Jesus Camp

[Hendrik]

Originally Posted by Cali

those videos are all f*cked up. instead of killing and judging each other, we should all kill and judge our gods

Yes, absolutely. And that was exactly the symbolic message of the final scene (where every god was being beheaded) in the dropped Mozart opera in Berlin.

[Cali]

it's so terrifying

edit:

jesus camp on bill maher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE

[WhatAmIDarling?]

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

with regards to the voting thing, the United States is a Representative Republic, so the government is supposed to represent the people as best as they can; if the evangelicals are the majority of the population than the government should represent them because in a representative republic the gov't is supposed to represent the majority, not neccesarily meaning their supposed to exclude the minority of course. however, the gov't is also supposed to abide by seperation of church and state, to not do this would be to contradict the very values that the United States was founded upon.

I KNOW. I don't know how many times I've said "Church is supposed to be kept separate from State" in my life, but it doesn't seem to do any good. I mean, all arguments against Gay Rights wouldn't even qualify as arguments if people would just acknowledge the fact that the bible is IRRELEVENT in regards to legal issues.

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by WhatAmIDarling?

I KNOW. I don't know how many times I've said "Church is supposed to be kept separate from State" in my life, but it doesn't seem to do any good. I mean, all arguments against Gay Rights wouldn't even qualify as arguments if people would just acknowledge the fact that the bible is IRRELEVENT in regards to legal issues.

there would be arguements againts gay rights. one could argue that homosexuality is unnatural because the natural purpose of sex is to reproduce; so if that is true then homosexuality is a mental problem, which is not a new idea i think 1979 was the year when it was no longer considered a mental problem.

interestingly enough studies show that the average homosexual lifespan is around 40-45 years old in the United States.

[WhatAmIDarling?]

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

there would be arguements againts gay rights. one could argue that homosexuality is unnatural because the natural purpose of sex is to reproduce; so if that is true then homosexuality is a mental problem, which is not a new idea i think 1979 was the year when it was no longer considered a mental problem.

interestingly enough studies show that the average homosexual lifespan is around 40-45 years old in the United States.

Gay marriage was legal in ancient Rome. As in, before the bible was part of society.

And yeah, there's always the "it isn't natural" argument, but that's still not a valid one. It's a matter of equal rights for ALL citizens in our "free" country, not a matter of whether or not the majority of people thinks it's icky.

40-45? That is interesting.

[#Ian#]

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

one could argue that homosexuality is unnatural because the natural purpose of sex is to reproduce;

The natural purpose of sex is to come.

[Cali]

rofl

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by WhatAmIDarling?

And yeah, there's always the "it isn't natural" argument, but that's still not a valid one. It's a matter of equal rights for ALL citizens in our "free" country, not a matter of whether or not the majority of people thinks it's icky.

a lot of things that aren't natural shouldnt be legal. Can you guarentee equal rights for our pedophile friends?

[Cali]

if it was up to this f*cker, yes we all could

mark foley

and i hope you're not comparing gays with pedophiles

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by Cali

and i hope you're not comparing gays with pedophiles

nope, i'm not at all. i'm just arguing that you cant guarentee rights for everything, pedophiles are mentally corrupted at can't be guarenteed all the rights that non-pedophiles have.

[Timeé]

"mentally corrupted" sounds like youre trying to take away the stuff that they think and do. dont do this

[Cali]

things aren't really that complicated. there's no need to explain it morally/sociologically/psychologically/etc. pedophiles hurt people, gays don't. if it weren't for religion (or any other illogical belief), homosexuality wouldn't be considered wrong

[Timeé]

they try to answer all questions at once. prolly because some granny wondered why Seamus was caught with Damien in the back shed some day and she wanted an answer.

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by Cali

things aren't really that complicated. there's no need to explain it morally/sociologically/psychologically/etc. pedophiles hurt people, gays don't. if it weren't for religion (or any other illogical belief), homosexuality wouldn't be considered wrong

Why do you believe it is wrong to hurt people?

