North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm afraid I don't think the world is that simple. I think there's more to it than, on the one hand, issues of great injustice that can only be changed by catastrophic action, and on the other things that aren't worth changing at all. In many cases, gradual advances in keeping with the progress of culture can accomplish a lot of good, in situations where a sudden revolution would either fail or come with significant and undesired side-effects. Just because the revolutionary change could be bad doesn't make any change bad.

Ajax

In this case I think that the proposed change entrenches greater prejudice, if you believe the current situation is prejudicial. On the other hand, if you believe that change would not be prejedicial then neither is the status quo.

If we can have Gay Marriage I see no reason we can't have Polyamorous ones - I can't imagine mass pogroms.

From my point of view, the current argument is nonsensical. You are either talking about a seperate institution for homsexual unions with the lable "marrige" on the tin, or you are talking about fundamentally altering the heterosexual union of marriage so that is is compatable with homosexual unions, because Western marriage law is not be default.

Particularly in the case of say, annulment, which I believe would need to be wholly abolished.

I wonder if as many heterosxeuals would be in favour of "Gay marriage" if they considered this?

I personally feel that the current drive for homosexual marriage is currently held up by a general feeling that it is unfair to deny someone something they ask for -even if we think it doesn't make sense.

[Lemur]

gradual advances in keeping with the progress of culture can accomplish a lot of good, in situations where a sudden revolution would either fail or come with significant and undesired side-effects.

Sounds like someone has read him some Edmund Burke. Which is a good thing.

[Papewaio]

So it's a sin to have sex out of marriage.

It is also a sin to make someone sin. Entrapment, foul play, mockery, deceit etc

Love outranks Faith and Belief.

So Christians denying homosexuals the ability to be married are denying them the right to have sex in marriage. They are denying them from declaring to society their commitment.

Aren't these people ignoring Corinthians and pushing homosexuals to sin by denying them marriage? Aren't these Christians casting the first stone yet creating the sin by denying love and marriage?

=][=
Government should not be able to make religions have marriage ceremonies they disagree with. Religion should not be interferon with the State in treating all adults the same regardless of race creed or orientation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So it's a sin to have sex out of marriage.

It is also a sin to make someone sin. Entrapment, foul play, mockery, deceit etc

Love outranks Faith and Belief.

So Christians denying homosexuals the ability to be married are denying them the right to have sex in marriage. They are denying them from declaring to society their commitment.

Aren't these people ignoring Corinthians and pushing homosexuals to sin by denying them marriage? Aren't these Christians casting the first stone yet creating the sin by denying love and marriage?

=][=
Government should not be able to make religions have marriage ceremonies they disagree with. Religion should not be interferon with the State in treating all adults the same regardless of race creed or orientation.

All sex is a sin, because it is partley selfish.

Meh.

The Bible says that God permits ex within marriage solely because it produces children, so your argument holds no water.

Love of God is considered superior to all other forms of love, Faith is an expression of Godly Love, so that bit doesn't hold up either.

[Papewaio]

Having joy of something is not selfish. Selfish is not sharing the joy. So wouldnt masturbation outrank consensual sex as a sin?

I think I is far worse to approach sex as a chore or procreation activity then to approach it as a sharing, caring commitment between two people. A hug inside and out.

I can't really see it as a sin when it is a physical expression of the emotional love I have for another and the desire to build a future with them and a family too. But my love for my wife would not be diminished if we could not have children. If sex is just for procreation then it seems harsh to cast a childless couple as worse sinners then ones who have kids. Not the type of God that I would look up to, nor consistent with a loving, caring father figure. I'd be a failure as a dad if I prized being a grand dad over commerisating with a child of mine who could not have children yet was in an otherwise loving caring relationship.

I thought we were all sinners to start with, might as well keep the most practical and caring sins then.

Anyhow my 'belief' is in emergence.

[ajaxfetish]

In this case I think that the proposed change entrenches greater prejudice, if you believe the current situation is prejudicial. On the other hand, if you believe that change would not be prejedicial then neither is the status quo.

If we can have Gay Marriage I see no reason we can't have Polyamorous ones - I can't imagine mass pogroms.

From my point of view, the current argument is nonsensical. You are either talking about a seperate institution for homsexual unions with the lable "marrige" on the tin, or you are talking about fundamentally altering the heterosexual union of marriage so that is is compatable with homosexual unions, because Western marriage law is not be default.

Particularly in the case of say, annulment, which I believe would need to be wholly abolished.

I wonder if as many heterosxeuals would be in favour of "Gay marriage" if they considered this?

