Is there an obligation for a faith believer

[mikkel_the_dane]

Until you can devise a method for accurately understanding the reality of the subjective world akin to the method we've come up with for determining the reality of the objective world I really couldn't care less. I'll never know your subjective reality and you'll never know mine. All we can do is endlessly talk and never reach any definitive conclusions so it's really just a waste of time in my opinion. I prefer to focus on questions that we can establish reliable answers for and since we've found a method for doing that with objective reality that's what I care about.

That is subjective and thus have no meaning evden to you as it is utterly meaningless as it is not objective. Stop doing that!!! You only make objective claims. Live up to your own words. I can even understand what I really couldn't care less means and I really couldn't care less.
Just with it's really just a waste of time in my opinion. That is subjective and I don't understand it and it's really just a waste of time in my opinion.
As for that's what I care about. That is also subjective and that is not what I care about.

So let me be honest. You were subjective and I took subjectively the **** on you and I know you get it. So try again and be honest when you are subjective and not objective, because I can spot it. It is not that hard. You subjective think/feel objectivity is subjectively better for you. I get that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Until you can devise a method for accurately understanding the reality of the subjective world akin to the method we've come up with for determining the reality of the objective world I really couldn't care less. I'll never know your subjective reality and you'll never know mine. All we can do is endlessly talk and never reach any definitive conclusions so it's really just a waste of time in my opinion. I prefer to focus on questions that we can establish reliable answers for and since we've found a method for doing that with objective reality that's what I care about.

That is subjective and thus have no meaning evden to you as it is utterly meaningless as it is not objective. Stop doing that!!! You only make objective claims. Live up to your own words. I can even understand what I really couldn't care less means and I really couldn't care less.
Just with it's really just a waste of time in my opinion. That is subjective and I don't understand it and it's really just a waste of time in my opinion.
As for that's what I care about. That is also subjective and that is not what I care about.

So let me be honest. You were subjective and I took subjectively the **** on you and I know you get it. So try again and be honest when you are subjective and not objective, because I can spot it. It is not that hard. You subjective think/feel objectivity is subjectively better for you. I get that.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That is subjective and thus have no meaning evden to you as it is utterly meaningless as it is not objective. Stop doing that!!! You only make objective claims. Live up to your own words. I can even understand what I really couldn't care less means and I really couldn't care less.
Just with it's really just a waste of time in my opinion. That is subjective and I don't understand it and it's really just a waste of time in my opinion.
As for that's what I care about. That is also subjective and that is not what I care about.

So let me be honest. You were subjective and I took subjectively the **** on you and I know you get it. So try again and be honest when you are subjective and not objective, because I can spot it. It is not that hard. You subjective think/feel objectivity is subjectively better for you. I get that.

As for that's what I care about. That is also subjective and that is not what I care about.

So neither of us cares what the other's subjective opinion is. That's why I find it rather worthless and focus on objective reality. If you'd rather not that's fine.

 

[Luchito Prays]

One person says "God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit form a unified trinity", another person says "This is not so."

One person looks at Quranic scripture, and decides the religion is not for them, another looks at it and sees poetic verse that they do not believe could be made by man's hand alone, and so believe it is inspired by God.

This exact same thing happens all the time in religion. Hence the reason there are so many different Christian denominations - including wildly different practices like Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS and Catholicism, various sects in Islam, The Baháʼí Faith said to have developed out of Babism, which emerged from Shia Islam, etc. etc. etc. There are very few hard-and-fast regulations in religion either. Belief in God is one thing you can point to as being a pre-requisite for many, among maybe a handful of others. But otherwise, whatever one wants to believe, it is up for grabs!

I think you're wrong here.

You have not convinced me of this in the slightest.

I'm not trying to convince anyone.

I just posted my opinion.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I'm not trying to convince anyone.

I just posted my opinion.

So, why else post your opinion that is contrary to mine except to try and convince someone that I am wrong (and by extension, that your opinion is more correct)? I am not so sure you are very aware of even your own thoughts and motives. This does not bode well for your credibility.

