• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • Well they're not mostly atheist from my experience. And if they are, they're probably gone a bit mad on equality drugs. There's not really any point in forcing the church into allowing gay marriages. Going to a Catholic school in Ireland has taught me that, but it's still a sin according to the Bible, even if they are guaranteed to get into heaven.

    It's all right I suppose. We had our fair share of bad arguing. At least you never suggested an ethnic cleansing (so to speak) like Alleviate.
    It wasn't sarcastic, I think I just worded it badly.

    I don't think it's really all about that. I think they just want equality to be honest. I'm sure there are people who want to "get back" at the church so to speak, though. Or they could just be deeply religious, and gay at the same time. It's clearly against the Bible's words, so they're fighting a losing battle.
    It's grand.

    Yeah, a lot of states just come to the conclusion that fits with a church's morale, because most churches are moral anyway.

    Really? They honestly shouldn't. I don't agree at all with their view, but you shoudln't force them to change their opinion. I don't see why someone would want to be married by a church that doesn't like them anyway.
    Err, he is Protestant. I said that :S

    Agreed. The state shouldn't have any say in what the church does (and vica versa), unless they're gone mad and sacrificing people or something. A lot of gay people tend to be Atheist as well, so I don't think many would really mind if the church didn't allow their marraige.
    Oh I know, but I thought you still might have heard of him.

    He claims to be a Christian but has criticised the Catholic Church
    He is Christian, but he's Protestant.

    but marriage is a union between a man and a women between God
    Not to get into a debate again :)S), but gay people aren't looking for church marraiges. God/The Bible/whatever obviously disagrees with gay marraige. so the church doesn't and shouldn't have to grant marraiges. It's the legal marraiges, that the church doesn't/shouldn't have a control over that people are fighting for.
    (I'm not entirely sure which marraige (church or state) you disagree with, but just to clarify).

    But yeah, I think he was actually the guy who got it decriminalised here. He'll also be the first gay head of state if he gets elected, which he probably won't.
    Ah. Right so.

    BTW (another question, sorry :S), iirc you're from N. Ireland. What do you think of David Norris?
    There's an extremely Catholic guy in my year who can't stand him, so I was wondering what you thought of him.
    Do you believe in creationism?

    I was just wondering, I'm not going to turn it into a debate. I don't remember you mentioning this before, so I was just curious.
    That is stupid. Why don't you do your research before preaching that stuff to me. Being good is more important than some personal belief. There are thousands of religions in the world, not just Christianity. I can state thousands of reasons why I don't believe in the bible, your sig being one of the main ones.
    I just saw your sig in the "What if pokemon came to our world.." thread and am quite insulted and offended by it. So we will automatically go to hell simply because we don't believe in Jesus regardless of whether we've been good or not, that's ludricous.
    I'm not going to reply to your posts anymore, its kind of common practise to debate and leave all emotions within the debate. However you have chosen to mock me on other people's profiles. You have a complete lack of respect for other people, I pity you in many ways, you can't accept other people's opinions while you promote your own as proof.

    I've had the displeasure of talking to unpleasant people, you are certainly in the Top 10 of my list. I have talked to atheists with a more militant anti-religion viewpoint than you and I can still find respect for them, though I've lost all respect for you.

    Have I mocked you behind your back? No I haven't. Though I guess I have morals, though that may because of my 'relgious indoctrination'.

    I hope you have a wonderful life.

    *Bang** Bang* Have a nice day!
    Lol at that.

    Although it's quite true.
    Same thing.

    Wait what. You called homosexuals/homosexual sex an abomination, knowing that there were a lot of gay people reading the thread. How in the name of Nancy was I supposed to know that you're aunt was Schziophrenic?

    Wait wait. "Lots of people believe in it, so it must be true"? Lots of kids believe in Santa, is he real? It's not my opinion that evolution is excepted. Almost everybody I know believes in evolution. Numerous churches have accepted it.

    I'm saying that they shouldn't have a religous influence to decide on that. I don't agree with abortion (except in extreme cases), but I think a state should decide on whether or not it's legal without the influence of religion. Just like how state marraiges shouldn't be influenced by the church.

    Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.

    And you don't dislike me? That makes me feel all fuzzy :]
    Right back at you buddy.
    Number of people who didn't like me in the Debate Forum: Uh, just you.

    Number of people who didn't like you in the Debate Forum: Uh, like everybody.
    I called you mentally impaired after you called me an abomination. So yeah.
    Show me one place where anybody here treated someone like an animal for their beliefs. I don't care if someone believes in god; that's their choice. But when they go around bashing homosexuality blatantly, then people get annoyed. And you don't count, since frankly, nobody likes you anyway.

    It is almost all but proven, unlike the existence of God or the things it says in the Bible. A lot of religous people accept evolution. It's widely accepted.

    I'm not forcing secular beliefs on religous people. I'm saying that the state should be run without any sort of religous influence.
    Sorry if I used an incorrect term, you know what I meant. Aside from you, I've met very few people who don't accept evolution.

    As I said, very few people have major problems with learning evolution. It's almost 99% a proven fact, I don't see why we can't teach it just because a few people don't accept it. I know it's imposing our beliefs on religous people, but I don't think it's a major problem. It's like saying we shouldn't mention homosexuality in school because of die-hard Muslims.

    Oppressing all forms of religion is wrong, but teaching facts shouldn't be taken away just because of some religous people. It's not trying to oppress religion; it's just educating people. And please, please, don't start on your "Darwin was an opium addict" thing.

    Secular state just works best all round, since you don't have conflicting religous views, because you just totally ignore religion as an influence altogether.
    Unless every single person (or an extremely large majority) in the country follows the same religion, then it should have no affect on the state.

    You do know people can go to religous schools, or abstain from the evolution class? And a lot of churches accept evolution, and realise that full-on creationism isn't actually true. All of the religion teachers in my school believe in evolution, and I know of a few priests who do too.

    I realise that a lot of people are religous, but that doesn't mean that the state shouldn't be secular. I see your point that teaching evolution is the forcing of beliefs, but teaching creationism is also forcing beliefs, as is having a non-secular state. A state that runs without a religous influence would be an awful lot better than a state effectively controleld by the church.
    But God shouldn't. I don't care about people expressing their religion- it's fine, let them at it. But you can't have something that isn't fully decided on by people, or proven, to have any affect whatsoever on the state. For example, would you like it if the state was based on Islam?

    Not everybody follows the same religion, or any religioin at all, so why should it affect the laws of the country?
    But that makes no sense. Of course I stick up for the other "groups", but that doesn't mean I should be condemned for not actively supporting them.

    Marraige isn't a religous term. I wouldn't give a crap about being married in a church, since God obviously doesn't want that. It's legal state marraiges that I want. God shouldn't have any affect on the state or how it's run. I don't mind if churches deny Christian gay people marraige, but it's legal marraige they shouldn't have a say in. God never invented marraige; that's matrimony.

    And civil unions don't nearly compare. There are numerous legal benefits marraige gives over civil unions.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…