Religious offshoot argument from American Elections

[Doktor]

From AM's posts and presented fact, I get the idea that the US liberals are either so progressive they went stealth or they are so advanced they decided to mock both parties.

[GVChamp]

You are free to stay under the boots of the church while others fight for their liberties. I have seen a lot of social ills promulgated by religion go away over the past 200 years without coming back, and I expect to see more.

Lol, you're going to fight now? You're "fighting" a legal "battle". Courts are for adjudication of internal disputes. That means you are engaged in Friendly Fire.

People who are engaged in massive undertakings do not rally to the banner of Secular Humanism. Soldiers under Napoleon fought for France, sailors under Nelson fought for Britain, soldiers under Stalin fought for Russia. That's hard-core nationalism, you just substituted one ill for another.


Re: 200 years. That's less time than there's been an Industrial Revolution. Rome in 0-200 went from ridiculously unstable to Pretty Awesome Military Dictatorship, and then in 200-400 went from Pretty Awesome Military Dictatorship to OH MY GOD EVERYONE IS DYING AND THERE ARE BARBARIANS EVERYWHERE AND WHAT THE HELL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!

200 years. Bwahahahahahahaahahahaahha.

[antimony]

Lol, you're going to fight now? You're "fighting" a legal "battle". Courts are for adjudication of internal disputes. That means you are engaged in Friendly Fire.

People who are engaged in massive undertakings do not rally to the banner of Secular Humanism. Soldiers under Napoleon fought for France, sailors under Nelson fought for Britain, soldiers under Stalin fought for Russia. That's hard-core nationalism, you just substituted one ill for another.


Re: 200 years. That's less time than there's been an Industrial Revolution. Rome in 0-200 went from ridiculously unstable to Pretty Awesome Military Dictatorship, and then in 200-400 went from Pretty Awesome Military Dictatorship to OH MY GOD EVERYONE IS DYING AND THERE ARE BARBARIANS EVERYWHERE AND WHAT THE HELL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!

200 years. Bwahahahahahahaahahahaahha.

Laugh all you want. In my own country, I have seen sati, the caste system/ untouchability, dowry, child marriage, polygamy, female infanticide come under fire and/ or get banned. Do some of those covertly go on? Yes, in a country as diverse and populous as India, some of these (dowry, child marriage, caste system) have endured but as society is opening up they are getting pushed down further. No one is taking to the streets in support of untouchability. If semiliterate and poor country like India can progress, the US can do something simpler like a gay marriage.

[Officer of Engineers]

If semiliterate and poor country like India can progress, the US can do something simpler like a gay marriage.

Seriously? WHY? WHY AM I FORCED TO ACCEPT THINGS THAT I FIND INTOLERABLE?

Behind closed doors, that's your business but why am I forced to openly accept things that I can't fucking stand!

I can't stand the KKK, the Nazi Party, and by the same token gays and pedaphiles but as long as their actions don't harm anyone else, (imagination is imagination and I will not prosecute anyone for imagination) I will tolerate them BUT WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I ACCEPT THEM?

[antimony]

Seriously? WHY? WHY AM I FORCED TO ACCEPT THINGS THAT I FIND INTOLERABLE?

Behind closed doors, that's your business but why am I forced to openly accept things that I can't fucking stand!

I can't stand the KKK, the Nazi Party, and by the same token gays and pedaphiles but as long as their actions don't harm anyone else, (imagination is imagination and I will not prosecute anyone for imagination) I will tolerate them BUT WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I ACCEPT THEM?

Don't accept them if you do not want to. Don't talk to them, ignore them or cross the road if you see them. But you cannot deny them their rights.

And by the way, pedophiles harm children. Do not equate them to gays.

[Mihais]

Good Lord.This crap again.200 years is really too little.Besides,look at the last 50.You need a sustainable society and whatever crap has been going on is unsustainable.You can't replace family with bureaucracy and you certainly can't replace children with migrants or you die.And you need a whole set of values that support the said sustainable ideology.Yeah,you're pretty prepared to ruin everything just because the x minority nobody heard about 20 years ago is ''discriminated''.Tough luck,chap.Reality and history don't work that way,even if it takes generations for the obvious to become painful.
And what is quite annoying at you,guys,is complete lack of tolerance.''In the name of tolerance,you are condemned by the Party .You're an enemy of the People.''

Fvck that ,dude,I've seen enough of it.You're no better than those comrades.You're just smug enough to think you are.

