Don't wanna make polemics or something but

[MuadDib85]

I believe in marriage before sex, not only for all of the moral reasons but also for the fact that parents that have made some sort of binding commitment to each other are much more likely to work towards a relationship that will guarantee their children a stable home.

This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on these forums. If you ever said that in my presence in real life, I would probably punch you in the face.

How open-minded of you.

I think you have it backwards. It is your mind that needs opening.

You see, my mind is open enough to tolerate married people, unmarried people, gay people and everyone else.

What I don't tolerate are morons who judge other people based on religion, I think they/you all need a smack in the head or some re-education.

[jdizzy001]

Well, this is all fun and stuff, but... we DO agree, though, religion aside, that said site (the thread's original topic) IS asinine and the owners SHOULD be thrown in jail, right? (heck, if that site was hosted in my country, I'd have a word with a few Federal Prosecutors about it.

Thrown in jail for free speech?  I abhor racisim, but free speech is a protected amendment right, at least in the states. As terrible as it sounds, hate speech is a form of protected speech.  Now, having said that, just because something is free and protected doesn't make it morally right.  Racism is never right.  I didn't investigate super deep in the aforementioned website, (after seeing what the title of their forums were, I knew I didn't need to look any deeper) so unless they are hurting people (which would then make their actions hate crimes) no one is going to be thrown in jail for expressing their opinion in written form, at least not in the states.

You can express opinions, but there is a fine line between expressing a dislike for black people and practicing racism (which are different things, since racism is a crime - US included, they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the related treaties), and that site crosses it. Also, they're borderline incentivating crimes against black people, which is ANOTHER crime here (instigating one to commit a crime).

well, like i said, i didn't look too much into their website, so i have no comment to add, point taken.

[Gate Troll]

I believe in marriage before sex, not only for all of the moral reasons but also for the fact that parents that have made some sort of binding commitment to each other are much more likely to work towards a relationship that will guarantee their children a stable home.

This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on these forums. If you ever said that in my presence in real life, I would probably punch you in the face.

How open-minded of you.

I think you have it backwards. It is your mind that needs opening.

You see, my mind is open enough to tolerate married people, unmarried people, gay people and everyone else.

What I don't tolerate are morons who judge other people based on religion, I think they/you all need a smack in the head or some re-education.

Tolerance implies control, and having a moral problem with being gay, or with sex outside of marriage does not mean I am acting to prevent others from such behavior, merely abstaining from such behavior myself.

You 'tolerate' certain things based on your beliefs, and believe everyone who does not 'tolerate' such things must not be 'tolerated' themselves.

The very ideas expressed by the word 'tolerance' are the twin principles of allowance and endorsement, from the position of a superior passing favorable judgment, and I am neither, and thus by my position I can not be said to tolerate such things.

Romans 1:27 forbids homosexuality, and there are multiple verses condemning sexual immorality, such as the whole of Leviticus 18.
As a Christian, I place my faith in the Bible, and anything contrary to it I can not endorse, and also cannot be said to tolerate such things.

Let me ask you two things regarding 'tolerance' (assuming tolerance is the correct term)
First, is it true 'tolerance' to only 'tolerate' things that you agree with, and believe that anyone who does not 'tolerate' those things should be physically abused, and sent to the gulag for 'reeducation'?

And second, why should I comprise my beliefs to fit your idea of tolerance?

[Gate Troll]

Well, this is all fun and stuff, but... we DO agree, though, religion aside, that said site (the thread's original topic) IS asinine and the owners SHOULD be thrown in jail, right? (heck, if that site was hosted in my country, I'd have a word with a few Federal Prosecutors about it.

Thrown in jail for free speech?  I abhor racisim, but free speech is a protected amendment right, at least in the states. As terrible as it sounds, hate speech is a form of protected speech.  Now, having said that, just because something is free and protected doesn't make it morally right.  Racism is never right.  I didn't investigate super deep in the aforementioned website, (after seeing what the title of their forums were, I knew I didn't need to look any deeper) so unless they are hurting people (which would then make their actions hate crimes) no one is going to be thrown in jail for expressing their opinion in written form, at least not in the states.

You can express opinions, but there is a fine line between expressing a dislike for black people and practicing racism (which are different things, since racism is a crime - US included, they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the related treaties), and that site crosses it. Also, they're borderline incentivating crimes against black people, which is ANOTHER crime here (instigating one to commit a crime).

well, like i said, i didn't look too much into their website, so i have no comment to add, point taken.

I was under the impression that the US was not bound by international law.

[Gate Troll]

At the risk of triple-posting I will say this:

It appears that this thread has taken on a dual life.
First, to discuss this ridiculous, racist website called 'Chimpout', and second, thanks to ket_the_jet, to bash me and be loudly intolerant of my views in the defense of progressive feel-good 'tolerance'. Whatever. I rather enjoy it, but would prefer the topic be split and the split portion be titled

"Bashing people we disagree with in the name of tolerance."

 

Good day TLHHers, and yes, by the way, I just took the moral high ground. See ya!

[ket_the_jet]

...second, thanks to ket_the_jet, to bash me and be loudly intolerant of my views in the defense of progressive feel-good 'tolerance'.

I think I have been largely uninvolved in this discussion since you requested my response then didn't counter my argument. I don't care if it ends or keeps going, but it is worth noting that it was Heije who first called you on your comments.
-wtk

[MuadDib85]

Gate Troll:

What I have a problem with is you thinking it's alright to publicly state that it's wrong to be gay or wrong to be unwed and have children. That's all. I am pointing out by stating this that you have a closed mind.

I know there are people like you in the world and usually I would just ignore such petty ignorance, perhaps when you're older you'll understand that it's not okay to say such things. I can only hope.

