You
Your Creator told you to love. Your Savior told you to love. Your book, your beliefs, your worldviews – they all tell you to love. So why don’t you love?
You are greedy. You want love all to yourself. You want to love who you want to love and enforce legislation that disallows others the same luxury.
You are a bastard.
You are treason to your Book, treason to your God, treason to your Savior.
You are treason to the Love you so dearly profess.
Universal Love does not consist in keeping others from marrying whomever they choose. Universal Love consists in loving – and that’s it.
So you are a bastard, a horrible piece of garbage disguised as something better. You should be ashamed, but it is impossible, because to know shame is to be human. And you are not human. You are less than human. You are garbage.
Go through your Book and tell me where Universal Love requires hate. Go through your Book and tell me where Universal Love requires discrimination, the augmentation of inequality, the complete dissolution of the egalitarian spirit your Savior taught you to embrace.
Your arguments, your reasoning, and your “logic” all fail. Time and again, your “rational” theses about homosexual marriage stand inert in the face of true, rational thought. They stand inert in the face of Universal Love.
So you are a bastard, a horrible piece of garbage disguised as something better. Return to the woods and live like the animal you truly are.
12 erotic poetry prompts:
Nice I like it, I would go a different tack but thats me. I am of the what is the government doing talking about marriage or a ton of other stuff. Thats not something they should be doing, however nice post.
U R gay!
"a horrible peace of garbage"
Correcetion: piece
Just wanted to do that one time. You used to do it to me. Hehe. :)
As for the post. Indeed religion seems to be used as a prop against several social problems such as gay marriage and abortion. I have never read the Book myself but I can imagine that you can find something that could be interpreted as anti-gay. Now is that particular right? Of course it is not. But old school conservative and mostly Christian Americans are happy to hear their religion say they are right. Who would not want to be support in their beliefs than none other than God himself. I can imagine it is empowering.
Ah the power of religion Jeff... it is so mighty. Look at the Middle East and it really is not all about the oil that causes such havoc over there it is a normally peaceful religion misinterpreted by a group of belligerent anti-westerners. You have to love it Jeff.
Anyway cool post but hold a helping of hate on the next order.
Peace.
Bravo.
Islam is not a "normally peaceful religion." The Qur'an is filled with passages where Allah encourages Muhammad to kill non-believers (which he does) and to fight all those who say otherwise. Of course, it's also filled with passages about love and stuff, so what the hell.
It's all bullshit, remember.
Religion and logic usually don't mix.
Jaya thats logic!
I have to comment on steven philippi and "old school conservative" and question what he means by this. Old school meaning in the last 15-20 years? is that old school?
To me it is not, a Goldwater or something of that nature is Old school and he was by todays standards not a conservative but a libertarian. He did not think the gov should be in these things and strongly disliked the "hijacking" of the party by the religious people.
So pretty much the old school you are referring to for me is the Neo-conness not old at all, and actually quite new
Jaya and Philippi:
That IS Logic!
Yay!
thank god jeff. this is why i love you.
Ill say what I said to Jon but not as much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl_qwo2VIlU
FRIEDMAN What do you mean by civil rights?
ROBINSON What I mean by civil rights is to take a raw case, the South, under Jim Crow in the 1950's.
FRIEDMAN But that was a case of too much government [ROBINSON It was? But I thought the South in those days had relatively had low tax rates, relatively low regulation...] No, no, but the government provided for a separation. It was the government that enforced separate areas for blacks and whites, it was the government that enforced the law that the blacks had to sit at the back of buses. Those were all government laws!
ROBINSON In the absence of those government laws it wouldn't have taken place? In other words..
FRIEDMAN In the absence of government laws, you would've had a gradual development, it would've taken place somewhere and not everywhere and you would've...look what happened in the north where there weren't those government laws. There may have been, undoubtedly don't misunderstand me, there is prejudice, there's no question, and undoubtedly it has bad affects on various people but in the absence of the laws in the south it would've broken down much faster and much earlier. If you could site any case for libertarianism, that's it.
I think i disagree with his assessment that it would have happened gradually on its own without the laws, especially his comparison to the North. The North simply didn't have as many flat out racist pigs. Certainly there were some ugly dudes up there, but the South was filled with them. And besides, the North was getting rid of laws and statutes that encouraged discrimination, and more free minorities were present than in the South.
It may be the case that in another environment, Friedman would be correct, but in the example he gave, i'm certain he's wrong.
Post a Comment