I personally feel that the current drive for homosexual marriage is currently held up by a general feeling that it is unfair to deny someone something they ask for -even if we think it doesn't make sense.

Is there a notable movement for the recognition of polyamorous unions in our society currently? There are surely some fringe groups, but I don't think there's enough will to push such a thing through, and I don't think the society we live in is ready to recognize them. On the other hand, societal attitudes towards homosexuality have been changing a lot and continue to do so at a reasonably fast pace. There are also many homosexuals who desire the legal and cultural benefits of marriage and are willing to make a sustained effort to achieve them.

Your position seems to be that granting these benefits to homosexuals should not happen because it fails to grant them to other groups, but I fail to see how the other groups are harmed in the process. If their lifestyles and communities build to the level of pervasiveness and acceptance that homosexuality has, then things will gradually change for them, too. In the meantime, I suspect that nothing can be done for them. Something can be done for gays, and in many places, it is being done. I expect the rest of the country will eventually catch up, but NC for one is working hard to stay behind the times. Will the recognition of homosexual unions result in a perfect world where everyone is treated equally and we all can dance and sing together without any care? No. Will it result in a better world? I think so.

Sounds like someone has read him some Edmund Burke. Which is a good thing.

Actually, I must confess my ignorance of the man, though perhaps I should be reading up on him. Thanks for the link.

Ajax

[PanzerJaeger]

But when the Bible, old and new, refers to something as abomination I heed that. The "surely shall be put to death part" seems to have been scrubbed in the new testament, and I'm ok with that because I believe that we are called not to kill. I'll take my revelations on biblical interpretation from the second coming, rather than funny or die, Bill Maher, or Brad Pit and Angleine Jolie, for example.

Does the bible actually say that?

Have you read the Church fathers or later theologians? Wyclif, Luther, Calvin? Pope John Pail II?

Yes. When was the last time you read the actual gospels?

Reading your and TuffStuff's responses in this thread, I cannot help but be reminded of the biblical depiction of Pharisees - arrogant, self-righteous, and obsessed with man-made understandings and interpretations of divine law, so concerned with the letter of the law that you've missed the spirit. I just cannot understand, knowing all we know about thousands of years of biblical alterations and translations, how people can be so confident in their knowledge of what is god's will in regard to very specific circumstances, especially considering how inconsistent the biblical god seems to be about his own will. If the bible ever was divinely inspired, the constant reinterpretations have certainly lost something in translation. Further, I just cannot understand how someone can read the gospels, the words of Jesus, and go to bed at night dreaming of banning gay marriage, which is essentially a desire to legitimize the love and devotion two people feel for each other in the eyes of society and, yes, many times their god. It seems so contrary to the way Jesus lived and the message he taught to attack the discriminated and vulnerable in society, to keep people out instead of including them. Judge not, lest ye be judged, and all that... Of course I am just an outsider looking in. I'm sure it all makes sense to the initiated.

It is just a shame that the archaic view of morality practiced by a backwater group of sheepherders thousands of years ago still has a significant impact on public policy today. We've come so far, and yet, we haven't.

[Xiahou]

So it's a sin to have sex out of marriage.

It is also a sin to make someone sin. Entrapment, foul play, mockery, deceit etc

Love outranks Faith and Belief.

So Christians denying homosexuals the ability to be married are denying them the right to have sex in marriage. They are denying them from declaring to society their commitment.

Aren't these people ignoring Corinthians and pushing homosexuals to sin by denying them marriage? Aren't these Christians casting the first stone yet creating the sin by denying love and marriage?

=][=
Government should not be able to make religions have marriage ceremonies they disagree with. Religion should not be interferon with the State in treating all adults the same regardless of race creed or orientation.

Uh-huh. And, therefore, it's also a sin to force people to steal things. You're entrapping them by not willingly giving them whatever they want beforehand.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Does the bible actually say that?



Yes. When was the last time you read the actual gospels?

Reading your and TuffStuff's responses in this thread, I cannot help but be reminded of the biblical depiction of Pharisees - arrogant, self-righteous, and obsessed with man-made understandings and interpretations of divine law, so concerned with the letter of the law that you've missed the spirit. I just cannot understand, knowing all we know about thousands of years of biblical alterations and translations, how people can be so confident in their knowledge of what is god's will in regard to very specific circumstances, especially considering how inconsistent the biblical god seems to be about his own will. If the bible ever was divinely inspired, the constant reinterpretations have certainly lost something in translation. Further, I just cannot understand how someone can read the gospels, the words of Jesus, and go to bed at night dreaming of banning gay marriage, which is essentially a desire to legitimize the love and devotion two people feel for each other in the eyes of society and, yes, many times their god. It seems so contrary to the way Jesus lived and the message he taught to attack the discriminated and vulnerable in society, to keep people out instead of including them. Judge not, lest ye be judged, and all that... Of course I am just an outsider looking in. I'm sure it all makes sense to the initiated.

