Dwalin wrote:I would rather prefer seeing you bite at your own throat,
That was quite mean-spirited, I must say. :-\ True I can see that you might feel insulted or "despised" by Peets, but really that is no reason to say something that is almost the equivalent to "Go kill yourself". That is not the way to deal with the matter at hand :( Especially as it is delving into personal territory again.
And as IU mentioned, there is the Golden rule to consider. When people are acting provoked or harsh in your eyes, there is always a reason for it. The Golden rule is basically a flag to consider again what you may be saying may have the implications of the same provoked or harsh nature you see reflected back at you, even if you don't mean it. If you are truly angry, and if anyone else is, they should not be replying in that state of mind. It is true that it's possible to have valid points while angry, but most of the time that anger impedes the argument.
I don't want to see the debate go in the same direction it has anymore, but for that to happen the other side has to have valid and strong points...and that hasn't happened yet. In a good debate, each side, including Jd-'s and your own, want and need to see what the other side is saying. That is impossible 1) when one side doesn't have a strong, logical argument and 2) when issues are dodged only to come back later. There is also
Dwalin wrote:I don't want to put my own under your teeth anymore.
As a frame of reference, this is a victimized statement. Peets said that she "has zero respect for you". That does not and should not translate to "she is biting her teeth into my throat." Not only is it violent, it is uncalled for. Simply saying "I feel the same way about you" would've sufficed.
Dwalin wrote:You are the only person here COMPLETELY impossible to talk to in a CALM way.
I have to disagree as my thoughts tell me to. This is the internet, not a real life conversation. There is literally no time limit on how long you can wait to respond to something. In this time, you can calm yourself, it is not impossible.
Anyway, to throw my own personal stance out there, I actually have a weird religious standing. As far as I know (weird thing to say, right?), I'm Catholic. I've been baptized, gone through little classes for a while that had snacks and we learned about Jesus and all of that. But I've always had a very bizarre belief. I've been taught that God is in all of us in some way (what I've learnt, not what's necessarily true, mind you) so I've always come to the conclusion that as long as we act in the interest of more than just ourselves and are able to forgive and accept people, God will accept us. There's also the whole "based on God" part of humans to consider. We are very changeable creatures, so why can't God change too?
There have been times I've believed, and others I haven't, but as long as I am happy with who I am and am able to bring happiness to others, I believe that - faithful or no - if God exists he'll be happy with me. It is wrong to shape yourself to satisfy anyone other than yourself. That's not satisfaction...at least according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. To achieve self-actualisation we can't worry what others think, including God.
I've also wondered...God supposedly created us. If that's the case, why were we made so it was possible to be homosexual if it's not considered right? Wouldn't it be easier to just not include that if it were wrong?
I think it was included because that is the importance of free will. Even God cannot bring himself to prohibit it: it's something that is the right of every single thing.
Aaaaaannnnnd there's my meaningless rant for today. Hope it wasn't too boring ^^ So on topic: I still think gay marriage and adoption are good ideas. Because homosexuals, while labelled with something, still have two arms, two legs, a conscience, and a soul -- aka, they're human
It does prove that not everybody in a particular religion feels the same way about something. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but holding opinions that you've never thought about and which you cannot substantiate is dangerous. And you've clearly thought through your opinion a lot 
) is actually - and ironically - putting his own faith in people for them to do the "right" thing. So murder is bad, of course, but the "more joy in heaven" deal seems to almost imply that God still would have faith with these people and hope that they would want to atone and to realize themselves what they did was wrong. I guess in a way the best way to truly see what's right is to first see what's wrong and to realize it's wrong, hence the whole a sinner that begs for forgiveness is let into heaven. There is only so much that people can be "told" is right.
