International law against "slandering religion"?

Page 2 of 7 [ 104 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

04 Jun 2008, 5:25 pm

Ragtime wrote:

So, no, I don't think you can sell that I believe that it should be.

refresh me again on your opinion of the legal status of gay marriage?

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

04 Jun 2008, 5:41 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

So, no, I don't think you can sell that I believe that it should be.

refresh me again on your opinion of the legal status of gay marriage?

I'd vote against it.
Would you presume to tell me how to vote?
Gay marriage will always cause strife and contraversy, moreso than peace and happiness, so I deem it impractical.
But, those who wish to champion ideals above the realities that bind them will say otherwise.
Not everyone is born to marry.
I considered myself, for 5 years, a person that shouldn't be married, so I believe there is no shame or loss in not marrying.
Gays don't have to marry.
And if they do marry, it will cause far more contention in the long run than peace. Blame who you will for that fact, but it's true.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

04 Jun 2008, 5:44 pm

Ragtime wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

So, no, I don't think you can sell that I believe that it should be.

refresh me again on your opinion of the legal status of gay marriage?

I'd vote against it.
Would you presume to tell me how to vote?

your vote is based on religion and not empirical fact or social studies done on such matters.

that's implementing your religion into law.

makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

04 Jun 2008, 6:00 pm

Ragtime wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

So, no, I don't think you can sell that I believe that it should be.

refresh me again on your opinion of the legal status of gay marriage?

Why will it cause strife and controversy? This is a reason to prohibit people from pursuing their own happiness? If that argument had been adhered to, marriages outside of race, faith or community would still be prohibited or looked down upon. If being married is not for you, then I am impressed with your ability to recognize such things in yourself - but that doesn't mean that others don't have different needs. I've yet to see a married homosexual cause contention beyond that which exists in the marriage format currently deemed acceptable... it is those who oppose that seem to cause the ruckus.

M.

_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Last edited by makuranososhi on 04 Jun 2008, 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

04 Jun 2008, 6:12 pm

Why did this discussion turn into gay marriage? Hmm...

What empirical facts and studies are there? Homosexual "marriage" has only been around for less than a decade. Too quick to cry victory and truth, no? I might be wrong here.

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Jun 2008, 6:13 pm

I am opposed to such laws. Merely a way for certain folks to control other folks.

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

04 Jun 2008, 6:16 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

I am opposed to such laws. Merely a way for certain folks to control other folks.

What do you oppose?

I would agree on censoring many things. I recall I was called out on it some time ago on this board. A week or month later there was a mass protest on this site to pull a youtube video off from YT because it was "discriminating" against people with AS, even though it was blatantly sardonic, a parody which was even explained on the account. However, words did not enter their militant minds.

I am not afraid of admitting I am for censorship. As long as it serves a purpose.

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

The_Chosen_One
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,357
Location: Looking down on humanity

04 Jun 2008, 6:19 pm

Gay marriage hasn't got much to do with the point at hand, but knowing Raggy's views on such things, I'd say that maybe his poll should have said 'International Law Against Slandering Christianity' because he seems to think everyone else who doesn't share his point of view, or doesn't think in the addled way he does is hellbound and incapable of logic. Problem is, when asked to use logic himself, we found that HE was actually the one incapable.

There could be no way you could enforce such a law without denying everyone the chance to have 'free' speech. Once you do that, then the Inquisition and Nazism raise their ugly heads. Technically, that BS political correctness started all this, and that's why so many people are copping it in the butt for expressing their views (and I DARE Raggy to link that sentence to gay marriage).

_________________
Pagans are people too, not just victims of a religious cleansing program. Universal harmony for all!!

Karma decides what must happen, and that includes everyone.

Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

04 Jun 2008, 6:22 pm

skafather84 wrote:

f**k mohammed. f**k allah. f**k jesus christ. f**k yahweh. f**k jehova.

know why? cause it doesn't matter. slander laws are supposed to protect real people from being lied about. fictional characters don't enjoy such rights. just ask JK rowling what she thinks of all the harry potter fanfics...particularly the more "adult" ones. they're slander against characters but they're fictional characters.

you can't protect ideas from slander either.

