[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
my hypocrisy, whatever it may be, has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of my claims.
You false claims make it harder for people to keep an open mind. Claiming one thing whether it be right or wrong, should be backed up when asked for evidence. You seem to fail to do so for a lot of points and only submit selective, and usually biased evidence.[/quote]
Like what?
All evidence has bias.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Like what?
All evidence has bias. [/quote]
Not to the extent your sources show. That’s all I ask. If you want to cite sources, then pick one that has no interest in either side of the argument. Islam vs. Christian? Ask an atheist.
Yes, there will be bias, but not as much as I’ve seen from your sources.
[quote]
That’s where you’re wrong. unlike you, I don’t follow any man. There’s good and bad in everyone, prophets included. One need only read the old testament for evidence of this. My standard of “perfect” is God, and it is unattainable. The best we can do is try.[/quote]
This is really the essence of what hypocrisy is, isn’t it? Professing to follow a certain standard and then failing at some point. Since perfect keeping of God’s standard of right and wrong is unattainable, we’re all hypocrites who profess to keep it - you, me, everyone.
You may be superior to me in aspects of law-keeping, but compared to the infinite righteousness of God, you look just like me.
[quote]
However, unlike you, I don’t condemn entire religions. I don’t talk about the evils of christianity, even though I think that it was a religion hijacked by scum in its infancy (Paul, Augustine, I’m looking your way). Yes, I can easily quote arguments that the early “fathers” of the church had, where their disrespect for women, their contempt for god, and their lack of piety is revolting.
But I know damn well that this doesn’t make christians evil, not by a long shot. There’s so much good and truth (left) in the bible that I’m happy and comfortable around good christians.
But you? I think we all know what you are.[/quote]
Fine. I think Mohammed would disagree with you:
The Qur’an itself confirms the truth of the Bible.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Like what?
All evidence has bias.
Not to the extent your sources show. That’s all I ask. If you want to cite sources, then pick one that has no interest in either side of the argument. Islam vs. Christian? Ask an atheist.
Yes, there will be bias, but not as much as I’ve seen from your sources.[/quote]
What sources are we discussing here, the Qur’an and Hadith?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
I know plenty of Muslims that do not want to live in a religious state. There’s a reason why the Turkish courts overturned the head scarf reforms. [/quote]
That’s the worst possible example.
A state banning a garment is exactly what separation of state and religion should NOT be. It’s trampling essential freedoms and is borderline persecution.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
I know plenty of Muslims that do not want to live in a religious state. There’s a reason why the Turkish courts overturned the head scarf reforms.
That’s the worst possible example.
A state banning a garment is exactly what separation of state and religion should NOT be. It’s trampling essential freedoms and is borderline persecution. [/quote]
Your opinion. My Turkish friends are very pleased with the ban.
How is wearing a scarf an “essential freedom”? How is not being allowed to wear one borderline persecution?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
That’s where you’re wrong. unlike you, I don’t follow any man. There’s good and bad in everyone, prophets included. One need only read the old testament for evidence of this. My standard of “perfect” is God, and it is unattainable. The best we can do is try.
This is really the essence of what hypocrisy is, isn’t it? Professing to follow a certain standard and then failing at some point. Since perfect keeping of God’s standard of right and wrong is unattainable, we’re all hypocrites who profess to keep it - you, me, everyone.
You may be superior to me in aspects of law-keeping, but compared to the infinite righteousness of God, you look just like me.
[/quote]
You don’t get it. I don’t care about your law keeping. It’s your hate mongering that’s a problem. You don’t fall short of what God has ordained, you willfully do the exact opposite.
[quote]
Fine. I think Mohammed would disagree with you:
5: 46-47 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) those who rebel.
The Qur’an itself confirms the truth of the Bible.[/quote]
How does that go counter to what I’ve said? And if you don’t consider the Qur’an a holy text, how would this support your argument (assuming I were saying something counter to it)?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
My Turkish friends are very pleased with the ban. [/quote]
How’s that of any relevance?
If a referendum was to be held, the ban would be overturned in a heartbeat. What some self-appointed dictator thinks (be it an institution or otherwise) is irrelevant.
You have got to be kidding me! Since when is the right to wear a scarf not an “essential freedom”? It’s blatant and obvious discrimination.
You have a twisted definition of freedom.
How is it not? The will of the people is disregarded and the military dictatorship gets to decide what religious denominations gets to attend university. That is textbook persecution. It’s not like the Turks are at their first strike or anything. Just ask the Kurds over there about the persecution they’re subjected to.
It’s worth noting that the affair is finally taken to the UN.
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=141910
[quote]makkun wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
[…]
Dude, you need to read more carefully. You will note that my personal experience has been that kids from gays were heteros and seemed well adjusted, but I assumed that that may not be the case for the majority.
Reading more carefully is always good advice - thank you. I have noted that - also I noted your assumptions as problematic. I’m glad you’ve had positive experiences there - that’s normally what helped build confidence much better than just statistics. But, being a friend of a good internet research, I couldn’t resist adding a few anal…ytical numbers. 
But regardless, kids should have both a male and female figure in their life and if we have a choice in the matter we should insist on that.
See my agreement above - with the nitpickish comment added that it’s not only two people a child needs; it’s a social environment with a lot of learning outside of the house. I’m really in doubt how well the nuclear family has worked out in general - cocooning into it may be more responsible for our social ills than we think.
Makkun[/quote]
To clarify, not just two people; male and female. And, I agree that as we have moved away from extended families the community has become much more important in raising children. And that, in part, is probably why so many kids are screwed up.