It is just a shame that the archaic view of morality practiced by a backwater group of sheepherders thousands of years ago still has a significant impact on public policy today. We've come so far, and yet, we haven't.

The faith views homosexuality as abomination. You need to root out Christianity or edit the Bible to change that. You can wish that it said something different all you'd like, but it is crystal clear on the issue. Gay activity doesn't need the consent of Christianity it be allowed to exist legally. Certain types of relationships require the consent of the governed to be recognized as special. This is what we are talking about. You can ridicule the absurdities of the Bible all you'd like, but most Christians are trying to live their lives more in accordance with scripture rather than abandoning the parts that TV tells them are stupid. I don't disagree with scriptures interpretation of homosexuality personally, an neither did most people for most of history. If people are changing their minds on that, let them, but I'm not, and therefore why would I allow an unspecial relationship to receive my consent to be considered special? Your logic is flawed. You require me to passively ignore or positively affirm something which is abomination and I won't do it. Let people live the way they'd like and meet their maker with it on their conscience, I'm not going to hunt them down or bully them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to change my opinions on their actions because people, whose opinions I don't highly value, shame me to.

People who dress up like stuffed animals or have sex with toasters may feel compelled to do it in their private lives and I don't think that it should cause them to be fired unless it negatively affects their job, but the activity is ludicrous. If people want to do weird stuff to themselves or one another, make them close the blinds and don't send in the vice police. Just because we let things happen because they, arguably, don't hurt anyone else doesn't mean we are required to celebrate it. You are barking up the wrong tree with this one and I hope that you change targets to a more worthy cause.

"archaic view of morality practiced by a backwater group of sheepherders thousands of years ago"

I, for one, find it refreshing to see that you've picked sides and look forward to your descent into all-encompassing PC rhetoric.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Your definition of marriage is obsolete. I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to break it to you. People do not think that marriage is about children, or some functionality unless they are super religious like you.

The US has been playing fast and loose with marriage for decades now. 50% of marriages end in divorce. If we all had the mentality of "this is to promote childbearing" our cultural attitudes to such frivolous making and breaking of marriages would be radically different.

If 50% of promises were broken it wouldn't change the definition of promise. People should change their minds about what marriage is. They have to adapt to modern society.

If you're going to exclude certain couples, e.g. gay couples, then you are discriminating. A discrimination which is based on nothing else but sexual orientation.

Gay couples have shown to be loving couples, and loving parents. They pass the test, let them have what is theirs.

It's wrong to assume that the opposition to gay marriage is just bigotry, which is what these arguments boil down to.

It's perfectly reasonable to say "marriage law is about families, and we extend it to some couples who aren't going to have children only because there's no test for whether they will, and the often have accidental children anyway" and "the justification for marriage laws is that both parents have special obligations to their biological children, so adopting parents don't count". You can't have the attitude that since you don't see why someone would believe that reasoning, then their real reason must just be bigotry. It's also reasonable to oppose changing the law on grounds that it will lead to further changes.

You would just end up thinking that 60% of north carolinians are bigots, depressing. But not true by a long shot.

There are Polygamous/Ployamorous groupings in many Western countries, including homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals. The current proposition, that we should extend it to homosexuals because they form loving and stable relationships.

That's why we have to make sure the justification is not "because homosexuals can form loving and stable relationships". Anyway, I'm pretty skeptical about those polygamous relationships. The only evidence that such a relationship is stable would be enough of them lasting a life time. And if you want loving and stable, I think what we call love is a bit more obsessively focused on one person than those people acknowledge.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why does the atheist have to provide concrete evidence. The atheist doesn't claim the existence of a supreme being, he merely says he doesn't believe in it. It's the believer who says there exists a God who carries the burden of proof. I never understood atheists who try their best to prove there is no God; why would you have to do that?

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. That's why they try to prove there is no God. It's an opinion that can't be supported by science.

Anyways, NC is on the wrong side of history. I happened to read some comments on the Daily Caller site, calling gay marriage immoral, saying the reason for acceptance by the younger generation is a lack of morality, etc., etc.

