-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Christie Golden!
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
I don’t need the state getting involved with my religion and i don’t want it involved in the state either. Religion belongs in the church, the home, and philosophy and theology classes. Why? Because if we let religion become a major force within our government we run the risk of religious opression TO ALL people,regardless of faith. If we let the state get involved with religion we run the same exact risk. Christ it’s not like this is hard stuff to figure out.
For some it is.
Yeah, too late.
I can see it now…
Jezuzville Gazette July 4th. 2045
The Theocratic Court has ruled that Cheeseburgers are a sin*, therefore they will be outlawed!
* i.e. They aren’t Kosher therefore the the Bible says they are a sin.
If we let the Bible become the law of the land it would set us back hundreds of years as a society.
Truth.
tl;dr
I’ve got to agree with the guy that pushing on Prop 8 in California. If it’s the sanctity of marriage act, then sanctify marriage, no half assing here. If gay marriage is illegal because it is an affront to God, then make divorce illegal. Make adultery a crime that carries a prison sentence.
Seriously. “No gay marriage! Marriage is a holy institution!” …then the government shouldn’t support it -AT ALL-. “But but but… My spousal and tax benefits!” Can’t have it both ways, dickhead… If you want the government to support it, you have to acknowledge that there’s a secular and a religious “version” of marriage. If you acknowledge that, there’s absolutely no reason to oppose gay marriage.
I do hope you have your tongue firmly in your cheek as you wrote that.
But it would take a lot of people out of the government. Hollywood alone would be a ghost town after everyone was arrested that might be guilty of those crimes.Furthermore, it would be repealed within days of the new administration. Domestic violence rates, and murder rates would go through the roof if it didn’t get canned.
Yes, my tongue is firmly in my cheek writing that.
I do not oppose gay marriage. If marriage was purely religious you wouldn’t have things like The Church of Universal light in Modesto California where you can bestow priesthood upon any name you enter into their records with a $5.00 donation.
I’d love for any of my gay friends to actually have the choice to get married if they want to. God did put us here and give us free will to make our own choices. Let us make our own choices then… please…
Although, I still think it’d be hilarious to watch it drop if you started to push that through, because honestly, if you’re gonna outlaw marriage to gays because of the sanctity of marriage, then actually believe in the sanctity of marriage then.
It pretty much says that dimwits use religion to reinforce their homophobia, which I’m sure god is totally OK with.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Pretty much true right there…
the christian faith is a joke, just like all other organised religions
their bibles are from the fiction section of the library
but still
Fags are abominations who deserve to be abhorred by all because as much as religion cant make up its mind about fags, mother nature above all says that homosexuals are against the norm and should be excluded
the natural process of the body says that the anus is for excretion of biological wastes, and is not intended for sexual activity, and also, the nature of the body is that it was designed for only the comjoining of 1 male and 1 female, hence why only this union can enact reproduction
leave it to the most hardcore bigot on the site to be the one to talk about assplay. You’re so far in the closet your about to find Narnia.
And what do you have against blowjobs? Since there’s no biological reason for a chick to suck off a dude then it must be wrong in the books of “mother nature”? Fuck that.
Religion is bad: Check.
Bible is fiction: Check.
Ass is for shitting: Check.
Two consenting adult males, sticking dicks in poopers, is a crime against nature: WTF is your problem?
I’d walk you to Auschwitz, Kommissar. For being the kind of idiot that poisins the world, I’d walk you to Auschwitz and throw you in and lock you up.
Sorry Sir, Madam, or what ever you happen to be, I beg to differ. You seem to be a bit behind the times.
Penguins, dolphins, dogs, primtes (humans included), all practice homosexuality. Researchers have found that nature has a nitch for them to fill. (Pardon the… Okay the pun was intended, never mind.) They found that the Bachelor Uncle/ Maiden Aunt effect comes into play when rearing children in social groups. They may not contribute their genes to the child, but they do help it to survive and continue the species.
If you want to claim nature as a reason, then explain why homosexuals are born that way. It would seem illogical for nature to leave such a dead end built in.
In other words: Don’t make an ass out of yourself.
If you don’t believe in any of the religions, then under what morality do you claim homosexuality is wrong? Clearly nature allows it, since it exists, and nothing can exist outside of nature. What social norm are you using to come to your conclusion?
When I pointed out to Kommissar that homosexuality is natural in another thread he actually accepted that. Obviously he repeats this homophobic nonsense after whomever it was that first talked about it in his presence. It’s just a really primitive view of his where he is convinced that unless a man gets together with a woman so they can have sex like rabbits which produces children that can become soldiers etc. – he can’t be good. At least that’s what I gathered. He is not interested in any rational arguments for why people with dark skin can be as intelligent as every other person, that Jews are human beings like him, that homosexuals don’t harm anyone with being the way they are or that people can have morals without being fascists.
