Discussion in 'Religion' started by Sorcerer, Feb 24, 2014.
Tell me, as a moderator, why do you hurl abuse?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What other option is there? The State FORCING people to marry against their own wills? What sort of totalitarian theocracy are you advocating here?
That's what you said. Now tell me that's not your true opinion.
We discussed that. You're trying to deny gay people their rights, which is persecution.
I'm angry when people like you try to deny me my rights, that's for sure. You'd be angry if I tried to deny you yours.
I'm not advocating any kind of system, I'm just stating what ''marriage'' has been reduced to.
I suppose you could compare it to the term ''gay''. It means happy, lighthearted, carefree, but it's primarily understood to mean homosexual now.
No answer? Smile. You know, I think that I can smell the fear.
The fact is that there is no reply. No attempt at rational argument for [censored] is being made here. No attempt at rational disagreement is being made here. The thread consists of a handful of people screaming and screaming, pouring out crude lies, personal abuse, and so forth (this must be a really shitty forum, if that's tolerated). And now, one of the dirtier trolls doing this, whom I have simply ignored, claims to be a moderator and ... wait for it ... is going to ban me unless I stop using words he has decided are BAD to describe [censored]!!!! I nearly did the nose trick when I read that.
I think I won that argument. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Very funny to see people so afraid of truth and reason.
But of course I'm not going to waste much time posting through someone else's bigotry and dishonesty.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What I gather from all of your posturing is this, you are mad because you cannot carry on with your homophobic rants and get away with it. Too fucking bad, dude! Get over it!
Yes, Roger you won the argument! You won, you do have the right to be a homophobe but you will have to do it someplace else.
Seriously... If it's such a "shitty" forum, why waste your time here? You're not going to reform us heathens, and degenerates... You're nothing more than a troll. Probably a sock anyway.
Wow, you're a real troll, a professional one at that. You should clear off.
Roger, there really are no words...
Dude, there ARE words... But, to speak them, would mean a ban...meh.
Wow. There's just so much... enigma here that one doesn't know where to begin:
"Marriage has always represented" such-and-such, but this has nothing to do with the "history of marriage"--oh, but wait, just a few short posts later it seemingly does have something to do with the history of marriage; unless "historically marriage has always..." is intended to mean... or represent--no, no, mean... Well, I'll just have to get some clarification on that from the expert.
And what do you suppose a “word” is, Jan? And which is more... erm, significant: when a thing "means" something, but does not "represent" it; or when a thing "represents" something, but does not "mean" it? And can you clarify for us the precise manner in which you are employing these terms?
I would very much like to know the truth, and to see some reasoned argumentation for such--can you point me to such a place?
Gotta go with... NO.
You quote a source that states:
and then you state:
WTF?! Did you read that which you quoted? If marriage has "always been understood" as a union of male and female, then how could there have been--and continue to be--same-sex marriages the world over, from time immemorial? Did the parties involved not understand what has "always been understood"? And "always been understood" by whom?
I think he got bent out of shape because he was mostly being ignored. Somewhere about the time he entered into this he admitted to posting a fake claim, alleging that it was done to conduct some sort of assessment of forum attitudes. As I recall most posters even ignored that. I thought it was a pretty bizarre admission of being disingenuous. But he seems to be trying a variety of tactics to get a rise out of people.
It takes me back to a point I've brought up several times before. Who are these people? Are they at all serious or is this simply role playing? If they're serious, are we to assume that they're connected with the institutions which like to inject fundamentalism into every discussion that remotely relates to any of the conservative agenda? Are they paid by the ICR and/or Koch Bros.?
I'll get off my soapbox, quinn, and let you get back to busting a blood vessel over the present dialogue.
Are you screaming or whining when you say that?
By all means, proceed. You're sounding holier and holier by the moment.
The name shows in blue if they're a mod. There's no subterfuge about that.
Wow. The pathos.
So, in summary: whine, whine, gloat?
Homophobia and denial dressed up as religion is neither funny nor emblematic of truth. So, no.
We see what kind of reason you're applying here.
More blame-shifting to go with the religiosity, narcissism and anger. Wow, looks like you're off the charts on the psychopathy checklist. What's the prize for a perfect score up at the First Anabaptist Church of Gay Bashers-Reformed?
Sorry. I chose to actually get some sleep and spend time with my kids this morning. I know, your complaint that you can't be a homophobe should take precedent, but such is life.
It is always hard to have a rational argument with bigots and homophobes when they continuously pepper their posts with offensive comments about minority groups. Perhaps you have a solution to this problem?
One can have a rational disagreement when the other is a bigot and a homophobe?
Come come. You really shouldn't speak about Jan that way. It is unbecoming.
Did you consider your role in this? Did you consider how your words and bigotry would affect and offend the many LGBT and heterosexual members and staff we happen to have?
If you are whining that I won't allow you to continue to offend them and hurt this site's reputation with your bigotry, then sorry, but them's the breaks.
Yes, I will moderate you (as per the cycle) if you repeat the offensive behaviour you have spent some time exhibiting. I will even quote you some of the rules of this site, if you have an issue:
Hate speech and stereotyping
6. Hate speech, defined as the vilification of a group of people based on their race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc. is not tolerated on sciforums.
8. The use of vulgar or demeaning words to describe a group of people – particularly a group that includes a member whom you are addressing – is unacceptable.
Are you a seal balancing a ball on your nose?
Yes Roger. You have 'won the interwebs'.
What truth and reason do you think you spout?
Now you know exactly how I and the greater majority on this site feel!
You've done no such thing because marriage has not been reduced, it has been expanded in regards to acceptance. You just hate the acceptance part.
It's amazing how things change over time, isn't it, Jan?
It's ironic that the guy who admitted he lied is complaining that we are somehow afraid of the truth.
I read that and started laughing.
Separate names with a comma.