This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
donnymurph
/facepalm. I just wrote a long response and my internet turned off when I sent it. Sorry Skreeran, looks like Sweden doesn't want you.
I always Ctrl+C every time I write out something long and don't wanna have to re-write it/remember what I wrote.
But yeah Skreeran, leave America. That place has been in decline for 50+ years. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and most of Europe all have better living standards and way less political and religious extremists. <-- My 2c
Post by
Squishalot
Because being gay doesn't lead to mental scarring/physical scarring, unless there are other underlying conditions
or are into the kinky stuff.
The main 'problem' that I could think of with being gay, from a (as close to neutral as I can get) stand-point, is that gay couples can't reproduce. However, humans are already overpopulated anyway, so there's not much of a problem with that, in my view. Unless everyone becomes gay, which is unlikely due to it being partially genetic in nature.
That's your
opinion
. If you know how Skree's mum feels, then you'll know that she believes that being gay does have massive consequences. You know, the whole fire and brimstone thing.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, actually, my mom is a weird case. She's a universalist, or at least she is now. Can't say where she was theologically then.
I myself was an annihilationist when I was a christian.
Post by
Lombax
Well, actually, my mom is a weird case. She's a universalist, or at least she is now. Can't say where she was theologically then.
I myself was an annihilationist when I was a christian.
When I was christian I was like 5 years old?
And I was tricked in to believing it, by socaity.
That might not be relevant at all.
And Skree all the ponies shall become zombies and obey me. /bursts out in to evil laughter once again
Post by
EpicDragon
Well, actually, my mom is a weird case. She's a universalist, or at least she is now. Can't say where she was theologically then.
I myself was an annihilationist when I was a christian.
When I was christian I was like 5 years old?
And I was tricked in to believing it, by socaity.
Heh, yeah I have been there too...
Post by
Lombax
Well, actually, my mom is a weird case. She's a universalist, or at least she is now. Can't say where she was theologically then.
I myself was an annihilationist when I was a christian.
When I was christian I was like 5 years old?
And I was tricked in to believing it, by socaity.
Heh, yeah I have been there too...
Haha, yea I could predict more people than me have had this problem.
Post by
FarseerLolotea
Okay, this thread seems a bit of a can of worms. I'm just going to offer my sympathies to Skreeran for having a pair of creepy zealots for parents, and leave it at that.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Wowhead is only 2 years old.
Mod Queggy did not evolve from non-mod Queggy.
HsR was born of a virgin.
The RB is inerrant.
God chose the admins and mods.
Post by
OverZealous
Aside from the rise of the Racist partie(s) in the government, Scandinavia (Sweden or Norway anyway) is propably the place for you, Skreeran, most people are atheists and couldn't care less about politics. There are, of course, exceptions, but Sweden seems like it'd fit you well.
Post by
Squishalot
Wowhead is only 2 years old.
Mod Queggy did not evolve from non-mod Queggy.
HsR was born of a virgin.
The RB is inerrant.
God chose the admins and mods.
Welcome back. Have a nice sabbatical? Or was it Wowhead-detox?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Wowhead is only 2 years old.
Mod Queggy did not evolve from non-mod Queggy.
HsR was born of a virgin.
The RB is inerrant.
God chose the admins and mods.
Welcome back. Have a nice sabbatical? Or was it Wowhead-detox?
I moved to a new apartment.
And Comcast being Comcast I didn't get internet until yesterday.
Post by
Squishalot
I moved to a new apartment.
And Comcast being Comcast I didn't get internet until yesterday.
Fair enough. Funden missed you.
Post by
Patty
Aside from the rise of the Racist partie(s) in the government, Scandinavia (Sweden or Norway anyway) is propably the place for you, Skreeran, most people are atheists and couldn't care less about politics. There are, of course, exceptions, but Sweden seems like it'd fit you well.
Elura's in Sweden too. ;)
Post by
tuckmuck203
Ohey I'm back after 4 days of not being able to post in this thread.
Because being gay doesn't lead to mental scarring/physical scarring, unless there are other underlying conditions
or are into the kinky stuff.
The main 'problem' that I could think of with being gay, from a (as close to neutral as I can get) stand-point, is that gay couples can't reproduce. However, humans are already overpopulated anyway, so there's not much of a problem with that, in my view. Unless everyone becomes gay, which is unlikely due to it being partially genetic in nature.
That's your
opinion
. If you know how Skree's mum feels, then you'll know that she believes that being gay does have massive consequences. You know, the whole fire and brimstone thing.
The problem I have with that explanation is that it doesn't effect her in any way beyond the fact that she may feel pity for them. It's not like herr religion tells her she's going to hell because she couldn't convert him. (Which may even end up causing him to commit suicide due to psychological damage.)
Aside from the rise of the Racist partie(s) in the government, Scandinavia (Sweden or Norway anyway) is propably the place for you, Skreeran, most people are atheists and couldn't care less about politics. There are, of course, exceptions, but Sweden seems like it'd fit you well.
I'm moving to australia when I can. Those accents are hot.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The problem I have with that explanation is that it doesn't effect her in any way beyond the fact that she may feel pity for them. It's not like herr religion tells her she's going to hell because she couldn't convert him. (Which may even end up causing him to commit suicide due to psychological damage.)
It affects her exactly as much as her beliefs affect you. So any argument you make against her beliefs as beliefs can be made right back at you.