Well, no. Younger people are just less likely to hate simply because their parents did. A generation from now this won't be an issue, and those bitter old crones will be looked on as those who oppose interracial marriage are today.

I opposed gay marriage once, but I don't think I ever hated gay people as so many anti-gay marriage people seem to.

I believe God is love, and the core of being a good person is to love others and act accordingly. And if two people love each other, they ought to be able to spend the rest of their lives together.

CR

[HoreTore]

An opinion that can't be supported by science? What?

There is no scientific proof of gods existence, which means that there is no god.

[Fragony]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. That's why they try to prove there is no God. It's an opinion that can't be supported by science.

Anyways, NC is on the wrong side of history. I happened to read some comments on the Daily Caller site, calling gay marriage immoral, saying the reason for acceptance by the younger generation is a lack of morality, etc., etc.

Well, no. Younger people are just less likely to hate simply because their parents did. A generation from now this won't be an issue, and those bitter old crones will be looked on as those who oppose interracial marriage are today.

I opposed gay marriage once, but I don't think I ever hated gay people as so many anti-gay marriage people seem to.

I believe God is love, and the core of being a good person is to love others and act accordingly. And if two people love each other, they ought to be able to spend the rest of their lives together.

CR

No, atheism is simply not believing anything. There is no god to not believe in.

[HoreTore]

No, atheism is simply not believing anything. There is no god to not believe in.

It's hard for religious people to accept that people are atheists, just like it's hard for an atheist to comprehend how someone can believe in the existance of a higher being.

When religous people try to explain atheism, they do so within their own set of terms, and generally try to describe it as some form of faith.

Ican't understand how someone can believe in a god, so I simply have to accept the fact that some people do. Religious people should do the same, and just accept that some people do not believe in anything. It seems like an impossible task for us to understand how the other thinks, so we shiuld just leave it at that.

[Fragony]

It's hard for religious people to accept that people are atheists, just like it's hard for an atheist to comprehend how someone can believe in the existance of a higher being.

When religous people try to explain atheism, they do so within their own set of terms, and generally try to describe it as some form of faith.

Ican't understand how someone can believe in a god, so I simply have to accept the fact that some people do. Religious people should do the same, and just accept that some people do not believe in anything. It seems like an impossible task for us to understand how the other thinks, so we shiuld just leave it at that.

That would be the wisest thing to do but trolling the religious is outragiously fun

[HoreTore]

That would be the wisest thing to do but trolling the religious is outragiously fun

Of course.

I had a 30-minute discussion with two milfs from Jehovas Witnesses last week, from communism to the scientific model. Great fun!

[Fragony]

Of course.

I had a 30-minute discussion with two milfs from Jehovas Witnesses last week, from communism to the scientific model. Great fun!

Asking them for a receipt for the message of christ never gets old either

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Having joy of something is not selfish. Selfish is not sharing the joy. So wouldnt masturbation outrank consensual sex as a sin?

Yes, masturbation was a bigger sin, still that does not mean that sex generally is not a sin.

I think I is far worse to approach sex as a chore or procreation activity then to approach it as a sharing, caring commitment between two people. A hug inside and out.

I don't happen to dissagree with you, but that doesn't mean there isn't a sin in there.

I can't really see it as a sin when it is a physical expression of the emotional love I have for another and the desire to build a future with them and a family too. But my love for my wife would not be diminished if we could not have children. If sex is just for procreation then it seems harsh to cast a childless couple as worse sinners then ones who have kids. Not the type of God that I would look up to, nor consistent with a loving, caring father figure. I'd be a failure as a dad if I prized being a grand dad over commerisating with a child of mine who could not have children yet was in an otherwise loving caring relationship.

I thought we were all sinners to start with, might as well keep the most practical and caring sins then.

Ever read the 7 Deadly Sins? They are all virtues in moderation. If you see Sin as an integral part of life, you accept it as part of the tapestry of existence. As to the childless couple, I refer you to Genesis.

Anyhow my 'belief' is in emergence.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that - if you mean the theory of £emergant properties" then I would counter that it's about as likely as a God-given soul.

Is there a notable movement for the recognition of polyamorous unions in our society currently? There are surely some fringe groups, but I don't think there's enough will to push such a thing through, and I don't think the society we live in is ready to recognize them. On the other hand, societal attitudes towards homosexuality have been changing a lot and continue to do so at a reasonably fast pace. There are also many homosexuals who desire the legal and cultural benefits of marriage and are willing to make a sustained effort to achieve them.