 

[Luchito Prays]

So, why else post your opinion that is contrary to mine except to try and convince someone that I am wrong (and by extension, that your opinion is more correct)? I am not so sure you are very aware of even your own thoughts and motives. This does not bode well for your credibility.

Oh. please, come on. The analogy you used really sucks. That's all.

Please no hard feelings.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As for that's what I care about. That is also subjective and that is not what I care about.

So neither of us cares what the other's subjective opinion is. That's why I find it rather worthless and focus on objective reality. If you'd rather not that's fine.

Yet we can understand each other subjective opinions. You said that didn't work. Of course it does otherwise you can't explain how language works. The definition of all words for the meaning of words are subjective.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yet we can understand each other subjective opinions. You said that didn't work. Of course it does otherwise you can't explain how language works. The definition of all words for the meaning of words are subjective.

I'm pretty sure I never said that we can't understand another person subjective opinion. What I did say is no one can ever know another person's subjective reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm pretty sure I never said that we can't understand another person subjective opinion. What I did say is no one can ever know another person's subjective reality.

Well, if we are to doubt knowledge, I am way ahead of you. In the classical sense of justified true belief there is no knowledge. It is an idea some people believe in just like the idea of God.

 

[Valjean]

Does majority of people really understand quantum mechanics?

If they don't, how it comes they believe the several claims such a theory publishes every day?

They don't publish new claims every day. You're trying to paint science as capricious and whimsical. It is not.
There is ongoing research and new facts discovered. New findings get published in scientific journals, for other scientists to criticize and test. This is a strength, and a brake on unfounded beliefs.

True, the majority does not understand quantum mechanics. But science goes to great lengths to provide explanatory and educational materiel explaining the facts upon which their assertions are based.
You will not find tested sources of faith-based beliefs.
We trust science because scientists show their work, and invite criticism.

When you believe in something you don't need evidence.

And therein lies the problem. An unevidenced, whimsical, emotion-based belief is an unreasonable belief.

The wife of a dude claims she is faithful and the husband believes her for what she says. No need of evidence.

Your point?

Religion works different than science. With religion first is belief, later is understanding.

Which is why it's so capricious and unreliable. The faithful just choose a system that's familiar or conforms to their personal beliefs, and run with it. Ignoring contradictory evidence and seeking confirmation, no matter how questionable, is not 'growing in wisdom'. It's indoctrination.

The job of the apostles was just to announce the good news, the dead and resurrection of the messiah, his life and words. It was not their job to teach the law.

And such apostles can be found in any mental hospital anywhere in the country, communicating the wisdom they received in their communion with God.
Odd that they report such different messages....

Then, they just make the agreement to tell the gentiles who became believer of their faith, to stop doing idolatry and other pagan practices. But, about the other teachings, including the law, gentiles can go to the synagogues on sabbaths.

Notice that first was to spread out the good news, and second the new believer going to learn the doctrine.

But faith requires "the doctrine" to be accepted without evidence, just on its emotional appeal.
This is not a reasonable epistemic approach. It's patent foolishness.

Receiving the good news is not enough. If you never knew about the Bible and someone announced you the life of the messiah, his teachings, the promise of another body which will last forever, and you like the idea and said you want to be part of it, then you must go to a place to learn and understand everything, everything from the very beginning.

No. Religion does not impart understanding, just blind belief. Without questioning, evidence or testing, any doctrine is foolishness.

Then, in that place you will learn the books that contain the doctrines, starting with Genesis.Many new believers from the apostles times didn't know anything about Genesis, exodus, etc. But, the words of the Messiah include the mention of events read in those former books.

Where are the books that contain the initial facts and observations underlying the conclusions? How were the conclusions derived? How were they tested? What are the alternative interpretations?

Today, in science you also find lots of beliefs. Multiverses, dilating time, black holes, the world coming from a microscopic particle that exploded, millions of years of life on earth, and so forth. Those are just beliefs. There is no solid evidence for those. Even for criminal law, circumstantial evidence is not evidence.

