Jump to content

Omerta

TGP Prime+
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,506

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

Posts posted by Omerta

  1. Posted

    It doesn't matter to me what she said she was. Here in 10 years you're going to be able to say you're anything, and people are going to be cool with it. People can switch between genders within seconds now, and that is become accepted. There is one lady who wants to go from white to black, and I think she's got a pretty solid case for it, but here in a few years it will be widely accepted. I'm Irish, like an actual Irishman, I swear to God every year I see more people who have some sort of Irish heritage that they can't really prove, is just family lore. It's the same thing with her.

     

    also, find it really hard to be mad at her for something she did when she was 18 years old. It happened 30 years ago, can we move past it yet? This is getting a little ridiculous. The only thing I really give a damn about his can she do good for the country.

     

    And Sean, I certainly agree with you. although I would never forsake that on something like this, because I would have to hang myself if I had anything to do with Hillary and my signature.

  3. Posted

    44 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

    Also, my #HotTake: in 50 years when homophobia is a fringe belief in the US, Christians will say the arguments used against it were just as dumb as the ones you say about racism. 

    Im not sure what you mean there. I'm not sure if I should feel insulted lol.

  4. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    1 hour ago, blotsfan said:

    I'd argue there's a big difference between "Congratulations Tom + Joe on your Wedding" and "I, the owner of this cake shop, am a proud supporter of gay marriage."

    Would you? Applying this as a general rule can be very damning in my opinion.

     

    I think it was you, however I can be mistaken, but during the election didn't you say a vote for anyone other than Hillary was a vote for Trump? So even though I didn't vote for Trump, I voted for a lesser-known candidate yet I was still complicit in his victory.

     

    If we apply that logic here just because you don't put two dolls making out, even a congratulations Tom and Joe is still condoning (or at least complicit) it isn't it? 

     

    If it wasn't you then I apologize, but I know that is a common sentiment.

     

  5. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    15 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

    The constitution defends all religions. Not a specific list of them.

    However, here are some verses used. The author has rebuttals, but there are other interpretations for the verses about being anti-gay too.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm

    And I keep putting them together because there is no rational reason that one should be ok and the other shouldn't. So I want bware to either say the exact specific reason (which is that he's homophobic) or more optimistically, change his opinion and support equal rights for gay people. 

    It does protect all religions, and there is no specific list come I mean there is, and it's an extensive list, but it's not as easy as a lot of people think it is to get declared protected have a religion. Yes you can make one up, but it isn't recognized by the federal government. For instance, the Branch Davidians. They were seen as a terrorist organization, because they had outrageous believes they weren't considered a religion, didn't enjoy any of the perks of being a religion.

    as to him being homophobic that's why this decision is so intriguing. Now I can't say he's homophobic, and I truly don't believe that he is. I could be wrong, as you proved earlier in the threat it's entirely possible. That being said, the decision rendered was extremely interested in the fact that they said wasn't the people they were discriminating against, it was the message of the cake that violated their religious beliefs. So in essence it kind of shifted the onus from the people themselves, to the message. Which if you're willing to make a gay couple of cake, you're just not willing to make them one that crosses their religious beliefs, I can definitely see the validity to that decision.

    as an example, and I understand that it's not apples to oranges, but I believe it illustrates the point of the message. This last weekend was the Conor McGregor fight, he was fighting a Russian fellow. If I were to walk into a Russian bakery, owned and operated by Russians, and I ordered a cake with Conor McGregor's face, and saying Irish Christianity wins out, and they refuse to make it, I think that would leave us in a similar situation. If I went in there asking for a plain strawberry cake, there is probably a higher likelihood, if not certainty that they would make that cake for me. I could very well see them refusing to make me a cake like that last Friday. Now after McGregor got his face punched in, they might have made the cake is a joke, but in seriousness, it would have been the message they were disagreeing with, not necessarily my Irish heritage.

  6. Posted

    And please don't do that silly thing where you say you just created a religion, and now interracial marriage is bad that defeats the entire purpose of having a productive discussion about this. So to address it off the top

     

    You don't have a religion, you haven't created a religion, you don't have a place of worship, and you're not federally recognized as a religion, the less you don't get the protections of the Constitution.

  7. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    4 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

    Again, you need to stop assuming Christianity is the only religion. If I truly believe that a God comes to me and says interracial marriage is wrong, and this is now my religious belief, should I be allowed to refuse service to an interracial couple? 