[carvinC980t_kid]

it is an obivious answer to your question.

it is simply a moral choice and her feelings of the situation. that is how she feel and those are her morals.

i think the homosexuality is against the instint of human nature. male and female weren't ment to be bread with eachother. the problem is humans have much more emotion then other creatures, so their emotions change their feelings and what would be thought of as "natural aka straight" has changed to being homosexual, because of the emotions we are able to feel.

i'll be honest, i don't support homosexuality. it doen't mean i can't be friends with them or i'll treat them differently. it is just to me morally wrong, but if they are a nice person and i'll accept someone who is gay as a friend, because it is a quailty that shouldn't effect friendships.

[WhatAmIDarling?]

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

a lot of things that aren't natural shouldnt be legal. Can you guarentee equal rights for our pedophile friends?

Of course not. People shouldn't even dare compare being gay to being a pedophile. Children are not sexually developed, and easy to take advantage of. If you’re gay, your dating/sexual habits are that of any healthy human being--the only difference is which gender you're attracted to. You don't see pedophiles walking hand-in-hand with children asking for the right to be married, do you? Plus, pedophiles DO have more rights then gays in alot of cases. In some states, a pedophile and his wife can adopt a child, but a secure and loving gay couple can NOT adopt a child. Whether or not you're a sexual predator should be relevant in regards to restrictions of your constitutional rights--whether not you are in love with a man or a woman should not. It doesn't matter that some people think that being gay is just as unnatural as being a pedophile. There is more then enough evidence to support that being a pedophile is harmful (just common sense alone will tell you that there is something wrong with a grown man being attracted to little boys, for Gods sake), but there is NO WAY a typical homosexual relationship is any more harmful then a typical straight relationship. People just need to back off, gays aren't hurting anyone. They're the victims.

[WhatAmIDarling?]

Originally Posted by carvinC980t_kid

it is an obivious answer to your question.

it is simply a moral choice and her feelings of the situation. that is how she feel and those are her morals.

i think the homosexuality is against the instint of human nature. male and female weren't ment to be bread with eachother. the problem is humans have much more emotion then other creatures, so their emotions change their feelings and what would be thought of as "natural aka straight" has changed to being homosexual, because of the emotions we are able to feel.

i'll be honest, i don't support homosexuality. it doen't mean i can't be friends with them or i'll treat them differently. it is just to me morally wrong, but if they are a nice person and i'll accept someone who is gay as a friend, because it is a quailty that shouldn't effect friendships.

So you would be friends with a gay person, but you don't feel that your friend is deserving of the same rights as everyone else? What if one of your children was to come out of the closet? You would still love your kid, but think that your other kids had better morals?

[carvinC980t_kid]

yep, if i had a kid who was gay, i wouldn't encourage them with it, but i wouldn't tell them they are a horrible person either. i'd still love them and i could still love a friend, but i don't support homosexuality and i don't support gay marriage. i'd tell that to my kid too. it wouldn't make my other kids better by any means. you are just trying to get an argument and if you would have read what i wrote you would have been able to answer the questions for yourself.

[Hendrik]

Homosexuals have seen what mankind is capable of doing concerning evil things, so they were clever enough and've just given up on the whole "reproducing" bullsh.ite a long time ago. Ya see, that's the main idea behind it.

[Cali]

the nuns used to repeat this quote. i always wondered why they never applied it themselves.

First they went after the Communists,
and I did not stand up, because I was not a Communist.
Then they went after the homosexuals and infirm,
and I did not stand up, because I was neither.
Then they went after the Jews,
and I did not stand up, because I was not a Jew.
Then they went after the Catholics,
and I did not stand up, because I was Protestant.
Finally, they went after me,
and there was no one left to stand up for me.
-Pastor Martin Neimoller

[Hendrik]

Nuns...I'm scared of nuns (REVERSE! REVERSE!). Their hypocrisy. Their lies. Their humbling down in front of the male church people. I will never understand that stupidity of a woman having her hair and the body veiled whereas the males don't have to (see also women in islam). Who needs nuns? Get in more nurses for hospitals, but back oarf with deeze fuppin nuns!!!

[Five Leaves Left]

To Cali and WhatamIdarling?:

Why do you believe it is wrong to hurt people?

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by WhatAmIDarling?

People shouldn't even dare compare being gay to being a pedophile.

i agree.