No! Each belief is based on readily observable and tested facts. They are better supported than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
If some of these impossibly anti-intuitive facts were untrue, you wouldn't be posting on RF.
possible.

This is why imagination took control of the theories of science, when knowledge was set apart. Look at the theories, first is the belief written in a piece of paper, then is the observation based not in impartial conclusions but forced conclusions to make the numbers and symbols fit with what is observed.

No, the theories of science are tried and true. The beliefs of religion are both unevidenced and untested. There are no religious theories.

And worst, relativity and quantum weren't compatible. Even Einstein died trying in vain to make them fit one with the another.

Why those theories are working together today? The answer is very simple, manipulating one symbol here and one equation there, the discordance problems gone. Just manipulation of numbers solved the problem. And people believe those because their lack of knowledge in physics.

Their relevant applications are understood. Both contain truth. Neither claims to be the Theory of Everything.

 

[Valjean]

Making a community a better place means to live in accord to nature.

And homosexuality is a sexual behavior that goes against nature.

No, it isn't. It's a common variation within mammal and bird communities. It's functional, and you haven't taken the time to investigate it.

In a near past, just five decades ago, psychologists understood homosexuality and lesbianism were indeed cases to be treat by them.

And today it's clear that these are normal genetic variations, like eye color or handedness. Eye color rarely responds to treatment, nor does it need it.

And the treatment was way justified. As an example, how an adult man, without having any mental retardation was talking like a six years old girl? An adult man talking like a girl is a case of having mental delay. A normal adult talks as an adult. And definitively all homosexuals talking like six years old girls are faking, They can talk as adults but they prefer to talk like little girls. Definitively there is something wrong with them. Don't tell me that they talking like little girls is "normal", you know that such is not true. Come on.

Huh? What are you talking about?

 

[Luchito Prays]

They don't publish new claims every day. You're trying to paint science as capricious and whimsical. It is not.
There is ongoing research and new facts discovered. New findings get published in scientific journals, for other scientists to criticize and test. This is a strength, and a brake on unfounded beliefs.

True, the majority does not understand quantum mechanics. But science goes to great lengths to provide explanatory and educational materiel explaining the facts upon which their assertions are based.
You will not find tested sources of faith-based beliefs.
We trust science because scientists show their work, and invite criticism.
And therein lies the problem. An unevidenced, whimsical, emotion-based belief is an unreasonable belief. Your point?
Which is why it's so capricious and unreliable. The faithful just choose a system that's familiar or conforms to their personal beliefs, and run with it. Ignoring contradictory evidence and seeking confirmation, no matter how questionable, is not 'growing in wisdom'. It's indoctrination.
And such apostles can be found in any mental hospital anywhere in the country, communicating the wisdom they received in their communion with God.
Odd that they report such different messages....
But faith requires "the doctrine" to be accepted without evidence, just on its emotional appeal.
This is not a reasonable epistemic approach. It's patent foolishness.
No. Religion does not impart understanding, just blind belief. Without questioning, evidence or testing, any doctrine is foolishness.
Where are the books that contain the initial facts and observations underlying the conclusions? How were the conclusions derived? How were they tested? What are the alternative interpretations?
No! Each belief is based on readily observable and tested facts. They are better supported than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
If some of these impossibly anti-intuitive facts were untrue, you wouldn't be posting on RF.
possible.
No, the theories of science are tried and true. The beliefs of religion are both unevidenced and untested. There are no religious theories.
Their relevant applications are understood. Both contain truth. Neither claims to be the Theory of Everything.

LOl.

In religion, a person can accept the Yashu (Jesus) is the son of God without any evidence but by hearing the gospel. After that, the new adept might or might not be interested in knowing more, he can learn the doctrines, and obtain more knowledge.

On the other hand, a person can accept that time dilates without any evidence but by reading it in a webpage. After that the new adept might or might not be interested in knowing more, so he can learn the doctrines, and obtain more knowledge.

Mostly the new adepts to religion learn more about the doctrines.

On the other hand, most of new adepts to time dilation live in complete ignorance of what they believe in.