    The thing is, nobody is saying that. I don't know of any texts from any of the mainstream religions, or any religions for that matter that's a interracial marriage is a terrible thing. Now I could be wrong as I'm not an expert in all religions, that being said I don't know of any that say marrying black people is explicitly prohibited.

     

    If there was a Supreme Court case about that, or a UK Court decision about that then we would discuss it. That being said that's not what's in play here. I'm not sure why you keep throwing that out there, is it so you can lump homosexuality and racist together. Is it a convenient way to say all Christians are racist, I'm not really sure what you're going for here. I give both our discrimination, that I can understand, however, only one of those is a hot-button issue right now, the other one hasn't been talked about several years as far as I know.

    Is there a mainstream religion, that has texts, that explicitly prohibits interracial marriage? That is a serious question, I don't know of any, but if you do I would like to know about them.

  8. Posted

    39 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

    In fact, I'd say that sexual orientation is way less of a choice than choosing to marry someone of another race. So, again why is discrimination against gay marriages ok, but discrimination against interracial marriages isn't?

    You have to look at it from the context of the person making the argument. As I said in the beginning, the bible really doesn't have any bugaboos about black people, yes they tried to use it to justify slavery, and Jim Crow laws and segregation, that was wrong. That said, I am unaware of any Bible passage that explicitly states that you cannot marry a black person, or have sex with a black person, or even have anal sex with a black person.

     

    The Bible however, does explicitly ban homosexuality. I mean technically lesbians would get a pass, because I believe it says if a Man Lies with another man, so I think women might be in the clear here. In all seriousness though, it bans homosexuality.

     

    these are false equivalencies as far as the Bible is concerned, because the Bible only prohibits one. Now if you are asking beware, for him personally that only he can answer that, but from the biblical perspective only one of them is wrong.

    I'm a fairly strong Christian, and I don't necessarily uphold these views. I think these are more so people who are 100% textualists, And just follow Doctrine. That being said God as I envisioned him probably does not have an issue with a gay person, that has the Fingerprints of man all over it. That being said there are other parts of the Bible that I do believe 100%. I just don't think God really gives a damn who you sleep with or how you do it just so long as you love fiercely.

    As it pertains to this topic though, only one of those two is a terrible thing.

  9. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    3 minutes ago, BwareDWare94 said:

    And Anal is abhorrent. I agree. Have fun figuring out which straight couples like to get some mud on the tires, by the way

    So not even the tip? You sound like a friend of mine who is straight who also hates the thought of anal. One way traffic, all the time lol.

     

    Different strokes and all...see what I did lol.

  11. Posted

    1 hour ago, blotsfan said:

    Ok. You believe sexuality is a choice. That's dumb and wrong, but at least you've admitted your stance. Was that so hard?

    There are a lot of studies that say it is not that simple. That there are some gentic predispositions, but environment and early sexual experiences play a more prominent role. 

     

    Also weirdly enough the more older brothers you have the greater chance you have of being gay. Which is interesting to me because my brother is gay and is the youngest. He has 4 older brothers...interesting.

     

     

  12. Posted

    I think that's kind of misdirection at best. I think trying to bring up anti-muslim sentiment in this country to make a point in this thread is kind of far-fetched.

    as to is there a correlation between anti-muslim and anti-homosexuality, I don't know. Especially considering Muslims have an extremely harsh stance on homosexuality and of itself, so there might be a very large sect of this world who is obviously not anti-muslim, but extremely anti-homosexual. Now I can't say that for sure because I don't know enough of the population to be able to say that. Neither do you, I think the whole generalization thing and trying to draw conclusions that rationalize a point that you're trying to make is a dangerous sentiment. Trying to say something like Christians are bad because some Christians are anti-muslim and anti-homosexual, is it dangerous generalization.

     

    In any event to the point, being anti-muslim has nothing to do with this cake thing at the moment, especially considering it's happening in the UK right now, and a lot of liberals hold them as a more Progressive country than our own. That's kind of why I brought this topic up, is because it's happening a place it's considered more liberal than we are right now. So just to save for one last time I really don't see how this gets intertwined into this topic, But to answer your point I don't know, I don't know if there's a correlation, and I don't think anybody here does either.

  13. Posted

    32 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

    Wow. I haven't heard that one in a long time. Not to get too off-topic but:

    A) It wasn't a mosque, it was a community center for Muslims. That's like calling a YMCA a church.

    B) The same people who discriminate against gay people fought hard against that. There's a reason you know about it. 

    C) It never actually got built due to the backlash. 