[Cali]

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

To Cali and WhatamIdarling?:

Why do you believe it is wrong to hurt people?

Short answer: It's unnecessary and I don't like to be hurt so I don't want to hurt others.

Long answer: To me the main issue of your question lies in the word "wrong". It deals with ethics, and to some (including myself) there is no such thing as a universal moral. Morality is an artificial concept, as opposed to a natural one. The problem is how do you define what's wrong and what's right. Killing a small baby for example woud be considered wrong by most people, but what about the subject of homosexuality or a passive pedophile, someone who can't help having those thoughts but chooses not to act on them. I'm not claming I have the answers, but I firmly believe that actually thinking about those questions is a good start. We as people have evolved as thinking beings (no matter what creationists claim) so should use our brains to see beyond our acts. Religion on the other hand, over-simplifies things: "this is right, that is wrong. Period". It leaves no room for discussion, which is extremely dangerous.
If I was a religions person, I would probably respond your question with a: "because the bible says so", "because it's unnatural"--although this last statement is more than questionable. Thank god I'm not.

[carvinC980t_kid]

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

To Cali and WhatamIdarling?:

Why do you believe it is wrong to hurt people?

quit trying to get a stupid argument out of them over that topic.

IT IS A MORAL BELIEF.

maybe they don't want to be hurt and they are a fan of the "treat others how you'd like to be treated"

maybe, they are just NICE.

let it go

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by Cali

Short answer: It's unnecessary and I don't like to be hurt so I don't want to hurt others.

Long answer: To me the main issue of your question lies in the word "wrong". It deals with ethics, and to some (including myself) there is no such thing as a universal moral. Morality is an artificial concept, as opposed to a natural one. The problem is how do you define what's wrong and what's right. Killing a small baby for example woud be considered wrong by most people, but what about the subject of homosexuality or a passive pedophile, someone who can't help having those thoughts but chooses not to act on them. I'm not claming I have the answers, but I firmly believe that actually thinking about those questions is a good start. We as people have evolved as thinking beings (no matter what creationists claim) so should use our brains to see beyond our acts. Religion on the other hand, over-simplifies things: "this is right, that is wrong. Period". It leaves no room for discussion, which is extremely dangerous.
If I was a religions person, I would probably respond your question with a: "because the bible says so", "because it's unnatural"--although this last statement is more than questionable. Thank god I'm not.

If there is no such thing as a universal moral, then we all have our own morals and why should we enforce our morals on other people?

[Cali]

it's a matter of balance. what's "moral" to you may not be moral to me and vice versa but still, we live in a society that needs rules; without them, it would be anarchy. however, those rules, those laws, should have a rational foundation in order to be as fair as possible to as many people as possible. and even if we decide to use morals to base our laws on, they should always be questioned. there's no logical argument against gay marriage, it's all based on what a group of people think is moral or not. that's because religion supposedly holds the universal truth and therefore a universal moral.

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by Cali

it's a matter of balance. what's "moral" to you may not be moral to me and vice versa but still, we live in a society that needs rules; without them, it would be anarchy. however, those rules, those laws, should have a rational foundation in order to be as fair as possible to as many people as possible. and even if we decide to used morals to based our laws on, they should always be questioned. there's no logical argument against gay marriage, it's all based on what a group of people think is moral or not. that's because religion supposedly holds the universal truth and therefore a universal moral.

1. if there is no universal truth/moral then not only is there not any logical argument against gay marriage but there is no "logical" argument against rape, murder, and etc... (if you can think of one then let me know, "because it hurts people" is a moral)

2. You say that there is no universal truth, you sound to me as if you are claiming that, that in itself is a universal truth.

[Cali]

well it's a matter of common sense. you're overthinking too much. live and let live but with r.e.s.p.e.c.t. gotta go now, coz scrubs on tv and i love scrubs

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by Cali

well it's a matter of common sense. you're overthinking too much. live and let live but with r.e.s.p.e.c.t. gotta go now, coz scrubs on tv and i love scrubs

okay, okay. well it is a complicated issue and requires a lot of thinking. like what exactly is the difference between common sense and for lack of better words "morals." and what your definition of respect is and where you get your definition from. enjoy srubs.