There is not a single doctrine from time dilation explaining the process step by step of how it happens.

So, what are you talking about?

 

[Bathos Logos]

Oh. please, come on. The analogy you used really sucks. That's all.

Please no hard feelings.

You're the one who seems to have started out with "hard feelings." Remember that I wasn't even posting with you! You are the one who felt something about my post was important enough to butt in on the conversation. Which, believe me, I do not mind in the slightest, I'm just hoping you realize that I had no "hard feelings" going into this at all.

All I did was post what I felt was a completely appropriate comparison of one form of media or "art" that has no demonstrable truth value with another form of media/art with no demonstrable truth value. As in - I believe your religion to have no demonstrable truth value, and that you merely enjoy it like you would a production of art, or a book you found to be enjoyable. It is far closer to something like that than it is to any form of demonstrable observation, or natural process capable of being modeled.

Now, let's get to brass tacks here and realize that, even if my analogy "sucks" (which honestly, I do not care about), you still have nothing compelling in your arsenal to convince me that your religious beliefs comport with reality. That's what truly matters in what I have said, and in the attempt (however crappy) at analogy that I made. You may not be "trying to convince me" - but that doesn't, at all, change the fact that you likely don't have evidential warrant to be believing whatever it is you believe of a religious tilt. And I am of the opinion that that is really where all these "hard feelings" have their start.

 

[Luchito Prays]

No, it isn't. It's a common variation within mammal and bird communities. It's functional, and you haven't taken the time to investigate it.

Ha ha ha ha... there is not such a thing as homosexual crocodile and similar. Show me a male ostrich looking for another ostrich crazy looking for coupling showing his butt for tempting the other male... ha ha ha ha

Your thoughts are reaching the limits of the ridiculous.

Pictures and videos showing "homosexual behavior" in animals really show nothing but the silly interpretation of the dude who promotes homosexuality.

Even more, those sick dudes for sure will drug the animals for cause them to act against their nature.

And today it's clear that these are normal genetic variations, like eye color or handedness. Eye color rarely responds to treatment, nor does it need it.

Until today there is not a single evidence of the homosexual gene. You really don't know what are you talking about.

And, if any genetic variation guides you to homosexuality, for sure is a mutation, a degenerative mutation. And such must be monitored and under treatment..


Huh? What are you talking about?[/QUOTE]
You know what I'm talking about.

I can even see TV commercials were homosexuals promoting a product talk like a little girl. Such is sick, no doubt.

An adult man talking like a 6 years old girl calls for mental treatment. Or the dude was born mental retarded or he is faking. Either cases require psychoanalysis.

 

[Valjean]

On the other hand, a person can accept that time dilates without any evidence but by reading it in a webpage. After that the new adept might or might not be interested in knowing more, so he can learn the doctrines, and obtain more knowledge.

No, the evidence is there for time dilation -- unlike religious doctrine. It's tested, productive and used every day.
Learning unevidenced, untested and often fantastic religious doctrine is not learning facts, it's learning folklore. Folklore is not wisdom.

Mostly the new adepts to religion learn more about the doctrines.

On the other hand, most of new adepts to time dilation live in complete ignorance of what they believe in.

But, unlike religious doctrine, the evidence is there, for anyone to examine -- unless, of course, the science is untrue, in which case the internet wouldn't be working and examination would be difficult.

There is not a single doctrine from time dilation explaining the process step by step of how it happens.

Yes, there is. We know exactly how and why it happens, and have since 1905. Time dilation - Wikipedia

"These predictions of the theory of relativity have been repeatedly confirmed by experiment, and they are of practical concern, for instance in the operation of satellite navigation systems such as GPS and Galileo."

So, what are you talking about?

The demonstrable facts of science, which you seem unaware of.

 

[Valjean]

Ha ha ha ha... there is not such a thing as homosexual crocodile and similar. Show me a male ostrich looking for another ostrich crazy looking for coupling showing his butt for tempting the other male... ha ha ha ha

Your thoughts are reaching the limits of the ridiculous.[/quote]Not my thoughts; the findings of anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, neurologists, ethographers, biologists, &al.