[antimony]

Good Lord.This crap again.200 years is really too little.Besides,look at the last 50.You need a sustainable society and whatever crap has been going on is unsustainable.You can't replace family with bureaucracy and you certainly can't replace children with migrants or you die.And you need a whole set of values that support the said sustainable ideology.Yeah,you're pretty prepared to ruin everything just because the x minority nobody heard about 20 years ago is ''discriminated''.Tough luck,chap.Reality and history don't work that way,even if it takes generations for the obvious to become painful.
And what is quite annoying at you,guys,is complete lack of tolerance.''In the name of tolerance,you are condemned by the Party .You're an enemy of the People.''

Fvck that ,dude,I've seen enough of it.You're no better than those comrades.You're just smug enough to think you are.

What the fuck are you talking about? Replacing children with migrants, replacing family with bureaucracy, where does any of that come from? I think I was very clear that Europe should not be responsible for the migrants.

[Doktor]

Sometimes it seems hard to follow EE's thoughts.

Children with migrants - we have a negative demographics, let's get more people from abroad.

Family with bureaucrats - head of the family, the one who decides whatever is in family's best interest os someone holding a position, not from the family. You must be on the grid, you must have a healthcare coverage, you must go to this school...

[Mihais]

What the fuck are you talking about? Replacing children with migrants, replacing family with bureaucracy, where does any of that come from? I think I was very clear that Europe should not be responsible for the migrants.

Dude,you were talking of 200 years of whatever.Point is the last 50 years of reforms suck.And if you don't see the effects of this major societal fvckup that ''progressives'' brought us,not my fault.

[antimony]

Dude,you were talking of 200 years of whatever.Point is the last 50 years of reforms suck.And if you don't see the effects of this major societal fvckup that ''progressives'' brought us,not my fault.

Right.

Universal suffrage, civil rights, women's empowerment; they all suck. Stick wth that

And stop putting words in my mouth

[antimony]

Sometimes it seems hard to follow EE's thoughts.

Children with migrants - we have a negative demographics, let's get more people from abroad.

Family with bureaucrats - head of the family, the one who decides whatever is in family's best interest os someone holding a position, not from the family. You must be on the grid, you must have a healthcare coverage, you must go to this school...

Whatever, I did not say any of that

[Firestorm]

Sooooo, what you're saying in your own long winded and arrogant way is the the US government has usurped the rites of union from a number of different religions, taken the Christian term for that union (remember Christianity long predates the United States of America) and imposed it's own definition of what that union is.

And yet, NO ONE from ANY of these religions is complaining. In fact, the gays want the US government to impose the same definition on their unions too. And now it does. The only person who thinks this is somehow unfair or illegal is you it seems.

[GVChamp]

What the fuck are you talking about? Replacing children with migrants, replacing family with bureaucracy, where does any of that come from? I think I was very clear that Europe should not be responsible for the migrants.

This isn't about you and your belief system specifically. This is about you attacking Tradition, and what actually happens to Society when you attack Tradition, instead of what you think SHOULD happen if everyone adopts your beliefs.

For example, you are against Child Marriage. Great, so am I. You are an economic libertarian, or something like that, right? Great. I lean towards that direction.

What actually happens when marriage rates decline? In the US, single people vote for Big Government Dems by margins of 2 and 3 and 4 to 1. That's the actual concrete result of your anti-tradition beliefs: Bernie Sanders!

Similarly your assault on Tradition and championship of Secular Humanism has watered down the in-group identities of European groups, which has a great effect of not starting wars between France and Germany, and the negative effect of the stupid Eurozone monetary policy and not being able to control migrant populations. That's the direct result of your Secular Humanism.

By the way, regarding semi-literate, the West started off worse than India is right now, and, again, it advanced, through the ALLIANCE of Church and State, for about 1000 years.

[Parihaka]

And yet, NO ONE from ANY of these religions is complaining. In fact, the gays want the US government to impose the same definition on their unions too. And now it does. The only person who thinks this is somehow unfair or illegal is you it seems.

Except of course the Christians. Remember I'm not a Christian, I simply empathis with them having their traditions subverted to mean something different and having that change forced on them.

[DarthSiddius]

Except of course the Christians. Remember I'm not a Christian, I simply empathis with them having their traditions subverted to mean something different and having that change forced on them.

Let me try this again. How is the change forced on them? The US government is not telling the church to change it's definition of marriage. It's only the legal interpretation that is being changed which the government is well within its right to do, isn't it? It's only following past precedent, marriage certificates are after all issued to other religions, they are even issued to atheists. Why make concessions that affect everyone (irrespective of their belief) in order to placate a singular religion?

Either do that or relinquish control over the word 'marriage' and issue different certificates as per the various ceremonies and practices prevalent in the other belief systems.