Live and Let Live? - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Mobster989 · #46 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

The sexual acts of a homosexual couple are against my religion just as the sexual acts of a non-married heterosexual couple are, yet I don't believe in judging either of them. I'll leave that up to God and He'll judge as He sees fit, just as he'll judge me, you and every other sinner on earth.

Indeed. I'm not judging, judges give sentences. I'm not saying they are going to hell or anything of that sort. I do not enjoy being around homosexuals, especially if they are displaying themselves as such. I've got the same attitude towards fornicators. There's a reason I don't go to bars and clubs, they are a breeding ground for that sort of thing.

3.14 · #47 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobster989

I've got the same attitude towards fornicators.

So you don't like to have sex?

Is that what this is all about then??

3.14 · #48 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

There's no law that requires open mindedness. If he (or she) wishes to shun homosexuals it's really nobody else's business. I personally shun racists, homophobes, eagles fans, and people who listen to Barry Manilow. It may not be open minded of me but it's my right.

I agree. Everyone has the right to be close minded if they so choose, so long as they dont expect others to be.

Donkey_Left · #49 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahul

So you don't like to have sex?

Is that what this is all about then??

Or he's just not getting any.

Mobster989 · #50 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

I can't say whether I like or dislike sex. You're right about not getting any. But then again I've never had any. I believe the only place for sex is within marriage. I'm not married, hence I haven't had sex.

segep soch · #51 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobster989

I can't say whether I like or dislike sex. You're right about not getting any. But then again I've never had any. I believe the only place for sex is within marriage. I'm not married, hence I haven't had sex.

Well, at least you practice the morals you preach! Not too many can say that. I just learned yesterday that my son's stepdad, who is very vocally outspoken against homosexuality and has called me a f***ing faggot on more than one occasion in front of my son, has a huge, hidden stash of GAY PORN

When I hear something like that, it just makes my day!

danielpalos · #52 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahul

I do not think this is the case. I feel that the local populace of that municipality has a big say in this as things stand.

Flying the rebel flag is legal in both the North and the South. Is it more "acceptable" in the South than the North? I would say yes. And why? Because Southerners (local populace) feel that it is socially acceptabe - since they say it is part of their culture.

Not sure what you are referring to on this one - please reword. Thanks.

Well, without meaning to sound like a communist, I'd say some sacrifices have to be made by everyone for the common good.

If this wasn't done, we'd all be running around deciding what's right/wrong, acceptable/non-acceptable, and society would be in a state of chaos.

For instance, I could argue I prefer that women go topless and that I should not be required to conform to the ethos that women do not go topless generally - however, that doesn't mean society has to change this particular law to suit me.

I was under the impression that we were discussing forms of democracy, not autocracy.

However, I think we keep skirting the issue of truer forms of democracy. Why should any laws that have to deal with morality or ethics, be decided by representatives to government? I think, that a more consistent approach to our Bill of Rights (specifically, 1A and 9A), should be decided by the people, directly; within the bounds of our social contract.

doniston · #53 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobster989

Indeed. I'm not judging, judges give sentences. I'm not saying they are going to hell or anything of that sort. I do not enjoy being around homosexuals, especially if they are displaying themselves as such. I've got the same attitude towards fornicators. There's a reason I don't go to bars and clubs, they are a breeding ground for that sort of thing.

You're not much of a mobster then are you??? HEH HEH

3.14 · #54 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

Or he's just not getting any.

Yep, he admits this.

3.14 · #55 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobster989

I can't say whether I like or dislike sex. You're right about not getting any. But then again I've never had any. I believe the only place for sex is within marriage. I'm not married, hence I haven't had sex.

I'd suggest you spend less time here and go get some. You'd probably change your opinions then.

Cheers,
Rahul

3.14 · #56 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by doniston

You're not much of a mobster then are you??? HEH HEH

A celibate gangsta!

3.14 · #57 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I was under the impression that we were discussing forms of democracy, not autocracy.

Democracy needs to be tempered with a degree of autocracy, else is turns into anarchy.

The country of India is a true example of the latter case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

However, I think we keep skirting the issue of truer forms of democracy. Why should any laws that have to deal with morality or ethics, be decided by representatives to government? I think, that a more consistent approach to our Bill of Rights (specifically, 1A and 9A), should be decided by the people, directly; within the bounds of our social contract.

I'm not skirting any issues. I already explained my stand on this.

If YOU decide women should go topless in public, then that might offend others.

Does true democracy you have the right to offend others, and tell them to adopt your morals?

dal · #58 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobster989

I can't say whether I like or dislike sex. You're right about not getting any. But then again I've never had any. I believe the only place for sex is within marriage. I'm not married, hence I haven't had sex.

HAHAHAHA!!!! you've got to be kidding me! what century are you living in? how do you do it? if you can actually do it you are a stronger man than ill ever be. but i obviously have a lot more fun than you.

dal · #59 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006

everybody has the right to their opinins, everybodys thoughts about the world and its people vary in varying degrees. one of the things that shock me is those who are offended by interracial marriage or unions. these people are clearly racists, do they actually believe that a black person procreating with a white person is on par with a turtle having sex with a horse? do they believe that different races are different species? where do you draw the line at race? the 3 major races of negroid, caucosoid, mongoloid? or the thousands of races that have branched off of them? anyone who preaches this must of had sex or dated someone with a touch of another race in them. my wife is japanese and we recently had a baby. is he a freak? you people need to mix up the gene pool because all that interbreeding has made you retarded. then again most racists are.

danielpalos · #60 (**permalink**) 12-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahul

Democracy needs to be tempered with a degree of autocracy, else is turns into anarchy.

The country of India is a true example of the latter case.

I'm not skirting any issues. I already explained my stand on this.

If YOU decide women should go topless in public, then that might offend others.

Does true democracy you have the right to offend others, and tell them to adopt your morals?

Can you elaborate on your view of the socioeconomic situation in India?

A true form of democracy would not enable, a tyrant of one.

What is your opinion of an amendment based on the theory of nullification? Hypothetically, a UN Tenth Amendment, could reserve to the states, any power not enumerated to the interState. This could be a basis for a formal mechanism of nullifying federal power to interfere in State matters.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode