The VG Resource

(11-09-2012, 01:06 AM)SmithyGCN Wrote: [ -> ]Well, it's okay if you disagree with me, but I really haven't seen too much persecution of homosexuals these days.

http://despicabletweets.tumblr.com/post/...g-to#notes
It may not be as out there but it still happens. I know, Twitter screencaps, but maybe it will give an idea of how it's still "mainstream" enough to where plenty of people feel safe shouting it out in such a public place as the internet.

(11-09-2012, 01:06 AM)SmithyGCN Wrote: [ -> ]EDIT: God doesn't paint Himself into corners. I used to have homosexual tendencies before I became a Christian and those have largely disappeared since I have. Sure, I know that's from personal experience, but it's something that convinces me otherwise. He says it's wrong,so, therefore, He never makes anyone into a homosexual. That's like saying that a person who has bestiality tendencies is right for being into bestiality because God "made" them that way. I am not following your logic.

There is a major difference between homosexuality and beastiality. Animals cannot consent to actions whereas people can. (Provided they are of age, informed, etc.) Also, I have to wonder about the logic of God never making someone homosexual when there are clearly gay people in the world. Are they just pretending to be attracted to the same gender? Why would they do that when doing so attracts anything from bullying to the death penalty depending on the area of the world they inhabit?

Well,m I never said it never happens because my sister (who is a homosexual) got an attack before. But, really, the persecution I see more openly used is against Christians and Jews. I mean, just look at how the Democrats voted against seeing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and how the neighboring Middle Eastern countries want to whipe them out completely.

Pretty sure theres a difference between bestiality and homosexuality, especially psychologically speaking. In your case, there's the fact that you entered a lifestyle that for some reason decides to emphasize the condemnation of homosexuality. There's a big chance you picked that up and applied it to your lifestyle. Or there's the chance that it was simply a phase regarding hormones and whatnot, and it simply ran its course.

I must also disagree with him not doing something because he said it was wrong. If I'm not mistaken, in Christian lore he has purposely "hardened" a few pharoahs' hearts in an effort to make tasks harder. He's also killed around 7 million people, almost had a fellow sacrifice his son, killed a fellow's family in an effort to test his faith, sacrificed his own son, and essentially let a demigod have the ability to run amuck and tempt people.

(11-09-2012, 12:59 AM)[MachoBot RoboSavage] Wrote: [ -> ]Sexuality isn't a choice. Since it isn't, wouldn't it mean that your god created them that way? If he created them that way, who are you to question your omnipotent, omniscient god?

Hey man, no need to be so passive aggressive about that






also going to throw it out there, the US doesn't have a flat tax. The rich have to pay higher percentages on their taxes for every dollar above certain brackets, going up to a potential 35% tax on every dollar above $375,000 (this is the final bracket; there's staggered taxing on brackets below them, but I can't be assed to double check right now...)

You know, food for thought in money discussion.

(11-09-2012, 01:25 AM)Rosencrantz Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2012, 12:59 AM)[MachoBot RoboSavage] Wrote: [ -> ]Sexuality isn't a choice. Since it isn't, wouldn't it mean that your god created them that way? If he created them that way, who are you to question your omnipotent, omniscient god?

Hey man, no need to be so passive aggressive about that

Sorry, I find it incredibly hard to tell when I'm being passive aggressive, since I'm not called out on it very often.

(11-09-2012, 12:14 AM)SmithyGCN Wrote: [ -> ]I had a feeling Obama would win just because of the things following him (people want their free stuff, etc. ). It just shows how much America has fallen into a "ME" generation.

Another factor is the so-called "Obamamania". I'm actually quite disturbed (And yet, not really surprised) to know that what is basically a cult of personality has been created around this man.

(11-09-2012, 01:21 AM)[MachoBot RoboSavage] Wrote: [ -> ]I must also disagree with him not doing something because he said it was wrong. If I'm not mistaken, in Christian lore he has purposely "hardened" a few pharoahs' hearts in an effort to make tasks harder. He's also killed around 7 million people, almost had a fellow sacrifice his son, killed a fellow's family in an effort to test his faith, sacrificed his own son, and essentially let a demigod have the ability to run amuck and tempt people.

Normally I avoid online forum topics about religion because it normally doesn't get anyone anywhere, but I cannot just read that statement an not be appalled by it. It sounds like you are basically mocking God. The thing most appalling about that statement to me is the "sacrifice his son" part, because it sounds like to me that it is being made to be nothing, where in fact it is the whole point of a Christianity.

Obviously, but that being said, you can probably tell that I am a Christian. However, I am not "religious" in anyway, shape, or form. I believe that it is religion that is the biggest turn-off to Christianity, or any religious faith, rather. To me, it is my relationship with God, rather than religion if you can understand that. Although Smithy is too a Christian, I'm not saying that we both believe the exact same thing. I am non-denominational, and his profile says he is baptist. Which is a problem with Christianity now-a-days, we are even divided among each other(different denominations), whereas we should be united as Christians.

