52 réponses à ce sujet

[Adria Teksuni]

As for the OP: You both have to be willing to meet in the middle. If you are willing to accept her point of view as valid and she is willing to accept yours equally, or you both decide to never, ever discuss the subject again and simply ignore each other's opinions, you can make it work. Sounds like you accept that you were something of an arse and are regretful for it.



Send her a message over XBL, just a neutral "Hey, how are you" as Kevin L. said. Then the ball is in her court.



As far as the gay marriage thing: Legally I believe it is a MUST that they have the same rights and benefits as hetero marriages. But it's not that simple for most. "Marriage" is entirely too complex, as much of it having to do with religious beliefs.

A particular religion's view on marriage needs to be taken up with that particular religion's representatives, not the legal system.

For some reason it keeps getting all bunged up together. Until the whole separation of church and state is successfully applied (in the United States, natch) the entire issue will never be treated fairly in the courts.

[Rheannan]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Religion seldomly is a legitimate reason for anything.

Just adding a bit to that sentence. 'Organised religion' rather than 'religion'.

[Panderfringe]

Rheannan wrote...

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Religion seldomly is a legitimate reason for anything.

Just adding a bit to that sentence. 'Organised religion' rather than 'religion'.

The two are pretty much synonymous.

[SardaukarElite]

Snoteye wrote...

I'm confused. Why can't happy people get married?

Married people aren't happy. It's a fate reserved for those who are already bitter and resentful.

[mrofni]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...Religion seldomly is a legitimate reason for anything. What some Moslems did on 9/11 has religious reasons. What the Christians did to Jews and Moslems during the Crusades had religious reasons.

I would also ask you to not imply that homosexuality was a sin but unfortunately the major religion in my country actually regards it as such, so it would not be difficult to argue why it is.

I didn't say religion, I said religious, and that can be a very big difference. Additionally, it is mainly the belief that it is a sin. Also, the Crusades and 9/11 are both contradictory to the religion itself. Jesus and Mohammad both talked as murder as being wrong and forcing your beliefs on someone else as wrong as well. The Crusades and 9/11 were completely against the teachings of their religions, but people did both of those things for political reasons, not religious. I would argue that those things could have happend irregardless of religion just on people's greed and hatred.

Also, I only implied homosexuality was a sin in context to religion, because in most religions it is. You can even make arguements against it for reasons other then religious.

Now, you get a much harder issue when you hit on Gay Marriage. I only believe this is such an issue because of how marriage is in the government. It fufills a few roles. The combination of assets and money between the 2 people. Tax breaks because of the added stability married couples supply. Tax breaks because of the expectancy of children from married couples. This entire issue could be avoided entirely if the government improved its tax laws all around, which would include increased tax breaks based on dependants, and government getting out of marriages and getting into Civil Unions. Marriage would then be completely religion based, then depending on each individual religion deciding if homosexuality is appropriate or not. The government could also then take a completely unbiased role allowing nearly anyone getting into a Civil Union for financial, custody, or emergancy situations. To compensate for the lack of tax  breaks on the premise of potential future children, you can create additional tax breaks on actual dependants, which would in turn also help out the random single parents because they got screwed in life and couldn't get married.

[SardaukarElite]

mrofni wrote...

This entire issue could be avoided entirely if the government improved its tax laws all around, which would include increased tax breaks based on dependants, and government getting out of marriages and getting into Civil Unions. Marriage would then be completely religion based, then depending on each individual religion deciding if homosexuality is appropriate or not.

This.

It's silly for supposedly seccular socities to legislate marriage as they currently do.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

mrofni, I mostly agree with you, just that one thing still bothers me...

Jesus and Mohammad both talked as murder as being wrong and forcing your beliefs on someone else as wrong as well.

How can a believing Christian then say anything about the sexuality of others (on religious grounds)?

[mrofni]

They can say they disagree, even try to convince you to change your ways. Once they get to the point where the only thing left is to force them, that is where they are often not following their own religious beliefs, unless they believe it is appropriate to try to force people to do the right thing, in that case they split from the belief's Jesus or Mohammad or some other major religious people have held. Jesus didn't want to be put to death for their crimes, but that doesn't stop some people  but from believing the death penalty is a completely legitimate punishment.

Modifié par mrofni, 09 décembre 2009 - 04:44 .

[Rheannan]

Panderfringe wrote...

The two are pretty much synonymous.

I included that post because they aren't necessarily. 'Organised religion' means being of a group of people who are in a particular religion. 'Religion' can be used to indicate the same thing, but it can also be used to mean 'religious', which again, may or may not mean the same as 'organised religion'.

