Rational thought simply refers to the scientific method as opposed to blind faith.
I wouldn’t go tossing around “rational” as if it’s the absolute opposite of religion/“blind faith”, son. I’m sure the Europeans who thought forcing African “savages” into generational slavery was a good thing and thought Black people were inherently subhuman also considered themselves to be “rational”.
Your overzealous anti-religious fervor doesn’t make you “rational”. It puts you on the opposite end of the horseshoe.
those of us who want a bonding that is purely and completely secular are out of luck
You can get married without ever once going through a religious ceremony. That you’re more worried about what to call your marriage is your problem. You don’t deserve the right to change the law for the sake of fixing your own personal bullshit—especially when the change you propose has no other purpose besides making you feel better about your explicitly anti-religious/anti-spiritual hangups.
until we have the right to civil bonding with the same protection of the practice currently termed with a word of religious history, we are not equal
You’re being a bigger jackass than usual, Lostcause.
Even if “marriage” was a religious term in the past, the concept it represents wasn’t (and isn’t) overtly religious. Extending to queer people the secular marriage rights/privileges enjoyed by straight/cis people is equality under the law. Your being upset about the term “marriage” is a “you” problem; everyone else either doesn’t give a shit or recognizes the Everest-level uphill climb it would take to get the law changed in the way you want.
And before you go on and on about “waaaaaaaaah you don’t give a shit about atheists”, I am an atheist and I don’t give a fuck. You don’t speak for me, and you sure as shit don’t speak for all atheists. Stop acting like your feelings entitle you to make life hell for everyone else, you goddamned asshole.
Does the Freedom From Religion Foundation openly, explicitly, and purposefully endorse the idea of changing laws to remove words with “religious origins”, or are you projecting a position you hold onto them for the sake of an appeal to authority?
Clearly many are more interested in modifying laws to bring equality than removing laws with religious connotations.
One of the Ten Commandments says “thou shalt not kill”. Should we remove all laws against murder because of their clearly religious connotations?
(What I’m saying is you’re a jackass who wants the law changed for the sake of assauging your ignorance. I’m 100% for the separation of church and state, and even I have no fundamental issue with the term “marriage”.)
Dude, FYI: I’m a queer atheist, and I’m 100% fine with the term “marriage”. You’re literally trying to convince us that we should rewrite laws for the sake of comforting your feelings. That isn’t how things work—for you or for anyone else.
Do you want to get married and call your marriage a “civil union” or a “civil partnership” or a “good ol’ fashioned country hootenany”? Go ahead and do it. But you don’t have the right to, nor do you deserve to, make everyone else do the same so you’ll feel better about it.
So please quit trying to tell everyone else here how they should feel about the word “marriage”, Lostcause. You’re not rich, famous, or weird enough to make us change our minds.
You can technobabble all you want, but it doesn't change how you can’t prove—conclusively, objectively, and inarguably—that your programs is easier to use than industry standard programs…or that it can create holograms…or that it can suck my dick. Making a claim is one thing; proving it is something you’ve never been able to do, you genocidal sadist.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
I wouldn’t go tossing around “rational” as if it’s the absolute opposite of religion/“blind faith”, son. I’m sure the Europeans who thought forcing African “savages” into generational slavery was a good thing and thought Black people were inherently subhuman also considered themselves to be “rational”.
Your overzealous anti-religious fervor doesn’t make you “rational”. It puts you on the opposite end of the horseshoe.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Unlike you, I don’t pretend to speak for all atheists.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
You can get married without ever once going through a religious ceremony. That you’re more worried about what to call your marriage is your problem. You don’t deserve the right to change the law for the sake of fixing your own personal bullshit—especially when the change you propose has no other purpose besides making you feel better about your explicitly anti-religious/anti-spiritual hangups.
On the post: Disney Defeats Lawsuit Brought By Company Owning Evel Knievel's Rights Over 'Toy Story 4' Character
What are you going to do if it doesn’t? You’re not a lawmaker, a judge, a king, or a god—which means you have no power here.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
You’re being a bigger jackass than usual, Lostcause.