Anyway, enjoy the moral high ground. Haha.

[Kev-La]

It is my belief that I function on the premise that right and wrong do not exist outside of human perception. One person's idea of right is another person's idea of wrong. My grandad used to say, wisely I think, "You can change a man against his will, but he'll have the same opinion still".

[FM]

Well, this is all fun and stuff, but... we DO agree, though, religion aside, that said site (the thread's original topic) IS asinine and the owners SHOULD be thrown in jail, right? (heck, if that site was hosted in my country, I'd have a word with a few Federal Prosecutors about it.

Thrown in jail for free speech?  I abhor racisim, but free speech is a protected amendment right, at least in the states. As terrible as it sounds, hate speech is a form of protected speech.  Now, having said that, just because something is free and protected doesn't make it morally right.  Racism is never right.  I didn't investigate super deep in the aforementioned website, (after seeing what the title of their forums were, I knew I didn't need to look any deeper) so unless they are hurting people (which would then make their actions hate crimes) no one is going to be thrown in jail for expressing their opinion in written form, at least not in the states.

You can express opinions, but there is a fine line between expressing a dislike for black people and practicing racism (which are different things, since racism is a crime - US included, they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the related treaties), and that site crosses it. Also, they're borderline incentivating crimes against black people, which is ANOTHER crime here (instigating one to commit a crime).

well, like i said, i didn't look too much into their website, so i have no comment to add, point taken.

I was under the impression that the US was not bound by international law.

They sure act as so. Problem with International Law is exactly this: there is no coercion. So, even though countries sign treaties left and right, bottom line is: if a country decides they're not abiding by that, what can you do? Not much. But yes, the US did sign the treaty, and are SUPPOSED to abide by it, although I give it to you almost every single country has SOME treaties they simply ignore, mine included.

[Gil-Estel]

It is my belief that right and wrong do not exist outside of human perception. One person's idea of right is another person's idea of wrong. My grandad used to say, wisely I think, "You can change a man against his will, but he'll have the same opinion still".

Do you think there is a universal ethics though? And do people have the right to correct one and other? Sincere curiousity here.....

[Gate Troll]

It is my belief that right and wrong do not exist outside of human perception. One person's idea of right is another person's idea of wrong. My grandad used to say, wisely I think, "You can change a man against his will, but he'll have the same opinion still".

People may have different opinions, but does that mean that they are all right? If I believe that I will be given something, I can be either right or wrong, and others may have opinions on whether or not I will get that same thing, but only one person can be correct.

Is every opinion valid?

Is every opinion right?

[ket_the_jet]

The way I see it, there are exactly two options when it comes to Christianity.

Option 1: Bind your life to every word written in the Bible. Acknowledge that it is completely correct, infallible, and the way to live your life. Curse homosexuality as being immoral and an affront to God, deny women the right to have opinions (Timothy 2:11, among others), keep obedient slaves (several of Paul's epistles), and paint sticks and force sheep to look at them before copulating if we want to beat science and have striped ewes (late Genesis 30).

or:
Option 2: We can understand that the Bible is a fantastic moral guideline for society; however, as instructions are historically bound to a different time period and culture, some of the stories may not apply to modern life except when viewed as a historical case. The overarching themes of loving one's neighbor and living like Jesus are fantastic themes, but you don't have to be a circumcised Anglo-Saxon who washes every inch of his body every time he "spills his seed" and slaughters a goat every time he sins.

Of course, there is also Option 3: Neither of the above.
-wtk

[Yanko Markovic]

but you don't have to be a circumcised n Anglo-Saxon who washes every inch of his body every time he "spills his seed" and slaughters a goat every time he sins.

I don't know if you think Christians must be circumcised or if they're sacrificing sheep around, but here's just a clarification. The Bible does not indicate that circumcision (and other "righteous" merits among men, for that matter) guarantees salvation, but rather a true belief that Jesus Christ died for you (Philippians 3:4-9).

Neither does animal sacrifice. Why do you even think Jesus died on that cross for? Why do you think he is called "The Lamb of God"? Animal sacrifice in the Old Testament (Exodus 24:8) was a way to picture, to foreshadow the ultimate sacrifice that was Jesus. After Jesus died, no animal sacrifice was needed again (Hebrews 9:9, 9:12). In the Old Testament, many animals had to be slaughtered in order to redeem sins. But when Jesus died on the cross, He was the only sacrifice needed in order to redeem the sins of everyone who believed in Him, back then, now, and in the future (Hebrews 10:12, 7:27, 9:28, 10:10, 10:14)

Again, I don't know whether you really think we're killing sheep around or if that was just a cynical taunt. But just so all people know, in Christianity (in the biblical sense), animal sacrifice is pointless, and (hope here's no Opus Dei member who might feel offended), also is self-flagellation. Only one sacrifice was needed to redeem our sins, and only a true faith and commitment to follow Jesus is needed to gain salvation.

[legolas3333]

not that this isn't interesting but it has gotten off-topic, a mod needs to split this thread

[Gate Troll]

Gate Troll:

What I have a problem with is you thinking it's alright to publicly state that it's wrong to be gay or wrong to be unwed and have children. That's all. I am pointing out by stating this that you have a closed mind.

So I'm closed-minded for not sharing the same view that you do?

Fellow TLHHer's, what's wrong with this picture?

I know there are people like you in the world and usually I would just ignore such petty ignorance...

At least I'm trying to be humorous when I'm arrogant. You really have no excuse.

...perhaps when you're older you'll understand that it's not okay to say such things. I can only hope.

Is sex taboo again? Since when? Why aren't you more 'tolerant' and 'open-minded' of me 'saying such things'?

Anyway, enjoy the moral high ground. Haha.

I'm glad you're not taking my arrogance too seriously.