[quote]You don’t get it. I don’t care about your law keeping. It’s your hate mongering that’s a problem. You don’t fall short of what God has ordained, you willfully do the exact opposite.
[/quote]
I’m “hate mongering” by examining the canonical texts of Islam and their interpretation and pointing out that they promote violence against Jews, Christians, polytheists and pagans?
You’ve pointed out that the Bible is under some form of corruption when the Qur’an itself says the opposite. In the ayat I quoted, Mohammed was using the Bible to back up his claims and confirming its truth:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13988
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
A daughter is born, her dad decides who to marry her off to. She has no freedom in how she lives her life and often can’t even go out in public without a male escort. If we’re going to allow everyone their definition of marriage and family, what basis do we have for denying this? After all, it’s just their culture.
We have the basis to deny this by saying that basic human rights overturn any and all cultural values.
The main right I speak of would be the right to choose their own religion.
Did you see the Islamic critique of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html
Obviously, I agree with you. But we need some way of saying what is right and why in the case I’ve described. [/quote]
Lixy,
This means your extremist buddies are outside the code by killing others that do not believe in Allah.
It supports the sanctity of life and freedom of religion. So what will the Muslims do to enforce this? Cut off people’s heads that do not comply?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
To clarify, not just two people; male and female. And, I agree that as we have moved away from extended families the community has become much more important in raising children. And that, in part, is probably why so many kids are screwed up.
[/quote]
Kids have ALWAYS been screwed up. We just never had the resources to detect it nor the will together them all into a concentrated environment (school).
The kids of today are just as fucked up as their parents were.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
To clarify, not just two people; male and female. And, I agree that as we have moved away from extended families the community has become much more important in raising children. And that, in part, is probably why so many kids are screwed up.
Kids have ALWAYS been screwed up. We just never had the resources to detect it nor the will together them all into a concentrated environment (school).
The kids of today are just as fucked up as their parents were. [/quote]
I dunno. We were screwed up as kids but there are so many more opportunities for fucking up now that things are crazier.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Chewie wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Chewie wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.
They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.
I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.
That would be granting “special rights”. We aren’t in the business of “special rights” because that would give the group in question more than the rest of society, thus defeating the idea of equal rights.
If the right to marry someone of the same sex was granted, it becomes an equal right immediately. Straight people would very likely NOT exercise the right, but they still have it. It’s open to all people regardless of sexual orientation
I just noticed something. By your logic, homosexuals will take over the concept of marriage and because of that heterosexuals would abandon in? What would follow after that?
Err… he’s saying they won’t exercise the right to marry another member of their sex. Did you REALLY misread that that badly?
Oh, and I have a solution. We won’t redefine marriage.
We’ll make a new term, mariage, that is marriage, only allowing same sex couples. It will have the same rights and benefits as Married people, only they will be termed Maried instead.
Happy?[/quote]
No, it wasn’t a misread. If it is marriage regardless of sexual orientation and heterosexuals don’t participate, then it would have been taken over by homosexuals.
I was poking at the logic involved because they are saying over and over again that it is the same thing. Get it?
Err… what? You twisted his words. Congratulations, you fail at debate.
It isn’t the same thing. But it’s under the same general concept.
Straight rape and gay rape aren’t the same thing, but they’re both rape.
Red koolaid and purple koolaid aren’t the same thing, but they’re both delicious.
Get it?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Err… what? You twisted his words. Congratulations, you fail at debate.
It isn’t the same thing. But it’s under the same general concept.
Straight rape and gay rape aren’t the same thing, but they’re both rape.
Red koolaid and purple koolaid aren’t the same thing, but they’re both delicious.
Get it?[/quote]
No, you are trying to define it as the same thing, marriage.
As you pointed out, it is not.
[quote]Chewie wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Err… what? You twisted his words. Congratulations, you fail at debate.
It isn’t the same thing. But it’s under the same general concept.
Straight rape and gay rape aren’t the same thing, but they’re both rape.
Red koolaid and purple koolaid aren’t the same thing, but they’re both delicious.
Get it?
No, you are trying to define it as the same thing, marriage.
As you pointed out, it is not. [/quote]
It is the same thing. The technical difference is irrelevant, much the same way an interracial marriage is technically different than a marriage between two white or two black people.
Unless you can cite a way that gay marriage would be different than straight marraige (other than the fact that it involves two men or two women)?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
It is the same thing. The technical difference is irrelevant, much the same way an interracial marriage is technically different than a marriage between two white or two black people.[/quote]
It’s not even close to the same thing. Black/white marriage is very analogous to red/purple Kool Aid. Gay marriage would be more like two glasses full of water or a bunch of dry powder in the bottom of a glass.
Reproduction. Heterosexual couples can reproduce without a third party. It’s funny that you don’t know this, almost like it’s convenient for you to look past it.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Reproduction. Heterosexual couples can reproduce without a third party. It’s funny that you don’t know this, almost like it’s convenient for you to look past it.[/quote]
People don’t need to be married to procreate. And what about heterosexual couples that adopt?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
It is the same thing. The technical difference is irrelevant, much the same way an interracial marriage is technically different than a marriage between two white or two black people.
It’s not even close to the same thing. Black/white marriage is very analogous to red/purple Kool Aid. Gay marriage would be more like two glasses full of water or a bunch of dry powder in the bottom of a glass.
Unless you can cite a way that gay marriage would be different than straight marraige (other than the fact that it involves two men or two women)?
Reproduction. Heterosexual couples can reproduce without a third party. It’s funny that you don’t know this, almost like it’s convenient for you to look past it.[/quote]
Edit: forget it.