Even if “marriage” was a religious term in the past, the concept it represents wasn’t (and isn’t) overtly religious. Extending to queer people the secular marriage rights/privileges enjoyed by straight/cis people is equality under the law. Your being upset about the term “marriage” is a “you” problem; everyone else either doesn’t give a shit or recognizes the Everest-level uphill climb it would take to get the law changed in the way you want.
And before you go on and on about “waaaaaaaaah you don’t give a shit about atheists”, I am an atheist and I don’t give a fuck. You don’t speak for me, and you sure as shit don’t speak for all atheists. Stop acting like your feelings entitle you to make life hell for everyone else, you goddamned asshole.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Does the Freedom From Religion Foundation openly, explicitly, and purposefully endorse the idea of changing laws to remove words with “religious origins”, or are you projecting a position you hold onto them for the sake of an appeal to authority?
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
One of the Ten Commandments says “thou shalt not kill”. Should we remove all laws against murder because of their clearly religious connotations?
(What I’m saying is you’re a jackass who wants the law changed for the sake of assauging your ignorance. I’m 100% for the separation of church and state, and even I have no fundamental issue with the term “marriage”.)
On the post: Disney Defeats Lawsuit Brought By Company Owning Evel Knievel's Rights Over 'Toy Story 4' Character
Please find a new hobby for yourself; your current one is self-destructive to the point of actually making you mentally ill.
On the post: Disney Defeats Lawsuit Brought By Company Owning Evel Knievel's Rights Over 'Toy Story 4' Character
I’ve seen better demonstrations of intelligence, creativity, and technological prowess at Trump rallies.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Dude, FYI: I’m a queer atheist, and I’m 100% fine with the term “marriage”. You’re literally trying to convince us that we should rewrite laws for the sake of comforting your feelings. That isn’t how things work—for you or for anyone else.
Do you want to get married and call your marriage a “civil union” or a “civil partnership” or a “good ol’ fashioned country hootenany”? Go ahead and do it. But you don’t have the right to, nor do you deserve to, make everyone else do the same so you’ll feel better about it.
So please quit trying to tell everyone else here how they should feel about the word “marriage”, Lostcause. You’re not rich, famous, or weird enough to make us change our minds.
On the post: Disney Defeats Lawsuit Brought By Company Owning Evel Knievel's Rights Over 'Toy Story 4' Character
You can technobabble all you want, but it doesn't change how you can’t prove—conclusively, objectively, and inarguably—that your programs is easier to use than industry standard programs…or that it can create holograms…or that it can suck my dick. Making a claim is one thing; proving it is something you’ve never been able to do, you genocidal sadist.
On the post: Disney Defeats Lawsuit Brought By Company Owning Evel Knievel's Rights Over 'Toy Story 4' Character
Can your program suck my dick?
On the post: Disney Defeats Lawsuit Brought By Company Owning Evel Knievel's Rights Over 'Toy Story 4' Character
A claim means nothing without proof.
On the post: In Josh Hawley's World, People Should Be Able To Sue Facebook Both For Taking Down Stuff They Don't Like AND Leaving Up Stuff They Don't Like
It gets weirder when you consider the substantial amount of queer people—and queer content—within the furry community.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
You are a monstrously horrible human being and I sincerely urge you to seek help for your obvious mental health issues.
On the post: AT&T Set Up And Paid For OAN Propaganda Network; Yet Everyone Wants To Scream About Facebook
How does it feel to live in a fantasy world?
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
You’re not “sacrificing goats” here—you’re trying to harm innocent people.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Making innocent people suffer for no reason serves no greater good.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
And you want innocent people to suffer for the sake of copyright.
On the post: Rethinking Facebook: We Need To Make Sure That 'Good For The World' Is More Important Than 'Good For Facebook'
We’re not demanding that Facebook fix the world’s problems.
We’re asking Facebook to stop making those problems worse.
Next >>