There aren't as many Polyamorous couples however: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...iage-polyamory

There are people. The Marquis of Bath has "wifelets", but he had to marry one of them to legitimise his heir, I can't imagine the others appreciated that.

Your position seems to be that granting these benefits to homosexuals should not happen because it fails to grant them to other groups, but I fail to see how the other groups are harmed in the process.

Ajax

Then I fail to see how homosexuals are harmed by the status quo.

Yes. When was the last time you read the actual gospels?

Pretty recently - John and Luke tend to dissagree. In John and Matthew the disciples are called in a different order. Is that the sort of thing you were getting at?

Reading your and TuffStuff's responses in this thread, I cannot help but be reminded of the biblical depiction of Pharisees - arrogant, self-righteous, and obsessed with man-made understandings and interpretations of divine law, so concerned with the letter of the law that you've missed the spirit.

Don't equate me with TuffStuff, we are not the same, we do not hold the same beliefs of objectives.

I just cannot understand, knowing all we know about thousands of years of biblical alterations and translations, how people can be so confident in their knowledge of what is god's will in regard to very specific circumstances, especially considering how inconsistent the biblical god seems to be about his own will. If the bible ever was divinely inspired, the constant reinterpretations have certainly lost something in translation.

I know you don't understand it - it isn't about the precise words, it's about the ideas they express, and its about the living Christian community which has existed uninterupted since the beginning. It doesn't matter if the words are exact and inscribed on gold tablets, human being will still misinterpret them.

Further, I just cannot understand how someone can read the gospels, the words of Jesus, and go to bed at night dreaming of banning gay marriage, which is essentially a desire to legitimize the love and devotion two people feel for each other in the eyes of society and, yes, many times their god. It seems so contrary to the way Jesus lived and the message he taught to attack the discriminated and vulnerable in society, to keep people out instead of including them. Judge not, lest ye be judged, and all that... Of course I am just an outsider looking in. I'm sure it all makes sense to the initiated.

I don't want to ban it, you want to create it; this is not a case of prohibiting something. I've already said I have no problem with a ceremony, even a religious one - but that doesn't make it a marriage.

It is just a shame that the archaic view of morality practiced by a backwater group of sheepherders thousands of years ago still has a significant impact on public policy today. We've come so far, and yet, we haven't.

Unless the Sheepherders were right. The fact is, if it was right then it's right now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You're morality comes from somewhere. If it comes from the Bible as one of your sources you have a responsibility to temper your ideals with biblical law. Not just Leviticus which could be argued is a law for Jews only, but the Gospels, the epistles etc, all of which refer to this activity as abomination and marriage as between man and woman. This is the Religious side of the arguement and in no way should it be the be all of government policy my problem is the complicty. Nothing about the Bible says that marriage must be recognized by the state and i dont believe it should be, particularly if we can no longer agree as to what it is., we This is why i must reject your arguements, and look elsewher for a solution. We live in a societywhere you must live with me and i must live yout, although we may just wish each other away, we must find workable solutions between citizens. I hate mobile org and i dont understand why they cant figure out basic text without lag

[The Stranger]

An opinion that can't be supported by science? What?

There is no scientific proof of gods existence, which means that there is no god.

lol...

when 3000 years ago there was no scientific proof of a quark, there were no quarks?

[ICantSpellDawg]

lol... you are insane?

when 3000 years ago there was no scientific proof of a quark, there were no quarks?

8=====> Horetore

Good one, L'Étranger.
But seriously, We still believe in lots of things with no scientific proof. That's why we call those things beliefs, vs just plain factual knowledge. Both are healthy to have in good measure when tempered with one another. Like the belief that you'll get better when you have serious end stage cancer, or the belief that people and "souls" are more than just complex sets of cell stimuli resulting in words and actions. Belief in the face of reality is a technology which we were either given by God or developed on our own (with the blueprints from God, I might add of course lol xoxo). Either way I view belief as positive things. Call it unchecked optimism if you'd like, either way it can fly in the face of reason.

My faith has helped me become less hostile and hate filled towards lots of different people/beliefs. Wrath is destructive and a sin. That doesn't mean that I just bleed out of my mangina when a puppy howls, but it does mean that I try to live and let live. It does not allow me to be complicit in the celebration of vice and this is what you are asking. You may not need my consent in order to hit the magic number of support, but I can assure you that I will not give it.

[The Stranger]

the belief comes before the knowledge anyway and even though some argue that this belief can be justified (troublesome concept) in retrospect, it can't be justified in advance without getting yourself tangled up in a neverending circle (which is basically Foundationalism and is widely accepted to be epistemologically untenable.) somewhere there has to be that first belief that justifies the next and this first one cant be justified (to keep it simple).