It really just depends on what the person means. The other meaning I was trying to get at is 'spiritual' or 'faith' (for which being in a particular religion is not required).

Taking that into account, looking at 'religion seldomly is a legitimate reason for anything', I would change it to 'organised religion' to be clear, because a person's values and beliefs are, naturally, a reason.

mrofni wrote...

Marriage would then be completely religion based, then depending on each individual religion deciding if homosexuality is appropriate or not.

I'm not sure how this would work, due to not everyone being in an actual religion ('organised religion'). That's where marriage celebrants come in, and they aren't going by what a religion says they need to do, but rather, by what the government says they need to do.

Modifié par Rheannan, 09 décembre 2009 - 07:17 .

[Monstruo696]

You guys do realize this is a TROLL THREAD, right?

[mrofni]

@Monstruo696

Probably, but who cares? Its entertaining now at least.



@Rheannan

If it isn't religious marriage, its cultural, and in that case it is the same. You still get to have the party, the ceremony, the only change is the paper work. I don't think that is what people truly care about when they think of marriage.

[Stanley Woo]

While kevin1gamer does post a lot of threads with unusual discussions, I don't believe he is a troll. But this forum is not for discussion of sensitive political topics such as sexuality or religion. Let's try to keep it on topic and "help a brother out," or this thread will be closed.

[the_one_54321]

open discussion of religion and sexuality is welcome here so long as you join the group and follow the posted rules.

[fairandbalancedfan]

the_one_54321 wrote...

open discussion of religion and sexuality is welcome here so long as you join the group and follow the posted rules.

Your blatant advertising pleases me.

[SardaukarElite]

the_one_54321 wrote...

open discussion of religion and sexuality is welcome here so long as you join the group and follow the posted rules.

Are you wearing a sandwich board? 

[the_one_54321]

wth is a sandwich board?

[SardaukarElite]

the_one_54321 wrote...

wth is a sandwich board?

One of these.

[the_one_54321]

i see mostly former members posting anyway, so it's hardly advertising.

[Mordaedil]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Mordaedil wrote...

I
just know what is right in my heart and soul [...]

Now this
is the second dangerous opinion stated in this thread.

Your opinion that a truth can be so obvious (without any first hand experience even) that the (in-)ability to recognize it is enough to divide mankind into two categories is, as I said, dangerous and can be the source for more problems.

One cannot know the truth simply by asking one's heart or soul. Countless people have tried that, until science was finally able to prove them wrong (which often meant the death penalty for the scientists in question).

Hah, I actually agree on that.

I chose the wording because they were strongly envocative. I was also short on time and just meant 'soul' as a way of saying 'the wisdom of a short life-time has shown me' and not implying it was something born with me. Heart, because I just can't fathom doing other people wrong and it actually does physically pain me to do that.

I can agree just implying it is innately a truth one should know from birth is a dangerous belief. It's something one must arrive to from ones own experience.

[Rheannan]

Monstruo696 wrote...

You guys do realize this is a TROLL THREAD, right?

I agree with Stan, actually, and have thought that for a while, starting on the original off-topic forum. Kevingamer doesn't seem to come across as wanting to provoke a reaction.

Of course, it does help to hear back from the original poster as to how things are going...

[DigitalOrigami]

Rheannan wrote...
Of course, it does help to hear back from the original poster as to how things are going...

I don't get the impression he has that kind of attention span....

[Benfea]

Lady Dwarf wrote...

Benfea wrote...

 Male friendships are different from female friendships.

Guy friends get our fighting out of the way BEFORE the friendship starts, and if something else flares up, the next day we just pretend it didn't happen and go back to getting drunk together. No recriminations, no apologies, no flowers, just return to drunken beer-fueled buffoonery like nothing happened.

I have lots of platonic female friendships, and it seems like girl-girl friendships sometimes get needlessly stormy and sometimes the storms end friendships entirely.

If you ask me, this is one area where the guys have the better idea.

Despite the avatar, kevin1gamer is male.

Well, silly me.

I've never had one of my platonic female friends get like that. Well, not with me. Girlfriends, yes, friends, no.

[Mordaedil]

As per norm, kevin1gamer does not respond to these threads.



I'm really tired of that. It feels like we're treated as trash on his terms.

[Rheannan]

But even without the original poster, people can still carry on with a discussion. So in this case, the original poster just creates the topic idea.

Modifié par Rheannan, 16 décembre 2009 - 06:13 .

[boomgosthedino]

Not trying to sound mean but.... I kinda laughed... Anyway If you guy's was good friends before the fight, it will all work out in time. It always douse..