• Finnish Parliament poised to vote on same-sex marriage
    172 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Wolf532;46592042]Does non-religious hatred of gays even exist? Like is that a real thing in the world?[/QUOTE] Uh, yes? Take Sweden as an example, very secular nation, yet quite a lot of homophobia. The main ""arguments"" used by non-religious people tend to be: A) It's wrong because it's weird B) It's wrong because it's gross C) It's wrong because it's against nature
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46598507]honestly man, after you gave up trying to prove you have secular reasons as to why gay marriage is bad, no one's going to take you seriously. Your views after all are based entirely on your religion, thus faith, and not on reason and logic as that thread in GD showed.[/QUOTE] I've already provided partial evidence from secular sources in other threads and you know that. I have not seen you produce any reasonable arguments against them or any defences against the reasons I gave for why your evidence is not as reliable. Just because you want my views to be based on religion doesn't make it true, though it seems the more you repeat it, the more people are willing to believe it. [QUOTE=Explosions;46598511]Right, like how "voter" used to mean "white man."[/QUOTE] Give an example of a point in history where a voter was specifically defined as a whiteman, also the important factor with these redefinitions is that they are applied to foundational concepts. The definition of "voter" is not nearly as foundational as what "marriage" is as the former does not directly effect how generations are brought up.
your posts are really tedious to read and badly written use your own words and set the thesaurus aside please
The bad thing about this law is that it may take away the right from churches to choose whether they want to marry gay couples or not. See, the churches can do that if they want (whichever it may be, evangelical lutheran or orthodox usually), but this law might [I]force[/I] them to it which is bad because church and the state should be separate. [editline]29th November 2014[/editline] Other than that, I'm all for it.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;46598120]There's no evidence that adoptive parents do a worse job, or that gay parents do a worse job. In fact, when an attempt was made to study this they ran into a roadblock when they [b][i]couldn't find a single case of abuse or neglect[/i][/b] involving gay parents.[/QUOTE] Something seems seriously broken and wrong here. Not a [b]single[/b] case at all? I'm not going to argue about the quality of parenting based on sexual orientation, but to say that there hasn't been a single case at all is not even wrong: [url]http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3794616.htm[/url] Plus the problem with many of these studies that don't find "a single case of abuse" is a lot of the time they aren't even very good studies: [url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580[/url]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46599598]though it seems the more you repeat it, the more people are willing to believe it. [/QUOTE] And it seems like the more you repeat your stupid nonsense, the more you believe in yourself
Well then, congratulations to Finland! For some reason I always thought it was already legal there.
[QUOTE=Shark Bones;46599919]Well then, congratulations to Finland! For some reason I always thought it was already legal there.[/QUOTE] Yeah, everyone seems to think Finland is some super-advanced technology-country. Then you tell them gay-marriage is banned (or was) or you tell them about certain laws considering alcohol and certain taxes (Imagine a thing that exists. Anything goes. Yes, it's taxed up the ass here.) and they go "What the fuck? It's not what I thought at all!"
The amount of people leaving the church got a nice spike yesterday because of so many morons voting against this. [img]http://i.imgur.com/dNblEX3.png[/img] And here's today up until this far, with prediction as dotted lines, and yesterday's statistics as the line under it. (The number being tracked is that day's running total) [img]http://i.imgur.com/BPKigzu.png[/img]
[QUOTE=SgtTupelo;46600047]Yeah, everyone seems to think Finland is some super-advanced technology-country. Then you tell them gay-marriage is banned (or was) or you tell them about certain laws considering alcohol and certain taxes (Imagine a thing that exists. Anything goes. Yes, it's taxed up the ass here.) and they go "What the fuck? It's not what I thought at all!"[/QUOTE] Fun to pay something like 70-80€ for a whisky bottle that you can get for 30€ in Estonia. And then the shitty politicians wonder why people are spending fortunes each year importing alcohol from Estonia (81 million litres just last year and it's rising every year) and raise the taxes even more to combat the loss in tax profits, which causes even more people to buy alcohol from Estonia and the circle continues. Finland is truly the arsehole of Scandinavia in politics and taxes. The gay marriage law is a step in the right direction, now if the politicians would just grab their own asses and realize how retarded their taxation has become as the next thing they do.
[QUOTE=SgtTupelo;46600047]Yeah, everyone seems to think Finland is some super-advanced technology-country. Then you tell them gay-marriage is banned (or was) or you tell them about certain laws considering alcohol and certain taxes (Imagine a thing that exists. Anything goes. Yes, it's taxed up the ass here.) and they go "What the fuck? It's not what I thought at all!"[/QUOTE] Many people not from here have a very romanticized view of the nordic nations in general
[QUOTE=Orkel;46600578]Fun to pay something like 70-80€ for a whisky bottle that you can get for 30€ in Estonia. And then the shitty politicians wonder why people are spending fortunes each year importing alcohol from Estonia (81 million litres just last year and it's rising every year) and raise the taxes even more to combat the loss in tax profits, which causes even more people to buy alcohol from Estonia and the circle continues. Finland is truly the arsehole of Scandinavia in politics and taxes. The gay marriage law is a step in the right direction, now if the politicians would just grab their own asses and realize how retarded their taxation has become as the next thing they do.[/QUOTE] You could also just, stop being an alcoholic. Substance abuse costs shitloads to take care of, of course it's taxed heavily.