    Okay, I was wrong. Last I heard it was moving forward and getting built. I missed the article about it being scrapped. So good job on that one. Thank you.

     

    Either way though, they're still the point that Muslims are allowed to worship anyway they choose in this country, and that really does nothing for the subject at hand really. It would be really hard for you to prove that the same people who are supporting the baker, are the same people that were against the mosque. That is a generalization, and I think it's somewhat unfair.

  14. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    1 hour ago, seanbrock said:

    I see where the cake guys have a point and why we should protect the rights of a small business owner. I get that, but the courts all over the country are becoming very conservative at every level of government all the way up to the supreme Court. Sometimes a decision in a case like this can allow for discriminating desicions in other cases and laws being passed. That how both versions of Jim Crow happened. 

    You're right here. That being said, because courts all over the country are being more conservative, even the Supreme Court, does that mean we should step on the rights of small business owners because of the precedent you could set in the higher Court. No I understand the fear, we have been extremely conservative Supreme Court so there's no doubt that if he tries again common it goes up to the Supreme Court again, they very well at minimum squash it, and at most Implement something that could be detrimental the fundamental rights of gay people. I think discrimination is wrong, but as I said in reply.you're going to have to step on someone's rights, I just don't necessarily see both of them as rights. I think small business owners have a right to run their business how they see fit so long as they're not violating the Constitution, I don't think transgender people have a right to force the service from someone.

    28 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    Funny thing about the Bible is that it contradicts itself so many times and is written in a way that's open to interpretation that it can be used to justify just about anything.

    in general again you are correct. That being said it's also very specific when it comes to homosexuality.

  15. Posted

    16 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

    Not to mention there are religions other than Christianity that the US has to respect equally to Christianity and the fact that a religion can literally made up by anyone means that you can't really use it as a reasonable means for discrimination.  

    They let them build a mosque a block away from this site of the September 11th disaster. In my opinion, that's pretty much case closed. We allow any and all religions as a government, it is the people who discriminate. Those people are just as wrong. anybody of any religion can come here and practice, and do so without harm from the government. Look at Scientology that has to be the biggest crock of shit known to mankind, and yet the government still treats them as a legitimate organization when everybody knows they're not.

     

     

  16. Posted

    31 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

    Christians 100% used their religion to justify Jim Crow. 

    And they were wrong. They need to get out there Bible and read it a little bit more. Said nothing about that. On the other hand, it does specifically prohibit homosexual Acts.

     

    I understand in modern society that they deserve a place at the table, and that they should not be unfairly discriminated against. The reason this is so compelling for many of his, is because you almost have to choose whose rights are going to protect text. That of religious people, or that of homosexual people.

     

    That is another reason I thought this court case, specifically the decision, was well thought out. She actually separated out the people from the intended message. It wasn't the people that they were discriminating against too, it was the message. Much like the fellow at masterpiece cake, he would have given them any cake that was a standard keg, he was just not going to decorate it in violation of his views. So it wasn't the couple themselves it was the message. So far I think that is the best summation of this issue.

  18. Posted

    UK has gay cakes too...

     

    So here is this song and dance again. I did not feel like putting it in the Trump thread, because it has literally nothing to do with the man. That beings said in the decision the court wrote it pointed out something very interesting:

    "In a nutshell, the objection was to the message and not to any particular person or persons," Judge Brenda Hale wrote in the unanimous decision. "It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person's race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics. But that is not what happened in this case."

    I thought this was pretty remarkable, and accurate. It is the message they were disagreeing with, not the people. That is an interesting take, and one that I actually agree with. For the U.S gay cake problem, the message was the support of gay marriage, he would bake them any other cake, just not that one. It seems like the same argument applies. 

    I also find it interesting that this is happening all over in the developed world where people of all backgrounds have to coexist on the daily.

     

    And yes you guys are welcome, this rodeo again.

  19. Posted

    2 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

    He was supposed to lead the entire empire. He lead 2-3 million people to their deaths just because he didn't think they were worth saving. 

    It's really not my point though. I mean it is, but not in the way you think it is.it proves my point in the sense that he was a bad guy, and yet still possessed a strong enough leadership capability that he could get people to follow his decisions.Being a terrible person doesn't preclude you from great leadership ability.

  20. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    16 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

    I think the issue was more about the "One of the greatest leaders of modern times" part of it. 

     

    He was a great leader. You don't have to be a great guy to be a leader. Fax bear that out. Winston Churchill was the Lone superpower who was fighting against Nazi Germany for a long time, and doing so successfully.