Pictures and videos showing "homosexual behavior" in animals really show nothing but the silly interpretation of the dude who promotes homosexuality.

Why would anyone want to 'promote' homosexuality? The reserchers are just reporting their observations.

Even more, those sick dudes for sure will drug the animals for cause them to act against their nature.

Source?

Until today there is not a single evidence of the homosexual gene. You really don't know what are you talking about.

Noöne is claiming 'homosexual gene', though, are they?

And, if any genetic variation guides you to homosexuality, for sure is a mutation, a degenerative mutation. And such must be monitored and under treatment..

Why, when it's adptive? Not every individual needs to reproduce, to support the welfare of the population.
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality? – Yale Scientific Magazine

You seem astonishingly uninformed about this subject -- yet so opinionated!

"Huh? What are you talking about?"
You know what I'm talking about.

I can even see TV commercials were homosexuals promoting a product talk like a little girl. Such is sick, no doubt.

Is this what you're talking about?:

OK, professor; your knowledge of homosexuality derives from voiced over TV commercials?!

What do you mean by "sick?"
I think, to you, sick is anything unconventional, that you, personally, find "icky."

An adult man talking like a 6 years old girl calls for mental treatment. Or the dude was born mental retarded or he is faking. Either cases require psychoanalysis.

Is it dysfunctional? Is it harmful? Why, apart from your personal aversion, would treatment be in order?

And where did you get this impression of homosexuality? Do your homosexual friends act this way? Do the many, well adjusted, successful, homosexual professionals act this way?

 

[Luchito Prays]

Filling your messages with caricatures won't make you right.

Look, the behavior of the species goes in accord to their sexes. There is no way to assume that the rectum of an individual was designed by nature to receive any foreign object for being introduced in it. Not matter if the object "fits" the point is that the muscles of the anus are made in a way to help the exit of excrement and impede the entrance of any object.

Then, if not for medical purpose to help the individual in a treatment, then there is no reason to perturb that part. The rectum and anus weren't designed for sexual activity. In other words, using this part of the human body for sexual intercourse is anti-nature.

No need of religion involved here.

Of course, people is free to use this part of the body for sexual pleasure, but this is not an indication that such activity must be promoted.

Same as well you can "drink" orange juice using your nostrils, but it will be foolish to promote such a way of ingesting food and fluids.

Same is foolish to promote anal intercourse. It damages the body plus is cause of several diseases, including hepatitis.

The Bible is 100%right when goes against homosexuality because homosexuality doesn't bring anything good to society. Nothing good in absolute comes from homosexuality. This is a sure fact.

The believer in the God of the Bible will be judged by his/her silence when homosexuality is taking more and more control, like introducing its orientation in children classes.

You just can't teach depravity to children. No way. Corrupt politicians are destroying entire societies just because homosexuals want to be accepted at all cost. The Israelite people were very lucky when homosexuality was prosecuted in their land. Those were good old times for several cultures applying the same rule.

And where did you get this impression of homosexuality? Do your homosexual friends act this way? Do the many, well adjusted, successful, homosexual professionals act this way?

Homosexual friends of mine? Oh no! The God saves me!

Homosexuality doesn't expand in society by reproduction means but by contagious means.So, the further from them, the better.

This video must be a sarcasm, but surely the talk of the homosexuals are like that, similar to the voice accent of a six years old girl.

That is not normal.

Question is, why they act as if they were little girls?

Because women don't talk like that, neither men.

Hey! the Bible teaches that when you are a child, you do things children do, but when you are an adult, then you must act as an adult. It is ridiculous seeing an adult man talking like a six years old girl.

You won't be able to come with a satisfactory explanation.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Homosexual friends of mine? Oh no! The God saves me!

Please try and keep a clear head and not let your emotions over the existence of gay people cloud your ability to stay organized and focused.

You quoted a particular post, somehow attributed it to me in the quoting, and it wasn't even anything I wrote, nor was I even in the conversation you tried to rope me into. Basically, you somehow inserted my user-handle into a quote you were quoting from some other user.