[Fragony]

lol...

when 3000 years ago there was no scientific proof of a quark, there were no quarks?

There was no scientific proof for quarks, Horetore is absolutely right here. Believing is assuming something exists. That is not science it's faith. Do with it what you want.

[PanzerJaeger]

The faith views homosexuality as abomination.

But did the Israelites? Did Paul? What about Jesus?

I know my words mean little to you, but you should be wary of Catholic doctrine. Even at its best, it has been written and conceived by humans with human frailties and human biases of the times. Even the Catholic church recognizes it, and they get together every couple hundred years and arbitrarily change it up. Remember, when the church takes a position on something regarding homosexuality, that position is not grounded in the words of Christ.

I don't disagree with scriptures interpretation of homosexuality personally, an neither did most people for most of history. If people are changing their minds on that, let them, but I'm not, and therefore why would I allow an unspecial relationship to receive my consent to be considered special? Your logic is flawed. You require me to passively ignore or positively affirm something which is abomination and I won't do it. Let people live the way they'd like and meet their maker with it on their conscience, I'm not going to hunt them down or bully them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to change my opinions on their actions because people, whose opinions I don't highly value, shame me to.

I do not require anything of you. I once expected that Christians would adhere to the traditional boundaries between church and state, but that was a long time ago. At this point, I'm just expressing my frustration with reality. There is something very un-American about the Vatican, Billy Graham, and the Mormon church coming together to pass constitutional amendments to keep a minority disenfranchised - or really anything at all. It is creepy and just not the role that religion should play in civil society.

People who dress up like stuffed animals or have sex with toasters may feel compelled to do it in their private lives and I don't think that it should cause them to be fired unless it negatively affects their job, but the activity is ludicrous. If people want to do weird stuff to themselves or one another, make them close the blinds and don't send in the vice police. Just because we let things happen because they, arguably, don't hurt anyone else doesn't mean we are required to celebrate it. You are barking up the wrong tree with this one and I hope that you change targets to a more worthy cause.

A lot of things Christians believe and do could objectively be described as weird and ludicrous. I do not know how any Christian with any knowledge at all about the early years of the religion could be so secure in his normalcy. It wasn't all that long ago that Christians were be fed to the lions as cultists. I think a little perspective is in order. Homosexuality has been naturally occurring in humans long before Christianity came into existence.

I, for one, find it refreshing to see that you've picked sides and look forward to your descent into all-encompassing PC rhetoric.

My side was chosen for me. The reaction to the normalization of homosexuality across the spectrum of Christian denominations has been illuminating. I once thought that Christianity was about love, but it is clear that it is all about hate, ignorance, and fear of the unknown.

You're morality comes from somewhere

Human empathy?

Don't equate me with TuffStuff, we are not the same, we do not hold the same beliefs of objectives.

Understood.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Human empathy?

brilliant

[The Stranger]

There was no scientific proof for quarks, Horetore is absolutely right here. Believing is assuming something exists. That is not science it's faith. Do with it what you want.

what does this comment even have to do with what has been said...?

according to HoreTores logic if there is no scientific proof for it something does not exist... thats the implication of his comment:

there is no scientific proof of god, thus god does not exist.

belief in this case has nothing to do with it. (although believing can obviously also mean believing that something does not exist... and so we are nothing further.)


anyway i find it funny that this entire heated discussion is being held with vocabulary that nobody even agrees upon and with many concepts which do not have a satisfying definition that can stand up against "reasonable" critique.

[The Stranger]

sry dbl post

[Fragony]

what does this comment even have to do with what has been said...?

according to HoreTores logic if there is no scientific proof for it something does not exist... thats the implication of his comment:

there is no scientific proof of god, thus god does not exist.

belief in this case has nothing to do with it. (although believing can obviously also mean believing that something does not exist... and so we are nothing further.)

Well everything really as your logic is flawed. If you reverse the argument there is nothing left for you

[The Stranger]

what...? you have to be less cryptic because you have lost me now.

I dont see how my logic is flawed because it is not my logic, it is horetore's logic and im merely pointing out the wider implications of his logic.

[Fragony]

what...? you have to be less cryptic because you have lost me now.

I dont see how my logic is flawed because it is not my logic, it is horetore's logic and im merely pointing out the wider implications of his logic.

Which is absolutely awesome of you to do, and now I am going to open up a beer