Snrub went too far with personal attacks. He's usually more intelligent than this.

Although I can see why he wants to leave the thread, it's going nowhere.

Libs, minus the concentration camps, this has already happened before

Why stop with homosexuals, i think we should demand to remove any personal rights given to women! It is decreed so in the bible.

Now to all the hicks, who is worth more as a person? A homosexual or a woman?

that and ethiopians! they've been controlling the damn planet for too long!

Ebner, we hate dem fags because Fred Phelps told us sew! Yee-haw!

them damn ethiopions

woman

I do not hate anybody based on their sexual preference. I do not hate gays or promiscuous straight people. But that doesn't mean my sense of morality will accept either as right. At the same time, I have no right to tell somebody to not be a homosexual. The issue of right and wrong has to be addressed by each individual and is a personal choice.

Unlike others who are selectively against gay men but are just fine with lesbians, I do not condone any unnatural sexual act. If you keep moving the line between right and wrong, where will it end?

Is sex with animals and children ok? Not ever. If homosexuality is considered normal, how far behind is pedophilia and beastiality from normalcy after that?

A society with no boundaries in morality will fail. That doesn't mean I think like some moronic evengelicals with issues concerning religion. No one has the right to impose their religion and their values on others. The only values that a society can impose are the laws of the land. Homosexuality though morally wrong is not against the law, but pedophylia is thankfully.

BTW, using this as the main issue a sizeable chunk of this country voted again for president a guy who was a failure in everything he touched. As long as myopic and idiotic Democrats are in line with this line of thought the ruthless, corrupt and completely inept GOP will take this country down the road to its ultimate collapse.

Bed time for me, ill talk more tomorrow abuot this, if you still dont understand by then :razz:

Nah, if we wanted a society with efficient rulers, we need religion. It's what keeps the masses lined up like sheep.

The only major religions I have respect for is Buddhism and Taoism, because no wars have been set up in the name of them and they aren't violent and malevolent.

You'd be surprised at how needed religion is in a complex society.

BTW, more on Fred Phelps...

http://www.godhatesfags.com

This guy is crazy. He makes Algren seem like a friend of Richard Simmons.

Like I said, only to keep the masses in line like sheep to the slaughterhouse. One Roman Emperor made Christianity the official religion of the Empire because it was the easiest of all religions to bend to control the public.

You make it sound like religion is a bad thing for society. It's needed so bad. Just look at the Amish. They have no real laws or sense of ownership (as in monetary) but it's religion that keeps their society in check and that is keeping it alive.

And what if he didn't instal a controlling factor like christianity? What would have happend to the empire? It was needed then and is needed now.

The slippery slope arugment. Possibly the worst arguing tactic in the history of man kind. Luckily for us we are human beings and we can tell the difference between homosexual sex and acts like pedophilia and incest which cause irreversible damage to it's victims. Homosexual sex is a loving act between two consenting adults - just like straight sex.

Religion isn't necessarily a bad thing for society, just not a necessary thing, and it can be dangerous in the wrong hands (look at the Dark Ages).

And the Amish are disorganized lunatics anyway. They can't grasp that they eventually, like the rest of society, will succumb to the omnipotent hands of the technocratic world. They are like the KKK without the racism-opposed to change and disorganized and mentally...well...twisted.

I don't like leaders that control the people except in murder, theft, abuse, etc. Leaders should otherwise only exist to help and protect people.

Ever heard of Stalin?

I think Ahmed meant if it never was conceived or created, not if it was wiped out and those who were religious killed.

Religion is quite necessary. It's needed infact. Our laws wouldn't even be there if it weren't for religion. All in a sense is based upon it.

And the Amish aren't lunatics, they just don't want to have to deal with all the hardships that technology could bring so they decide to live the olden life.

Leaders can try to help and protect but you gotta remember that no human being is perfect thus not even the leader can be perfect.

So you think Stalin wouldnt have killed those millions of his own people if they werent religious?
He killed the religious and the non religious.