You missed my point. I agree with you that saying such things should be legal. I was merely pointing out that even if you were against such slandering, the mere concept of slander is too generalized. My point was that saying something harsh like "f**k Mohammad" and doing something benign like drawing a picture can both be considered offensive, depending upon who is judging.

_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

04 Jun 2008, 6:25 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

So, no, I don't think you can sell that I believe that it should be.

refresh me again on your opinion of the legal status of gay marriage?

I'd vote against it.
Would you presume to tell me how to vote?

your vote is based on religion and not empirical fact or social studies done on such matters.

that's implementing your religion into law.

A fallacy. Let me explain it for you.
The difference is that my vote isn't the law. It's exercising one of my rights specifically granted by the law.
The law in a democracy is voted upon. Therefore, my right to vote however I choose and why I choose is specifically intended and granted by the law. I would be no good American if I did not vote my beliefs.
And it's not just my beliefs why I'd vote against gay marriage (but thanks for truncating my quote to conveniently remove those reasons :roll:

. Should I expect fairer from you??)

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

04 Jun 2008, 6:25 pm

oscuria wrote:

Why did this discussion turn into gay marriage?

to point out that raghead is being disingenuous when he says that he doesn't want religion in the law.

Quatermass
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,779
Location: Right behind you...

04 Jun 2008, 6:28 pm

Ragtime wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

So, no, I don't think you can sell that I believe that it should be.

refresh me again on your opinion of the legal status of gay marriage?

I'd vote against it.
Would you presume to tell me how to vote?

your vote is based on religion and not empirical fact or social studies done on such matters.

that's implementing your religion into law.

. Should I expect fairer from you??)

Your contention that gay marriages will cause strife is a fallacy. And this topic has strayed far enough from topic. Back onto religious slander, or I'll post screaming rabbids in here.

_________________
(No longer a mod)

On sabbatical...

The_Chosen_One
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,357
Location: Looking down on humanity

04 Jun 2008, 6:32 pm

And believe me, he ain't kiddin'. Those things are FERAL.

_________________
Pagans are people too, not just victims of a religious cleansing program. Universal harmony for all!!

Karma decides what must happen, and that includes everyone.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

04 Jun 2008, 6:36 pm

Quatermass wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

So, no, I don't think you can sell that I believe that it should be.

refresh me again on your opinion of the legal status of gay marriage?

I'd vote against it.
Would you presume to tell me how to vote?

your vote is based on religion and not empirical fact or social studies done on such matters.

that's implementing your religion into law.

. Should I expect fairer from you??)

Your contention that gay marriages will cause strife is a fallacy. And this topic has strayed far enough from topic. Back onto religious slander, or I'll post screaming rabbids in here.

what about religions slandering gay marriage and gays?

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Jun 2008, 6:37 pm

oscuria wrote:

What do you oppose?

I oppose an international law against "slandering religion" and would even do the same for a national law as well.

Quote:

I would agree on censoring many things. I recall I was called out on it some time ago on this board. A week or month later there was a mass protest on this site to pull a youtube video off from YT because it was "discriminating" against people with AS, even though it was blatantly sardonic, a parody which was even explained on the account. However, words did not enter their militant minds.

I am not afraid of admitting I am for censorship. As long as it serves a purpose.

I figured you would be alright with censorship.

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

04 Jun 2008, 6:39 pm

The_Chosen_One wrote:

I really don't believe that though.

Now as far as Rag's beliefs go, whatever. I am sympathetic to such a law as it seems to me arrogant to attack a person's belief, as in attacking a person's ethnicity/color.

Understand that if such a law came in to place, Ragtime would be subjected to it as well. If he insulted your belief (let us say he called Pagans rapists and murderers who seek out virgin sacrifices for rituals) you can take him to court and have him tried.

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

Page 2 of 7 [ 104 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7 Next

Jump to:

International law against "slandering religion"? Post Reply New Topic

International law against "slandering religion"?