Again - try to remain calm, even in the face of overwhelming negative emotions you seem to have about gay people being gay. God isn't going to save you from your own careless quote attribution, unfortunately. This is all on you. Please take care to be more careful in the future with all your copy/paste shenanigans. I really don't feel like schooling you on why it isn't any of your business what gay people do with one another, and then further schooling you on why it isn't any of God's business either - even if He does exist. So please... please be more careful, ,more organized, less emotional, and get it right - or at least don't get it so strangely and overwhelmingly wrong. How did my user-handle even make it into your post to an entirely different user? What were you doing? Do you even know?

 

[Luchito Prays]

Please try and keep a clear head and not let your emotions over the existence of gay people cloud your ability to stay organized and focused.

You quoted a particular post, somehow attributed it to me in the quoting, and it wasn't even anything I wrote, nor was I even in the conversation you tried to rope me into. Basically, you somehow inserted my user-handle into a quote you were quoting from some other user.

Again - try to remain calm, even in the face of overwhelming negative emotions you seem to have about gay people being gay. God isn't going to save you from your own careless quote attribution, unfortunately. This is all on you. Please take care to be more careful in the future with all your copy/paste shenanigans. I really don't feel like schooling you on why it isn't any of your business what gay people do with one another, and then further schooling you on why it isn't any of God's business either - even if He does exist. So please... please be more careful, ,more organized, less emotional, and get it right - or at least don't get it so strangely and overwhelmingly wrong. How did my user-handle even make it into your post to an entirely different user? What were you doing? Do you even know?

I think differently.

Somehow a discussion about sexual orientation other than heterosexuality has become taboo.

And there is no reason for that.

On the contrary, it's good to discuss about it.

Your reply is one more typical answer given to evade a sole argument: Homosexuality doesn't bring anything good to society.

Do you know what?

This argument is worthy for having its own topic.

By experience, the sure end of such a topic will be banning it, or close it with padlock. This will be due to the petition of defenders of such sexual orientations other than heterosexuality.

But, no worries, I'm not emotional when I write what I write.

I see things ahead from others, like to tell you for example, that the abortion case in the 70s was not to give independence to women and their right to choose what to do with their bodies.

Was totally the contrary, that case was to take away such a right from women with respect to their bodies. It was the opposite.

You don't see it that way, but I can tell you, such was the real intention.

People has been deceived with the argument of giving such a right to women.

There are many things the masses can't see but only are brainwashed to accept what the ones in control pressure them to think and do.

Up to the 60s, the salary of the father, as a regular worker, was enough to buy or rent a house, buy a car, buy food, pay the bills. But, the economy changed for worst.

Rather than recognizing such a change, the ones in control spread the news that women must become more independent, so they can also work and fulfill their dreams.

There you go, problem solved. The economy became so bad, that one person alone can no longer maintain a family. In the decade of the 70s and after, two salaries were needed to fulfill the same tasks.

A MacDonald worker used to have enough salary to at least pay rent of an apartment and have food. On the next decade room mates became more popular in the 70s up to today.

What a wonderful cover up for a falling economy, not so a social revolution changing for something more beneficial.

The same is happening with the current situation with sexual orientations other than heterosexuality. The masses are being manipulated again.

And you are telling me that I feel emotional about it?

I can see what you can't see. And if I tell you all I can see, you surely might turn very emotional.

My regards.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I think differently.

Yes, obviously, because you seem to have completely missed the point I made about you quoting me with something I didn't even say. Do you get it? You quoted someone else and put my name on it. That's what you did. Do you understand? I don't even know how you did it. Which is why I stated that you were probably getting emotional over your responses about homosexuality - because obviously something caused you to become so disorganized as to paste my user-handle into the coding of a quote that someone else said. Believe me, this sort of foolishness is not impressive. It shows you are sloppy, and again, I likely think this is because you are distracted, and again likely - because of your emotion over the topic being discussed.

Somehow a discussion about sexual orientation other than heterosexuality has become taboo.