If there's evidence that same-sex couples provide less healthy environments for child development, then [I]show us the evidence[/I]. At present I'm leaning towards the conclusions of the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the Child Welfare League of America, all of whom have stated that there's no indication whatsoever that homosexual couples are any less suited to raises children than heterosexual couples. [editline]29th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46599598]The definition of "voter" is not nearly as foundational as what "marriage" is as the former does not directly effect how generations are brought up.[/QUOTE] Holy shit, are you actually trying to suggest that laws defining [I]who is allowed to choose what laws we abide by[/I] are less significant than laws defining who can raise a child? Voter rights influence all other laws in tremendous ways. Saying that any law is more important than voter's rights is absurd, because voter's rights define whatever other laws you're comparing them to anyway. [editline]29th November 2014[/editline] That's not even the argument though. They said that tradition wasn't an acceptable reason to not give people rights, using racial voting laws as an example. But you counter with "voter's rights don't matter as much, so it's fine"? Besides the disturbing lack of respect for the significance of allowing other races to vote, that's [B]completely[/B] ignoring the point. The point is that tradition is a fucking stupid reason to deny people rights. Argue the point ffs.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46599598]I've already provided partial evidence from secular sources in other threads and you know that. I have not seen you produce any reasonable arguments against them or any defences against the reasons I gave for why your evidence is not as reliable. Just because you want my views to be based on religion doesn't make it true, though it seems the more you repeat it, the more people are willing to believe it. Give an example of a point in history where a voter was specifically defined as a whiteman, also the important factor with these redefinitions is that they are applied to foundational concepts. The definition of "voter" is not nearly as foundational as what "marriage" is as the former does not directly effect how generations are brought up.[/QUOTE] Your opinions on gay marriage are absolutely disgusting and I wish you'd just fuck off. You have no rational basis to continue to support this "traditional marriage" bullshit argument to suppress the rights of gay people. You're just a disgusting person with disgusting opinions, and I absolutely despise you and people like you. Eat shit.
[QUOTE=nikomo;46600730]You could also just, stop being an alcoholic. Substance abuse costs shitloads to take care of, of course it's taxed heavily.[/QUOTE] Last time I was piss vomit drunk was over a year ago, such serious alcoholism. The taxes affect normal users more than the real alcoholists who get their shit en masse from Estonia. I buy a couple of craft beers per week and that's pretty much it, it's not something to bother going to Estonia over - but the real alcoholics buy a hundred litres from Estonia at once and drink em in a couple of months before doing it all over again. [editline]29th November 2014[/editline] This is going a bit offtopic tho
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46599598]I've already provided partial evidence from secular sources in other threads and you know that. I have not seen you produce any reasonable arguments against them or any defences against the reasons I gave for why your evidence is not as reliable. Just because you want my views to be based on religion doesn't make it true, though it seems the more you repeat it, the more people are willing to believe it. Give an example of a point in history where a voter was specifically defined as a whiteman, also the important factor with these redefinitions is that they are applied to foundational concepts. The definition of "voter" is not nearly as foundational as what "marriage" is as the former does not directly effect how generations are brought up.[/QUOTE] Arguments from tradition dont count as strong secular arguments. That's all you had.
Not gonna lie, i never gave two shits about whether this law would pass or not, but watching Päivi Räsänen's extremely butthurt 'm-m-m-muh religions'-babbling is the best thing ever. Anything that makes that annoying old hag angry is all right in my book.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;46603297]If addicts are willing to spend the insane prices of illicit drugs what makes you think a tax is going to stop them from buying alcohol?[/QUOTE] Neither high or low taxation benefits the addict. Tax it too little and they drink more and damage their lives further, tax it too high and they still drink problematic amounts, but they have less money for stuff that matters like food, shelter and all that. Worst case scenario is that they take to crime to be able to fuel their addiction. Therapy instead of taxes is what will solve the issue.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46601420]Arguments from tradition dont count as strong secular arguments. That's all you had.[/QUOTE] I see you are either outright lying or you have extremely poor memory of the romans 1:27 debate thread, if anything I've posted more secular sources in support of my position than you have for yours.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46604543]I see you are either outright lying or you have extremely poor memory of the romans 1:27 debate thread, if anything I've posted more secular sources in support of my position than you have for yours.[/QUOTE] I did. It's funny that you think that because that's not the case. Marriage has changed in so many ways across so many ages, it changed before christianity, it has changed since then, there is no point in time where there is an objectively defined "best" form of marriage, nor is there evidence that you can point to that there is an inherit, higher value to your preferred form of marriage.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.