And once there really is nothing he can say back he just leaves. This guy doesn’t make comments so he can argue with anyone. He just makes them to have made them. I wonder how old he is.
Nyokki, it doesnt need to be under the scrutiny of religious ideals to be proven wrong, mother nature herself deemed it wrong as the rectal area is simply the exit for fecal matter, nothing more,…apart from modern medicine prostate checks and suppositories
dieantagonista, you just enjoy mashing my words dont you? I agree that homosexuality occurs naturally as yet another form of mental disability, which turns back in on itself as unnatural as all mental disabilities are the brain operating in an unnatural process
and btw, i am willing to have lengthened conversations about issues, i just dont want to bookmark MCS pages
I’ll look the thread up for you if you won’t admit it. I cited references that show homosexuality is natural and normal and you stopped arguing against it. You didn’t say anything about it being a mental disability. That’s a new argument you just made up because you are running out of ideas.
What do you have to back up any of the things you claim. You say you don’t believe in religion, well do you believe in science? “Mother nature” is not a doctor you can use as a reference and last time I checked “mother nature” doesn’t point fingers at anyone for having sex with whomever they want. Get real man.
It isn’t unusual in the animal kingdom, nor is it dysfunction. In fact, among bighorn sheep, males that do not have sex with other males when the females are out of heat are excluded from the peer group and have less reproductive success during the mating season. There are a multitude of examples just like this. Its part of nature, not good or bad, and certainly not a disability.
Who told you that mother nature designated the rectal area as exit only? Clearly it’s not.
I find your statement that homosexuality is a disability interesting. The definition of a disability, according to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is as follows:
“The term ‘disability’ means, with respect to an individual –
(a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;
(b) a record of such impairment; or
(c) being regarded as having such an impairment.â€
I refer you to section a of the quote. In what way does homosexuality limit an individual? I posit that no such limits are present, and thus your statement is fallicous.
It’s weird. I know all this and still hit the submit button. It was more complex, than I decided to just simplify and also hoped for a more interesting discussion from others…which I got. 🙂
Kommissar, in what way is same sex marriage related to the anus? Half of same sex marriages would be two women, who may or may not have anal play in their sex lives, and (and I am surprised how many people don’t know this) a significant significant portion of homosexual males do not have anal play in their sex lives.
And what does the ability to reproduce unaided have to do with the appropriateness of same sax marriage? Stop mixing up what discussion we are having here.
As far as I’m concerned, the church gave up their monopoly on marriage as a holy institution a long, long time ago. Sure, gay marriage is an affront to god. So is ‘heathen’ marriage, adultery and divorce. The church stopped caring a long time ago about the sanctity of marriage, and have now suddenly decided to care again because it suits their homophobic agenda.
More than that, marriages don’t even need to include god anymore. Civil celebrants are equally able to legally declare a couple wed whether or not god was ever mentioned in the ceremony. This fact draws a distinct line between religious marriage and legal marriage.
SO
Let the churches keep their bastardised ‘sanctity’ free of us fags, and reform religious marriage (ceremonies invoking god) to christians only. Legal marriages will proceed, god free, for people of other faiths or no faith (the definition of ‘heathen’ or ‘pagan’) under the law, which has no basis on which to prejudice based on sex.
To me, that’s the end of it. Gay marriage or no, the church is the embodiment of hypocrisy and should be seperated from the law so they can do what they want with their faith, or integrated into it fully in which case they can shut the hell up when the law needs to rectify such hypocrisies. They should not have the ability to sit half in/half out so they can stick their noses into everything. Faith has no right to dictatorship in a multicultural world.
You want to end this the right way? Get rid of the word “marriage” on legal documents. Period. If a man and a woman get married, as far as the government is concerned, its a civil union. Man and a man, or Woman and a woman? Same deal. You can have the ceremony wherever you like. But if you want to be recognized by the state and federal government, you need to file the proper paperwork and it’ll be classified as a civil union.
The term “marriage” belongs in religion and only religion, and each denomination can decide for themselves what they want to “marry” within their own walls. Let the gays bother the Vatican about this if they wanna get married in a church, enough tax dollars and representatives time has been spent on the issue here.
I can’t really see what all the fuss is about. They should just allow gays to have civil non-religious marriages that have the exact same legal qualities and benefits/responsibilities of religious marriages, and allow open-minded clergymen to hold religious same-sex marriages at their own discretion. There, problem solved. Oh wait, you still have to convince a lot of self-righteous morons to allow this to happen. Never mind.
Twenty bucks says Kommisar spends some of his spare time attempting to insert the business end of a Bart Simpson doll up his ass, then feeling very, very ashamed afterwards. The nutjobs that go on the most about how evil teh buttsexing is are usually the ones most into it behind closed doors (c.f. Pastor Ted Haggard).