What are you talking about? Discussion about it is fine. What isn't fine is someone just bad-mouthing and having reactions that they are disgusted and blatantly trying to use that as a tactic to try and convince others that they should be just as disgusted. I can easily have a rational discussion about homosexuality. Can you?

Your reply is one more typical answer given to evade a sole argument: Homosexuality doesn't bring anything good to society.

This is false. There is plenty of good that comes from openly allowing and welcoming homosexual people into our societies and cultures. These are people who can be just as productive, just as hard-working, just as kind and generous, just as helpful as anyone else, after all. So, to affirm that their life choices in this regard are not some "big problem" is to welcome all those good attributes into your society. And if some of them aren't productive, and some of them aren't hard-working, some of them are not kind? Well then those are the things you chastise them for. Not the fact that they are homosexuals - which has nothing to do with those other things.

Do you know what?

This argument is worthy for having its own topic.

You're right. So you go make a topic, and the rest of us who don't have our heads up our butts will come in and rip your garbage-bag of a thesis to shreds. The above paragraph alone should leave you without a single thing left to say.

By experience, the sure end of such a topic will be banning it, or close it with padlock. This will be due to the petition of defenders of such sexual orientations other than heterosexuality.

Oh, believe me - I'd rather we keep talking about it openly, so that I can slam dunk your inferior opinions into the garbage bin where they belong.

But, no worries, I'm not emotional when I write what I write.

Then try keeping your quote attribution in line, please. Don't quote someone and then paste someone else's name into the quote. Don't do that.

I see things ahead from others, like to tell you for example, that the abortion case in the 70s was not to give independence to women and their right to choose what to do with their bodies.

Was totally the contrary, that case was to take away such a right from women with respect to their bodies. It was the opposite.

You don't see it that way, but I can tell you, such was the real intention.

But it failed, didn't it? I think that's a key thing to be taken away from that situation. They failed to make their case. And this likely because it is the inferior position to hold.

People has been deceived with the argument of giving such a right to women.

Your opinion. That's all this is. I hope you can realize this.

There are many things the masses can't see but only are brainwashed to accept what the ones in control pressure them to think and do.

Like religion has done by making people believe that there is an invisible "father" of theirs looking over their shoulder, and listening to them sing in the shower. I get it.

Up to the 60s, the salary of the father, as a regular worker, was enough to buy or rent a house, buy a car, buy food, pay the bills. But, the economy changed for worst.

And this is due to the ruling on abortion, you're saying? Or no... wait... this is the fault of the homosexuals? Actually... I am not sure why you are bringing this up. How is it related to this discussion? Please explain.

Rather than recognizing such a change, the ones in control spread the news that women must become more independent, so they can also work and fulfill their dreams.

And abortion gives them this ability, you think? They didn't have it before abortion was legal?

There you go, problem solved. The economy became so bad, that one person alone can no longer maintain a family. In the decade of the 70s and after, two salaries were needed to fulfill the same tasks.

And you're dead-sure this wouldn't have happened anyway, right? That the greed of corporations, after realizing they could just keep hiking prices, and people would just keep paying, that they could do things like put automated systems in place to replace workers, lower their costs, but keep prices to the consumer just as high, and keep pushing their profit margins ever-higher to get that coveted spot on Wall Street bids - none of that has anything to do with it, right? It's what? God's vengeance for people killing babies with abortions and others being homosexuals?

The same is happening with the current situation with sexual orientations other than heterosexuality. The masses are being manipulated again.

And what's at stake this time? What do you get for not allowing two homosexuals to be recognized as a legal union in marriage under the law? What does that help?

And you are telling me that I feel emotional about it?

Yes. You need me to say it again? You can ask me again. Answer would still be yes.

I can see what you can't see. And if I tell you all I can see, you surely might turn very emotional.

I can't tell what this is supposed to mean. Also, I don't care, so don't even bother trying to explain. I am sure it will be more useless nonsense from you.

In the end - just try and keep your quotes straight, okay? Don't put my name on someone else's quote. That's dumb, and uncalled for, and dishonest and/or sloppy.