Now what upset me about that statement is that you make it sound like God did all those things just because he is "God", but those things needed to happen for a bigger purpose. Let me explain why I believe so, and will try to summarize it the best I can.

First, God created the world, and then man, gave man the dominion of the world. Then Satan came and deceived man to disobey God. This was the fall of man and man lost legal dominion over the world. In Luke 4, Satan tempting Jesus and he said if you will bow down and worship me I'll give you all the glory, the splendor, and the authority of the kingdoms of the earth for they have been given to me. So Adam had that dominion, and he gave it away. Satan, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians, is now the prince of the power of the air, the god of this world. Satan became the legal dominion, if you will, over the men and so Satan claims the world is his. So God looked for another way to have access back to man, so he needed a man to create a covenant with him, and that was Abraham(Abram). God made covenant with the man, and promised him a son, even though is wife could not have children. So Abraham had faith in that promise, and his wife, against her age, had a child, Isaac. Now God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, not just for giggles because he is God, but because he was testing him to see if he would sacrifice his son, just as God would do later. Of course as the story goes, Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac and God stopped him. Because of Abraham's obedience and faith in God, God could now send his son, Jesus, because man was obedient. So many years later, God sent Jesus to the Earth, to die for man's sins. Since Jesus died a sinless man, and "the wages of sin is death" Jesus took our sins upon himself so that we could be free of our sins. With Jesus' death, it also gave God full access back into humanity. Then Jesus rose from the dead in 3 days, then ascended up to Heaven shortly after.

I don't really mean to rant, I just wanted to show that with what I believe, things happened for a reason. God didn't do it just things for the heck of it. That's even true today, I would say. But hey, I'm just a 22 year old college kid, I don't claim to be a super-scholar or anything. So take it as you will. Odds are because of this I won't be making very many friends, but if that is the case, so be it.

I do commend Smithy for standing up for what he believes, though. That does take a heck of a lot of courage, especially in today's world where there are over 9000 different theologies.

With all that aside, I will say, I was rooting for Romney. I'm not saying that either person running was the best choice ever, but Obama's moral values did not match mine. Romney's didn't 100% either, but he was much much closer. To me voting was not about race or party, it was about the values of the people and the future of America.

I see a lot regarding homosexuals so while I'm here might as well say my two cents before I throw up the flame shield. The "gay gene" or "homosexuality is not a choice" is a lot of junk, in my opinion. I'm not just saying this because I believe in traditional marriage. I have a homosexual sister who is in fact living with her girlfriend. I love my sister, but I do not endorse her lifestyle. Anywho, I say this because when my sister was younger, she dated men. I recall her having multiple boyfriends during high school and college, and being very serious about it in some cases. I even remember her having homosexual friends during college, and saying that she didn't approve of it and was going to try to change them. But you know how the old saying goes, "Who you hang around is who you become." So last year, she just decided to become a homosexual, or it least come out about it.

So that's enough wall of text for me. I should probably go into hiding for a while now. Thanks for reading guys.

We probably should keep larger scale discussions on religion or homosexuality out of the presidential election topic.

I'm not religious myself so I'll won't go on about that part, after all I don't know enough about the Bible or any other holy book to be able to give an educated viewpoint on it, so I'll skip to the homosexuality part again.

Your sister having previously dated men could potentially mean that she is bisexual, or at least has some leaning towards men. Human sexuality is actually really broad rather than binary, so there isn't just straight, gay, bisexual, etc. There are varying degrees of attraction, and to be quite honest, I'll use myself as an example. I consider myself predominantly heterosexual, but I tend to find more feminine traits attractive rather than masculine, even in potential partners. I've even found some women to be rather attractive even if there wasn't any sexual desire.

Not to mention, ignoring the possibility of bisexuality, gay people have in the past (Back before it was less tolerated.) done things such as date or even marry people of the opposite gender regardless of their true feelings. After all, if you hide a "flaw", who is going to get on your case about it? Maybe your sister didn't feel like she would be accepted if she were outed as a homosexual, and so dated men to cover her tracks.


Fake edit: Also, I agree with Previous. If this discussion is to continue it should be moved into its own topic, but I'll get input from other mods before doing anything about that since things like this tend to be debates that never get better.

Religious topics don't end well. That is the end of it.
You can discuss the link between presidency and religion, that's a massive thing (when it shouldn't be, imo) - but homosexuality has NOTHING to do with who becomes president.

I kinda wish the elections weren't so binary. Red or blue.

Mitt Romney was obviously a whackjob but Obama has countless flaws hiding under that (to use a term from someone else in the thread) "Obamamania" on his side that allows him to basically contradict himself while people go about rather blithely unaware. I like how one of his campaign ads called on the disgraceful "bumb stoner" stereotype to try to draw votes from the Marijuana users that had the joy of witnessing more (legal!) dispensary raids under Obama's administration than any previous efforts, especially considering he actually smoked it in his younger days. I doubt he would've appreciated being unfit to run for presidency if he got prosecuted for possession.

I wonder what would've happened if everyone "threw away" their votes on a 3rd party instead.

