LPSG Ammendment

[KinkGuy]

From this day forward, LPSG Members will pass no law, rule or regulation which permits the discussion of God, Religion or Moral Standards of Behavior and no such Member will be allowed to impose their opinions or beliefs regarding such on any other Citizens of LPSG.

Think about it. It isn't that far "out there".

 

[13788]

Tender: ...

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Tender@Jul 14 2004, 04:22 PM
yup, and sadly enough, as soon as homosexuals get the yes from uncle sam on same sex marriage, the rule will apply to the entire nation.

religious freedom? an oxymoron.
:wacko:

You mean heterosexual marriages will be annulled? LMAO!

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by Tender@Jul 14 2004, 06:22 PM
yup, and sadly enough, as soon as homosexuals get the yes from uncle sam on same sex marriage, the rule will apply to the entire nation.

religious freedom? an oxymoron.
:wacko:
Tender

Gee, you didn't think that reply through did you tender. You missed the whole point.

 

[KinkGuy]

It seems, the preacher has left the room.

 

[madame_zora]

Good, and as for your proposal that "No one should impose his religious views on others", well I'm sure the remainder of us would agree!

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 15 2004, 06:02 AM
Good, and as for your proposal that "No one should impose his religious views on others", well I'm sure the remainder of us would agree!

Well it will be agreed upon by all but the one member who waffles on everything but is always right.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Uh, keep it so your head can fit through the door, there Prep.
And I tend to agree, no one should push their religion upon others if they dont want it, which clearly is the case here.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK@Jul 15 2004, 09:50 AM
Uh, keep it so your head can fit through the door, there Prep.
And I tend to agree, no one should push their religion upon others if they dont want it, which clearly is the case here.

Just take a look at the Jacking with a buddy thread...most everyone seemed to think it was ok if the two buddies were each ok with it, BUT one certain member.
She was the one who kept throwing religion down our throats. Even those of us who are Christian were getting sick of it. As a Christian I was embarassed by it and if I wasn't a Christian, I would have been turned off to religion. I support the ammendment.

But, I don't understand your comment aimed at me, Chuck. We all know who I was referring to.

 

[mindseye]

In fairness, a lot of us -- myself included -- pushed back. At times it seemed like ganging-up; yet, she chose to make herself the target she was.

Personally, I'd oppose the "amendment" as written. I've participated in some really amazing discussions on here, and I'd hate for a precedent to get started in which ad hoc rules started limiting the scope of what we could discuss on here.

Although I wouldn't support restrictions on the *content* of discussion on here, I could be persuaded to support guidelines on the *format* of discussion on here. For example:

1. Repeating the same point you made earlier in the thread, without contributing something new, is a waste of bandwidth.
2. Punctuation is a harsh mistress. Treat her wisely, and you will be rewarded. Abuse her, and spend the rest of your days in abject misery.
3. Attacking a person's position on an issue is fair game. Attacking the person is not. Conversely, taking an attack on your position as a personal assault is overdefensive.
4. Double-posting is a forgivable nuisance. Triple-posting will result in the loss of a toe.
5. When an entire page of a thread is occupied by only two posters bickering back and forth; both posters will be banished to the sandbox for a time-out.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Mindseye, you forgot one thing...posting in BIG PURPLE LETTERS is a no-no as is an exorbitant misuse of smileys :lol:

That will raise the ire of ALL posters on the board.

 

[KinkGuy]

Please understand that the "ammendment" post was written "tongue in cheek" and I in no way actually think the "ammendment" is a good idea or proposed it in actuality. The point I was trying to make to "you know who" was (and also tried to express in PM's to her) was that the removal of ANY civil liberties and the re-writing of the U.S. Constitution as a divisive and exclusionary document was a moral outrage, regardless of the activities or human citizens being outlawed. Bottom line, allow this change and the removal of the right to worship and freedom of religion could easily be next...and I would fight to the death to protect her right to worship, free speech and expression. Not an action she would take on anyone else's behalf I think. I still believe she has every right to be a bigot and a narrow minded, judgemental bitch. As well, I have the equal right to point out how ugly I think she is.

 

[Pecker]

Kink, you are out of line.

Regardless of how you feel about Tender's personal feelings on a subject you have no right to demean her because of them.

Where's the 'tolerance'? Does it have to come from everyone but those who believe the way you do?

Try being a little understanding. You'll be a bigger, wiser man for it.

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by Pecker@Jul 15 2004, 01:16 PM
Kink, you are out of line.

Regardless of how you feel about Tender's personal feelings on a subject you have no right to demean her because of them.

Where's the 'tolerance'? Does it have to come from everyone but those who believe the way you do?

Try being a little understanding. You'll be a bigger, wiser man for it.

Tolerance !!!! Did you read the judgemental, totally intollerant hateful ignorant crap she was dealing out? Are you saying it was ok for her to spew her opinions, but not the other direction? A person, any person has no business on a site such as this telling me or anyone else that we are immoral and condemmned to hell. And you, Pecker have every right as well to voice your opinion(s). She attacked my LIFE and I spent many, many hours being tollerant and trying to have civilized discussions. Thank you for putting me in my place and I am not going to start this ugly process all over again with someone I have respected here.

 

[Pecker]

That's exactly what I mean, Kink.

Meet such intolerance with tolerance and it puts the fuse out.

To paraphrase a biblical prophet: "You gotta love them to death."

 

[madame_zora]

Pecker, in most cases, I would agree with you wholehearedly. Unfortunately, this time that simply did not work. I know I tried, as well as many others, but anyone who expects acceptance of their views while completely denying you that same right is just shallow, thick and slow. There was no other method to make the noise stop that I could find.

As I have said several times, I support anyone's right to feel how they feel, and even to state it, if they find that a useful contribution to a conversation. The one in question went far beyond that to the point of being condemning and derogatory in a way that lent no purpose to the group other than to damage and inflame. It was an unfortunate choice on her part, and we are all ressponsible for our own choices. It was an issue of hideously bad taste. I don't she would have considered it "free speech" if gay people had come to her church to say THEIR views were wrong. Just my view, gays should be able to be free from bashing on the sites they run, god knows they have to endure that enough.