Ronja wrote:I tolerate everyone, as long as they're not hurting anyone else. Especially juging based on upbringing or skincolour seems rediculous to me. That doesn't really tell anything about how a person is today, wich values the person have etc.
I know people of all colours and religions. I have close friends that are gay. I know people raised in mansions, and persons raised in orphanages. All that doesn't matter as long as you're a decent person.
We're all just humans.
Ronja wrote:I tolerate everyone, as long as they're not hurting anyone else. Especially juging based on upbringing or skincolour seems rediculous to me. That doesn't really tell anything about how a person is today, wich values the person have etc.
I know people of all colours and religions. I have close friends that are gay. I know people raised in mansions, and persons raised in orphanages. All that doesn't matter as long as you're a decent person.
We're all just humans.
Daniellef wrote:The only religion I particularly have a problem with are Jehovah's Witnesses. Fair enough, have a very strong faith but dont try to preach to people. A couple came round knocking at my door and my 14 yr old sister answered. Although she initially said that she wasnt interested, the people kept asking questions about what she thought about the state of the world today. I didnt hear the door to start with but came down the stairs to the door and said firmly that we werent interested. The couple finally decided to give up...
The reason I have a problem with the religion is that unless God truly does exist and give a toss about each and every one of us, my family would not exist. My gran who has a blood disorder (it doesnt clot properly) and would have died at the age of 12 or so when she fell off her bike and needed platelets and a blood transfusion to keep her alive. My understanding is that if there is a god, then he was the one who created the technology or allowed the technology to be created that makes it possible for people to be kept alive.
I found it very hard when a friend of mine who is a Jehovah's Witness, told me that her grandmother was slowly bleeding to death but that she wouldnt agree to a transfusion as it was god's decision whether to let her live or not.
So, apart from that, I dont really have a problem with anyone else, as long as they dont preach to me I say live and let live.
Daniellef wrote:The only religion I particularly have a problem with are Jehovah's Witnesses. Fair enough, have a very strong faith but dont try to preach to people. A couple came round knocking at my door and my 14 yr old sister answered. Although she initially said that she wasnt interested, the people kept asking questions about what she thought about the state of the world today. I didnt hear the door to start with but came down the stairs to the door and said firmly that we werent interested. The couple finally decided to give up...
The reason I have a problem with the religion is that unless God truly does exist and give a toss about each and every one of us, my family would not exist. My gran who has a blood disorder (it doesnt clot properly) and would have died at the age of 12 or so when she fell off her bike and needed platelets and a blood transfusion to keep her alive. My understanding is that if there is a god, then he was the one who created the technology or allowed the technology to be created that makes it possible for people to be kept alive.
I found it very hard when a friend of mine who is a Jehovah's Witness, told me that her grandmother was slowly bleeding to death but that she wouldnt agree to a transfusion as it was god's decision whether to let her live or not.
So, apart from that, I dont really have a problem with anyone else, as long as they dont preach to me I say live and let live.
. wrote:I don't tolerate gay men. Their lifestyle & promiscuity is responsible for killing 10,000+ hemophiliacs and then millions of innocent people and children.
I don't tolerate liberals that want to teach toleration. This only teachs people to have a blind eye to what's not good for society as a whole!
Just as everyone here would not tolerate a pedophile... I do not tolerate other deviants that, in the process of fighting for their rights, open the doors for other's like NA MB LA to have their say!
. wrote:I don't tolerate gay men. Their lifestyle & promiscuity is responsible for killing 10,000+ hemophiliacs and then millions of innocent people and children.
I don't tolerate liberals that want to teach toleration. This only teachs people to have a blind eye to what's not good for society as a whole!
Just as everyone here would not tolerate a pedophile... I do not tolerate other deviants that, in the process of fighting for their rights, open the doors for other's like NA MB LA to have their say!
. wrote:beautiful wrote:. wrote:I don't tolerate gay men. Their lifestyle & promiscuity is responsible for killing 10,000+ hemophiliacs and then millions of innocent people and children.
I don't tolerate liberals that want to teach toleration. This only teachs people to have a blind eye to what's not good for society as a whole!
Just as everyone here would not tolerate a pedophile... I do not tolerate other deviants that, in the process of fighting for their rights, open the doors for other's like NA MB LA to have their say!
I'm guessing you're going on about the aids thing again. I'd be happy when the ones responsible for aids would step up to the plate rather than using gays and Africans as their scapegoats.
Do you even know how N am bla became intertwined with the gay rights movement in the first place?
Homosexual sex is, by definition, DEVIANT.
If one deviant sexual group fights and wins rights to their lifestyle....
They fight and win the rights for ALL DEVIANT SEXUAL GROUPS!
Because, as a LIBERAL RUN SOCIETY, everyone has EQUAL RIGHTS!
Does the gay rights movement now think of Na mb la as apart of their movement?
No. Anita Bryant and others EXPOSED the colaberation of the two groups and made it too hot for them to stay together!
And, IMO, if she and others had said nothing...NA MB LA would STILL be a part of the international groups!
Only a fool would want to make the same mistakes other made!
Part of living an existance of misery is harboring pain and hatred of the past. When people hurt or upset you, after so long you have to take responsibility for your own feelings of resentment and move on because if you don't, not only will you be miserable forever but chances are when you snap, you'll take it out on people that remind you of your pain or hate that really are nothing like your object of hatred.
Don't confuse HATE with GOOD JUDGEMENT and COMMON SENSE!
But you don't want GOOD JUDGEMENT and COMMON SENSE do you?
For if you did... you would use them in your arguement!
I am sure they are all nice people.
I have no doubt!
But their lifestyle has no real benefit for civilization!
The rights they fight for are selfish rights that benefit only them and damage the health of the world and the family institution that makes the world a better place for our children!
. wrote:That's a lot of maybe's!
But I prefer to stick to the facts.
Gay men lead a VERY promiscuous lifestyle that WAS responsible for the introduction of AIDS into society!
Gay men STILL live that very promiscuous lifestyle!
And as a man that loves sex from women.
I KNOW gay men won't give up that promiscous lifestyle within their group!
And until a heterosexual couple with very few hedonistic deviant desires and no promiscous history starts the next STD plague...
I will always look down upon the gay lifestyle and the damage it WILL have on us AGAIN!
And I might add..
Homosexual rights to have children TEACH children that two mommies is the same as a mother and father. Hence... a father is not needed.
Homosexual rights to have children TEACH children that two fathers is the same as a mother anf father. Hence... a mother is not needed!
Both of those scenarios is not what's best for a child to grow up with!
and BOTH are not best for society as a whole!
Losing the other sex just teaches children that the opposite sex is disposable and unnessesary in the raising of a child.
Now you have no arguement for keeping parents together for the welfare of the child!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests