 | Forum Threads |  |
| Random Photo | |
| Member Poll | |
|
| Comments |
on June 01 2010 19:03:25
On homosexuals and their rights:
Hann hevur enntá somu møguleikar at ganga à hjúnarband sum øll onnur. Men skulu vit lóggeva fyri skrásettum parlagi og rætti hjá samkyndum at ættleiða, so fáa tey serlig rættindi, sum onnur ikki hava. Besta prógvið um, at talan tá gerst um serlig rættindi, er øll tey mongu, sum liva saman ógift. OngantÃð hava politisku ungmannafeløgini ella nakar annar lyft lÃtlafingur fyri at veita ógiftum pørum serlig rættindi uttanfyri hjúnarbandið, eins og ætlanin er við teimum samkyndu.
Weird logic imo |
on June 01 2010 20:17:11
That was exactly the part that made me sit up in my chair.
How can anyone say something like this in public and still get elected? BIll logic apparently doesn't even acknowledge that there is any other sexuality than hetero. Hence everyone has equal rights, since everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex. |
on June 01 2010 20:32:48
It's a bit like having a landlord, and all the tenants have pets.
Some have dogs and some have cats.
Then the landlord decides that only dogs are allowed as pets.
The cat owners are upset, because they want to keep their cats and don't want to move.
The landlord's response is: "I'm being fair to both dog owners and cat owners, because I'm allowing everyone to keep their dogs. You cat-owners have the same right to keep your dog as everyone else." |
on June 01 2010 21:03:58
That's a reasonable comparision, but it doesn't quite capture the fact that homosexuality is a recently acknowledged phenomenon (even if it probably has been around forever), that is, the landlord hasn't really outlawed anything, as much as ignored what is now understood as a basic human right.
I'll give it a try:
A southern slave owner is running for congress before the abolition of slavery. He argues, that he and his party have not voted to give anyone in society special privileges - Everyone is allowed to have slaves, should they want to. Were slavery to be made illegal simply because a small minority doesn't happen to want slavery, well then that would be granting special privileges!.
Ah well.. maybe that's not much better  |
on June 02 2010 07:22:16
Speaking of logical faliures and homosexuals, I came across this article today, that says:
"Everyone has their assumptions about what makes the priesthood so attractive to child molesters. The one thing that scientific studies -- as well as common sense -- has proven is that there is ABSOLUTELY no link between homosexuality and child abuse. The gays are gay and the pedophiles are, well, pedophiles. And, in fact, a man that identifies himself as "gay" is less likely than a "straight" man to sexually abuse children."
So there must be SOME link? silly. |
on June 02 2010 08:38:28
All that ranting, and that's all you focus on???
The man is an obvious Nutter, and what's really scary is that a large part of the population actually agrees with him. |
on June 08 2010 12:36:27
Update:
One of the persons mentioned in the article/letter has responded.
She is one of the leaders in Samband's youth organisation.
Her response is definitely worth reading. She seems like a very intelligent girl.
http://new.vagaportal.fo/pages/posts/i-samsvar-vid-evangeliid-at-tvinga-onnur-at-fylgja-bibliuni-2050.php |
on June 08 2010 16:22:36
@Laluu: Let me pop that balloon for you: Katrin'%3Bs MySpace page |
on June 09 2010 15:35:31
Ok, I finally got around to actually reading Katrin's response to Bill. She also seems to have problems with basic logic.
She thinks that gays should be able to mind their own business, and if they want a registered partnership, they should be allowed to, because they're consenting adults. She still thinks this is against the bible, just that we shouldn't force them to follow it. I guess this follows some religious logic, although real world logic doesn't really apply. Classic God usually demands that we kill people who rub him the wrong way, and some would say that was force, but like I said; real world logic doesn't apply.
She can't even follow her own twisted logic though. When it comes to abortion she thinks this should be banned (or at least not free), because we are dealing with two human beings - a mother and her fetus - where one of them can't consent as in the previous case with two adult gays. But she approves of the gays adopting a child, even though this child can't consent either. At least the aborted fetus will go straight to heaven, whereas the adopted gay love child will be raised in sin, and spend an eternity in hell's torment.
Argh, why do I even try to understand the logic of these people? |
|
|
| Post Comment | |
Please Login to Post a Comment.
|
|
|
| Login | |
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
| | 
| Last Seen Users | |
| Obituaries | |
You must login to post a message.
|
| |
|
Intriguing