     

    he raised an army, motivated it, created the infrastructure, the command structure, and gain civilian support for his cause. Was he a humanitarian, no not in the slightest. Could he lead people, absolutely.

     

    That is another false notion that bothers me, some of the greatest leaders in history, we're terrible people Hitler, can you deny he was a great leader? He was beloved by his people, got all of his people to work towards a common goal even though that goal was horrific, made outstanding advances in The Sciences, educated and trained to military that was incredibly efficient, and for his time was an outstanding leader. Terrible human being, that's really not up for debate by any sane person. He could however direct and lead people towards a common goal. Genghis Khan was the same way, Julius Caesar was the same way, Pol Pot was the same way, Mao Zedong was the same way, Fidel Castro was the same way, all of these people were terrible human beings, but they were beloved by their country and could get their country to follow their directive without question and fiercely. How else would you define leadership? Being a humanitarian really has nothing to do with leadership, it helps, and it certainly a quality a lot of great leaders have, but it's not a prerequisite.

     

    Hell look at Sun Tzu, his book has become the definitive guide on leadership. It is read by military's and CEOs across the spectrum, is widely regarded as one of the greatest books on leadership ever. And yet he was an absolutely ruthless and vindictive killer, but that doesn't mean he couldn't lead.

     

    Now if you say none of these people can lead sustainably, that is true. None of these people could hold onto power long, because they did not know when to stop, that being said that doesn't make their leadership capabilities diminish.

  21. Posted

    No that's not what I'm saying, I can recognize that Winston Churchill was probably not a guy you would invite over to a dinner party. That said even he possess qualities of note, I have always admired his Bulldogish resolve. that being said he did some things I can't really reconcile with if I'm calling him a good person. I was more of a Patton and Rommel fan honestly.

    what I am saying though, is that we use quotes all the time from guys like Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, and several other noted conquerors whoever less than pristine reputation. Veni vidi vici, that was Caesar.A leader can never be happy until his people are happy, that was Genghis Khan.

    chastising a guy for using a quote from somebody who was less-than-reputable, when all of us use quotes and rarely taken to a counter origins, or the beliefs of people who are their Originators is absolutely stupid. this guy has done something so few people have ever done, and to express his Joy or satisfaction with his accomplishment he uses a quote that fits it perfectly. And all these little dumbasses can do is tear apart the guy who said it, and vicariously through that tear apart the guy who used the quote. When these little idiots do something of note feel free to quote whomever you like.

     

    just because this guy uses quotes, does not mean he is in lockstep with the views of the man who said it. It is a quote that fits the feelings of the event. I didn't see anybody raising any fuss when Hillary Clinton did the same thing, when she quoted Cesar after Gaddafi was killed. And she didn't even quoted correctly she paraphrased it to suit her own narrative. now, I'm not blaming Hillary Clinton either, it's a quote that describe the feeling of the event she was witnessing, she can use it the phrase however she pleases. I just think it should be noted that she quoted Cesar, one of the greatest conquerors and enslavers in human history.

    Some of these people just need to step back and stop trying to be the writer of wrongs, the White Knight for the underdog, or however they rationalize this kind of stupidity in their mind.

    There quotes, leave it at that.

    • Upvote 2

  23. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    16 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

    Yeah, and their thought was that more informed electors would override the peoples' vote. I think we've demonstrably proven that will never happen outside of of or two meaningless protests. 

    It means that it doesn't mean that those states would simply decide everything since it would count people that vote the opposite way of their neighbors everywhere. 

    it does though, because if you have a candidate who's willing to just play Regional politics and make life nice for those people in three or four states, there's literally no more checks and balances against that. So really a candidate could come along and make life really nice at the expense of the rest of the country, just to get elected president.

    that doesn't even take into account the fact that less populated areas have to be that way, because Farms have to be somewhere, and I seriously doubt if the next agricultural neck is going to happen in downtown Manhattan. There is a reason even though states have electoral votes, and that's because those states are arguably more vital to our economy and our survival in the more populated states. You can't discount the needs of people in that state to appease those of a state with a larger population, if you do that we're looking at disaster.

    the Electoral College ensures that the president appeals to the broadest base of the country.

  25. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Sarge said:

    May we forever chase perfection, knowing that we will likely fail to attain it, but that in the pursuit we will achieve greatness. 

    That is funny you say that, because that was the exact quote in The Federalist Papers that pertains to the Electoral college since its Inception. If it cannot be perfect, then let it be excellent. I believe that is the quote.

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×