The Ancient History Thread Off Topic Homosexuality Debate.

Wait a minute this is in the wrong thread.

AWW FUCK, this is the second time I read only part of the thread, just leave it there for my stupidity.

All behold ROmulus's stupidity.

I said it earlier i'm slipping up.

Well, there are other reasons, of course, some of which are better or worse than others. And when you say most things, what are you thinking about?

99% of policymaking and campaigning is based around non-factual claims or ideas. Not just factually incorrect things, mind you, but factually baseless things akin to superstition.

Liberty vs. tyranny, probably the most critical dichotomy that exists in government or even politics in general, is at best superfluous to the material circumstances that surround policy implementation/enforcement. Even then, it is only actually relevant because of the social/cultural desire to make it so, in exactly the same way that religion influences politics. The same goes for the overwhelming majority of political sentiments.

More generally, rhetoric and appearance are the most integral parts of a campaigner's campaign, and are also the most important factors in deciding whether or not a bill will ever even receive the support it needs to get out of committee.

It just doesn't make sense to throw religion out of government because it can't be factually substantiated. I mean, sure, let's maintain the 1st Amendment and safeguard the freedom of religion for all, but religion absolutely does have a place in government, because religion has a place in society. To deny it that role is to circumvent, or, depending on the methods you use to prohibit it, even directly attack, democracy.

But can religious freedom be warranted if it fully stays in politics? If decisions are made in favour of one religion, that will contradict another religion in most cases. In that case, is that a breach of the freedom of religion? Then again, in a more secular government, you'll still run into this problem. In general, if it comes to religion, it's impossible to make everyone satisfied, it seems.

And while the core of religion cannot be disproven (nor can an infinite amount of other claims, by the way), most of the ideas commonly associated with it not only have no factual basis, but are plain incorrect. If claims commonly associated with religion are quite obviously wrong, then (at least for me) other claims start to lose their credibility, especially when they have no factual basis.

I believe in a separation of church and state. My belief is that religion should not affect government policies however I also believe that people should be able to express any non harmful religious beliefs that they want, wherever they want when not doing such jobs.

For example, I don't believe that religion should be banned entirely from schools. I just don't want the teachers teaching a single religion as fact but I want the students and teachers when not teaching to be able to fully express any non harmful belief.

If you think about it Homosexuality actually predates Christianity soooooo wouldnt it make sense just to accept it by now.

Not really, Paganism and cannibalism both predate Christianity, and neither are really accepted.

Well cannibalism actually hurts somebody.

Are you saying that there is a current debate going on to allow cannibals to practice cannibalism??

Well paganism should be accepted as long as they don't believe in harming people. Any non harmful belief should be accepted. However cannibalism is much different from that. I can't support the eating of other humans unless the deceased willed it and was not killed for it, while it was a survival situation. It can lead to bad things and would be traumatizing to people.

Usually a person that willingly eats the flesh of another human being is very desperate or very insane. I don't think I've heard of a person who eats people just cause

I would only do it in a survival situation.

I think i would try to exhaust every resource before doing thatt

That's the last option in a survival situation, cannibalism.

The fact in the matter is that you can survive two weeks without food. So by surviving on the most minimal nourishment you can survive for a very long time. Most of the time people in these survival situations resort to cannibalism out of panic, even when it isn't necessary

Yeah, the more important resource is water. If there is no water source, you are doomed. Anyways, you guys ever see "I can't believe Im alive" (i think thats what its called) on Discovery?

Interestingly enough, two Dutch tv presenters did have parts of their body removed for the other to eat, out of curiosity. They did get into legal problems, not because they'd be eating human flesh, but because they would have a part of their body (don't worry, it was a small piece of their ass...actually, go ahead) unnecessarily removed, which apparently is against the law.

Also, I fail to see how cannibalism would hurt, seeing as the person would be dead anyway. At least it wouldn't hurt any more than human or animal sacrifice, which are part of several Pagan beliefs (of course, this excludes the modern Pagan beliefs, but as we were discussing the ones that predated Christianity anyway, this isn't relevant).

Lastly, I do not promote nor approve of cannibalism in any way, nor was I saying there's a debate going on about it. I was just saying the original argument of things that predate Christianity should be accepted doesn't really make any sense.