1
Quote from redstonevet90
I'm not imposing anything on anyone. You're trying to IMPOSE your definition of marriage on me!
How hypocritical!
2
Quote from redstonevet90
That's what religion is. Fortunately We have freedom of religion in the Western world and I have a right to my opinions.
1
Quote from redstonevet90
My religion has used the term marriage as they have defined it for 1000's of years. We are not going to change out definition because YOU don't like it.
You are entitled to have the same legal status and I support that. What I don't support is you trying to re-define what marriage means in my religion.
1
Quote from redstonevet90
A civil union would grant the exact same rights. We don't live in a segregated society where gays have to live separate lives from straight people.
This is a horribly poor comparison. You should be ashamed of using such poor logic.
1
Quote from redstonevet90
Because gay marriage isn't a marriage in any religious sense and marriage is a religious doctrine.
1
Quote from redstonevet90
Rofl. way to disregard someone's entire argument.
I gave very good reasons for my beliefs, but you people disregard any points I make and build up strawmen and make false comparisons.
There is no reason why gays could not have just used the term civil union and been granted equal legal status to hetero couples instead of going on a crusade to change entire religions.
This indicates that this vendetta is against religion for not supporting gays and has nothing to do with equal rights although that's what they hide behind -equal rights. Some gay people want heteros to admit that being gay is the same as being straight, but it's not and never will be.
I don't understand why people want to pretend its the same thing because its not.
1
Quote from CreeperCooperBlock
He says its gay propaganda.
Why are you people still wasting time on this ? :") HOw DO YOU WRITE SO FAST.
red isnt going to change his mind because everything you say to him is "gay propaganda", meaning he will deregard it.
It doesnt matter if it makes sense, it matters if he agrees with it.
Quote from redstonevet90
Wow, you know how to use a dictionary.
Now all you need to do is learn how to apply definitions in the proper context.
1
Make your biome maps solid white instead. That results in no change from the actual texture tiles.Quote from Dullstar
I have a custom texture pack that changes textures to look like the older ones from before biomes were added. It used to be that replacing the color overlay files with transparency would allow this, but now that's resulting in every biome colored object being replaced with a solid black texture. How do I fix this?
2
Quote from Drunkenp0wNeR
If there Was A gay-gene, I would gladly donate money to have it genetically engineered out of the human genome. That way we would not have to bother with all this mess anymore.
6
Quote from Travis
I thought the forum was fairly liberal and would be happy with these results. Apparently I was wrong.
1
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to stop bullying, but I think there's a problem to approaching it as a single issue. You have to address ALL parties - both those who perform the bullying, and those who are on the receiving end of bullying. The onlookers should not be chastised, of course.
It does seem that "you'll never stop bullying/discrimination/etc. is a remarkably pessimistic view of things, though, isn't it?
---
I do think that acceptance of gays will seriously help, if we can get to the point where discrimination/hatred of gays in considered unacceptable. Then, those who choose to bully people based on sexual orientation will have no support, while the victims of such discrimination/bullying WILL be supported.
4
You did not answer that question at any point. If you look back at your posts, you'll notice that several times various people replied to you "That didn't answer my question."
1
The LEGAL defntion of marriage.
The LEGAL definition of marriage.
The gay rights movement does not care about the religious definition of marriage.
1
You know, biblical marriage involves polygamy in most cases. And incest. And concubines. Lots and lots of concubines.
Historically, marriage was for money and power.
1
That is factually wrong. It's just being changed from "between a man and a woman" to "between two people." This applies only to the legal definition of marriage. Not the religious one. Because of religious freedom, religions can use whatever definition of marriage they please.
1
BUT ONCE AGAIN, marriage is not religious in nature. It can be, but is not necessarily. How does calling it marriage affect religion?
2
We have used these definitions in the proper contexts. You haven't.
Well, true. But it's summer, and so I have nothing better to do than try to get through to him.
1
And why not?
Well, let's see... I've cited a source for my arguments. How about you do the same? Show that marriage has religious origins.
1
The only currently appropriate action is to attempt to de-escalate the situation, and escalate the sanctions.
3