(11-09-2012, 04:01 AM)Dazz Wrote: [ -> ]but homosexuality has NOTHING to do with who becomes president.

Well, except for that one part where conservatives are usually against gay marriage, and Obama's victory led to a lot of people sliding down a slippery slope to assume that gay marriage will be constitutional now, or something to that note.

It's much more relevant than the religion discussion, though :F

(11-09-2012, 02:19 PM)Rosencrantz Wrote: [ -> ]Well, except for that one part where conservatives are usually against gay marriage, and Obama's victory led to a lot of people sliding down a slippery slope to assume that gay marriage will be constitutional now, or something to that note.

I dunno, I think homosexuals and any random inbetweens should have the same right to be as miserable [in marriage] as the heterosexual married couples

Quote:We probably should keep larger scale discussions on religion or homosexuality out of the presidential election topic.

Excusing the fact that it is completely relevant, of course.

Quote:Now, if you think about it, the rich DO actually pay more in taxes at normal. The percentage may be the same between rich and middle class, but a larger amount is taken out of their vaults simply because they DO make more. The more pressure you put on the rich, though, makes them cut back in areas in their industries - this includes employment as they need to keep making money in order to survive in the corporate world.

We'll disregard the fact that historically business as usual can be run perfectly fine with higher tax rates - even up to 91% at a certain point! - and that the only "hit" is whether or not they make a billion or a couple million. We'll also ignore the thing about tax rates that is actually important - effect.

Someone who makes 100 dollars who gets 30% of that taken away in taxes is going to feel the loss of those 30 dollars far more than someone who makes 100,000 and pays 30,000. A progressive tax rate that rises and falls based on income (but shouldn't be designed so that someone will make less by making more). Saying that they technically pay more in a literal sense is meaningless when it is the relative sense that matters. A progressive tax that rises and falls based on income and need is the only ethical standard by which a tax system ought to be operated.

Quote:Also, the matter of the fact that the debt for America has sky rocketed to over 16 trillion dollars under this administration is alarming and why no one is thinking about that baffles me.

Because debt between nations is different than debt from individuals.
Furthermore - the deficit has gone down with Obama in charge. The overall debt is still going up because, hey, thats an "end-game" number. The yearly amount by which the government over-spends has gone down under Obama, and when the Bush Tax Cuts expire, that number is going to go down a lot more (this is because, believe it or not, those were a pretty decent contributing factor!)

Quote:But, really, the persecution I see more openly used is against Christians and Jews

People who are part of a group tend to notice, more strongly than others, when their own particular group is being "persecuted". To a degree, the opposite of this is true as well - they tend to notice less when the other particular group is being "persecuted". It's a kind of anecdotal/interest-based blindness. The fact of the matter is, however; Christianity is a majority. It is the majority, especially in the United States; what this means is that the average person is generally assumed to be at least vaguely Christian.

What kind of things do you think happen to people who aren't, to people who try to profess faiths or cultural heritage or ideas contrary to that in the general public sphere?

In continuing with that idea:

Quote:Also, if they were interested in conservative ideas, why are the Republicans always being told to compromise their ideas while no one concentrates on the Democrats?

Remember that Public Option that was part of the original Affordable Care Act? The one that was abandoned because the President thought that it was important to reach across the aisle?
The democrats in this country have been doing that quite a lot - the issue is that democrats are trying to reach a centrist middle, or a slightly right middle point but a sect of republicans are concerned only with accomplishing their own far-right goals. Having a Republican leader in the house of representatives state that making Obama a "one-term president" as the primary goal of the Republican congress is not indicative of a leadership trying to compromise; it is indicative of a leadership trying to control and strangle and get their own way.

Quote:Also, as far as stoning homosexuals goes, I'd have to pass. I believe that they're people too, created by God - however I simply would like to see them change their ways.

Yeah, okay, we should ask redheads to stop being red, then, right? Or perhaps we should ask people to just straight up change their taste buds?

Quote:also going to throw it out there, the US doesn't have a flat tax. The rich have to pay higher percentages on their taxes for every dollar above certain brackets, going up to a potential 35% tax on every dollar above $375,000 (this is the final bracket; there's staggered taxing on brackets below them, but I can't be assed to double check right now...)

You know, food for thought in money discussion.

This also ignores the many advantages written into the tax code for the very rich to exploit - things that anyone other than them have no choice of benefiting from. Capital Gains, anyone?

Quote:Another factor is the so-called "Obamamania".

Which is severely exaggerated - the "left" in this country (if you can even call it that: most of them are centrists, even, yes, the president) - isn't one-hundred-percent thrilled with the man, you know.

(11-15-2012, 02:10 AM)PrettyNier Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:We probably should keep larger scale discussions on religion or homosexuality out of the presidential election topic.

Excusing the fact that it is completely relevant, of course.

Excusing the fact that the discussions had here were about those topics in a general manner and not about how they're connected to the election. I don't know if you've read the thread but they were quite derailing.


I'd appreciate a less provocating manner in general in order not to cause any trouble.