Post by
tuckmuck203
The problem I have with that explanation is that it doesn't effect her in any way beyond the fact that she may feel pity for them. It's not like herr religion tells her she's going to hell because she couldn't convert him. (Which may even end up causing him to commit suicide due to psychological damage.)
It affects her exactly as much as her beliefs affect you. So any argument you make against her beliefs as beliefs can be made right back at you.
Not really. She's voicing her beliefs at me (Well, not me specifically. But me through her son.) where as a gay person is just there and isn't talking to her about how he's gay, his boyfriend is awesome, etc. If she doesn't want to see them kissing or whatever she can just look away. However if she's actually speaking to someone and arguing her religious views (In an illogical sense I might add) then it's hardly as disregardable.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Not really. She's voicing her beliefs at me (Well, not me specifically. But me through her son.) where as a gay person is just there and isn't talking to her about how he's gay, his boyfriend is awesome, etc. If she doesn't want to see them kissing or whatever she can just look away. However if she's actually speaking to someone and arguing her religious views (In an illogical sense I might add) then it's hardly as disregardable.
You're talking to me about homosexuality right now. I'm talking to you about non-homosexuality.
Why is my typing somehow compelling you to read more than yours is me? Why is person X actively displaying support of issue A somehow more discountable than person Y actively displaying rejection of issue A?
Post by
tuckmuck203
Not really. She's voicing her beliefs at me (Well, not me specifically. But me through her son.) where as a gay person is just there and isn't talking to her about how he's gay, his boyfriend is awesome, etc. If she doesn't want to see them kissing or whatever she can just look away. However if she's actually speaking to someone and arguing her religious views (In an illogical sense I might add) then it's hardly as disregardable.
You're talking to me about homosexuality right now. I'm talking to you about non-homosexuality.
Why is my typing somehow compelling you to read more than yours is me? Why is person X actively displaying support of issue A somehow less discountable than person Y actively displaying rejection of issue A?
That's the difference right there. Your typing doesn't cause me to exert a physiological reaction such as outrage. If I were speaking to the OP's parents in person, I would be upset that I couldn't make them see (my version) of reason. Which is that them protesting homosexuality actually hurts homosexuals psychologically.
Your typing isn't compelling me to read it. It's giving me temptation to read it. The difference is that compelling means that I feel the need to do it, temptation is when I feel like I want to. If I'm tempted to do it and there's no real reason I shouldn't, I will do it. Therefore I will read your text. However, the OP's parents are compelling me to listen to them.
I don't mind them being idiots (in my own oppinion of course) if they keep their plausibly hurtful oppinions to themselves and never bring them up in conversation.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That's the difference right there. Your typing doesn't cause me to exert a physiological reaction such as outrage. If I were speaking to the OP's parents in person, I would be upset that I couldn't make them see (my version) of reason. Which is that them protesting homosexuality actually hurts homosexuals psychologically.
Your typing isn't compelling me to read it. It's giving me temptation to read it. The difference is that compelling means that I feel the need to do it, temptation is when I feel like I want to. If I'm tempted to do it and there's no real reason I shouldn't, I will do it. Therefore I will read your text. However, the OP's parents are compelling me to listen to them.
I don't mind them being idiots (in my own oppinion of course) if they keep their plausibly hurtful oppinions to themselves and never bring them up in conversation.
So the issue is your emotional instability, not whether people can believe certain things or not.
Do opinions hurt sometimes? yes they do. But hurt is subjective, and the opinion that homosexuality is evil can be just as hurtful as the opinion that people who think homosexuality is evil are idiots.
Post by
tuckmuck203
That's the difference right there. Your typing doesn't cause me to exert a physiological reaction such as outrage. If I were speaking to the OP's parents in person, I would be upset that I couldn't make them see (my version) of reason. Which is that them protesting homosexuality actually hurts homosexuals psychologically.
Your typing isn't compelling me to read it. It's giving me temptation to read it. The difference is that compelling means that I feel the need to do it, temptation is when I feel like I want to. If I'm tempted to do it and there's no real reason I shouldn't, I will do it. Therefore I will read your text. However, the OP's parents are compelling me to listen to them.
I don't mind them being idiots (in my own oppinion of course) if they keep their plausibly hurtful oppinions to themselves and never bring them up in conversation.
So the issue is your emotional instability, not whether people can believe certain things or not.
Do opinions hurt sometimes? yes they do. But hurt is subjective, and the opinion that homosexuality is evil can be just as hurtful as the opinion that people who think homosexuality is evil are idiots.
Yes. So if everyone could keep their hurtful oppinions to themselves, I would be happy. I don't bring up how much I despise people like the westborough baptist church members in general conversation unless it's relevent, and if it's relevent then there's nobody around who would be offended by my beliefs. If I'm talking to my friend Dan who holds the same beliefs as I do, we can discuss it without a problem. I wouldn't bring it up in conversation to someone I don't know though.
I really don't mind people having beliefs as long as it doesn't affect anyone else in a significant way. When I say significant way, I mean good or bad. There was a family guy episode that expressed this quite well. Meg was under the influence that God loved her and that God wanted her to convert Brian to Christianity, and wanted her to partake in a book burning. Obviously she thought this influence was good, however most people would agree that this isn't good. The subjectivity of the matter makes any significant influence bad in my oppinion. For instance, the westborough baptist church members may have influenced some people to start hating on homosexuals. The westborough baptist church members would coutn that as good, where I would not.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
