Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Marocc

Members
  • Content Count

    1,031
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

About Marocc

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Why is it more bothersome? If you're going to say something can be hidden under clothing, you would have to acknowledge you suffer of an irrational fear.
  2. I always thought this was for political discussion related to religion. In practice it's also for religious topics.
  3. They teach in school that you need to ask verbally. They say it isn't sufficient to assume, but you should ask clearly and receive a clear positive answer before you go on.
  4. Maybe she isn't use to men being polite. It puts some people on guard and causes irritation for no other reason but that it is not common to them.
  5. What? If you're in an appropriate situation and ask, 'would you like to have sex,' that is not considered harassment. It's also one of the few normal obvious ways to approach the situation. Isn't this obvious, what I'm saying? (I hope it is)
  6. No one in particular. If you need a name, let's say, the msm. Is all "free speech" acceptable to you? I was thinking of the bigger picture; societies, the world as a whole. It isn't about me liking or not liking it, but God has commanded some things and prohibited others. That doesn't answer my question properly. I asked, is it bound to cause more harm than good? You say it is not because a homosexual cannot stop being homosexual — if I understand you right. That is like saying: no, it isn't bound to cause more harm than good because it is inevitable.
  7. If one was to take the msm at face value, it would seem that it is no longer the goal to make being gay acceptable, rather the goal seems to be to encourage people to be gay. Is that acceptable? Does it cause issues? Is it bound to cause more harm than good?
  8. I would not compare those two. They serve two different purposes. That kind of logic might not be smart here. You never know when that one thing you like to do ends up on the list of not essential. Going to the grocery store 4 times a week is not essential, but some want to go. Going to get your teeth cleaned is not essential, but some want to go. Skate boarding in a group of four is not essential, but some want to go. There is a long list of things that can yet be deemed not essential. If one isn't going to deem all that is not essential as not essential, it isn't irrelevant which kind of things one chooses to deem not essential.
  9. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-20/defying-state-order-thousands-of-pastors-say-they-plan-to-hold-in-person-services-for-the-pentecost One thousand and two hundred pastors have signed a 'Declaration of Essentiality' postulating that churches are 'as essential as any grocery or hardware store' which are allowed to remain active. "By Wednesday, many counties in California had received approval to reopen establishments — retail business, office buildings, restaurants, shopping centers — as permitted in the second phase of Newsom’s plan to restart the state economy. Churches are not allowed to reopen until the plan’s third phase."
  10. If it claims to portray a particular living individual, it is a definite violation of that individual's rights.
  11. I believe they have in mind something more specific. In fact, I find it amazing some people have difficulty in pronouncing their ideas clearly, while they have no problem supporting gross, clearly expressed ideas. Can the difficulty be caused by shame or the fear of being exposed somehow? You didn't address my question about how 'the rest' were neglected.
×
×
  • Create New...