Interesting Article

[Jadaki 0]

No it's not.Let's look at a corollary of this argument.If religion X claims cocaine to be a vital part of their religious ceremonies, should we legalize cocaine on the basis of religious freedom?How about if religion Y claims ruthlessly raping and murdering newborn babies is a vital part of its religion?For the record though, I'm very pro-gay marraige. But that argument is silly.

Now your just being silly. How do you equate sexual preferance to raping, murdering and drug abuse?

[hotbacon 0]

Now your just being silly. How do you equate sexual preferance to raping, murdering and drug abuse?

You just made my point for me.Do you see why?

[Jadaki 0]

You just made my point for me.Do you see why?

No, care to explain?

[hotbacon 0]

No, care to explain?

Sure.The argument was that since some religions are OK with gay marriage and the United States was founded on religious freedom, gay marriage should be allowed.I then followed the argument to its logical retard conclusion by applying it to things that intuitively you think should be illegal no matter what, like raping babies.Then you said that the situation I presented was silly, which was precisely the point.Need me to help you with anything else?

[Farnan 0]

Sure.The argument was that since some religions are OK with gay marriage and the United States was founded on religious freedom, gay marriage should be allowed.I then followed the argument to its logical retard conclusion by applying it to things that intuitively you think should be illegal no matter what, like raping babies.Then you said that the situation I presented was silly, which was precisely the point.Need me to help you with anything else?

You fail to recognize that rights have limits. We have free speech but cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater. We have the right to move throughout the country, but we cannot exceed the speed limit. We have the right to procreate, but we cannot do it with a minor. We have the right to bear arms, but we cannot buy a tank.So to take the argument to "its logical retarded conclusion" makes this a retarded counter-argument. If you look at the point at which our rights become limited--it almost always points to a situation where the public becomes at risk (i.e. raping babies). Gay marriage doesn't threaten the public. Part of the argument against gay marriage is that it is a religious institution and shouldn't be forced upon a particular religion. Well, by logical extention, if you prohibit gay marriage, you are forcing ANOTHER religion that finds gay marriage acceptable, to not recognize it. Is it a great argument? No. Is it valid? Yes.But as you infer, bacon (if i am incorrect, please say so), this is one of the reasons religion should stay OUT of this debate. This is a governmental rights debate--the government should give a license to get hitched regardless of the orientation of the couple--and then that couple should either go to a church that accepts their lifestyle or go to a justice of teh peace and do it that way. No one is being forced either way.

[Jadaki 0]

Sure.The argument was that since some religions are OK with gay marriage and the United States was founded on religious freedom, gay marriage should be allowed.I then followed the argument to its logical retard conclusion by applying it to things that intuitively you think should be illegal no matter what, like raping babies.Then you said that the situation I presented was silly, which was precisely the point.Need me to help you with anything else?

Except your forgetting something called common sense.We are protected in our life, libery, and pursuit of happiness as long as we don't infringe on other peoples rights to do the same.Two gay guys or girls getting married does nothing to impede on your life or pursuit of happiness, however someone raping you kid would do just that. Anymore functionally retarded arguements you wanna toss in here?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Except your forgetting something called common sense.We are protected in our life, libery, and pursuit of happiness as long as we don't infringe on other peoples rights to do the same.Two gay guys or girls getting married does nothing to impede on your life or pursuit of happiness, however someone raping you kid would do just that. Anymore functionally retarded arguements you wanna toss in here?

I think you're missing his point. He is responding to this quote:

Not allowing gay marriages pretty much amounts to denying religious freedom to those who believe it's consistent with their religious beliefs.

He's saying that it's silly to claim that the legality of gay marriage should be based on religious reasons. He doesn't think that the law should be based on religious reasons at all.He still supports gay marriage, see:

For the record though, I'm very pro-gay marraige.

He just doesn't support it for religious reasons.

[hotbacon 0]

Except your forgetting something called common sense.We are protected in our life, libery, and pursuit of happiness as long as we don't infringe on other peoples rights to do the same.Two gay guys or girls getting married does nothing to impede on your life or pursuit of happiness, however someone raping you kid would do just that. Anymore functionally retarded arguements you wanna toss in here?

Hey, I know that reading is a problem, but if you would be so kind as to look at the part where I explicitly said "I AM VERY PRO-GAY MARRIAGE," I would appreciate it.See, you're not even attacking my argument at this point. You're just tossing arguments for gay marriage WHICH I ALREADY AGREE WITH.I know you want to try to look smart and degrade me and all, but you're probably better off, oh I dunno, READING WHAT THE **** I SAID?

[Jadaki 0]

Hey, I know that reading is a problem, but if you would be so kind as to look at the part where I explicitly said "I AM VERY PRO-GAY MARRIAGE," I would appreciate it.See, you're not even attacking my argument at this point. You're just tossing arguments for gay marriage WHICH I ALREADY AGREE WITH.I know you want to try to look smart and degrade me and all, but you're probably better off, oh I dunno, READING WHAT THE **** I SAID?

Need a hug?*There is no good hug emoticon or I would add one here*Also, I am not actually pro or agaisnt gay marriage, I really don't care. I just think you comparing a religions saying gay marrige was ok to a religion saying raping was ok was the dumbest thing in this thread.

[hotbacon 0]

You fail to recognize that rights have limits. We have free speech but cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater. We have the right to move throughout the country, but we cannot exceed the speed limit. We have the right to procreate, but we cannot do it with a minor. We have the right to bear arms, but we cannot buy a tank.

Sure.But I was specifically adressing the merits of the religious freedom and nothing more.If you want to introduce other arguments like lack of infringing on other's rights, etc. that's fine, but my criticism had nothing to do with that.

So to take the argument to "its logical retarded conclusion" makes this a retarded counter-argument. If you look at the point at which our rights become limited--it almost always points to a situation where the public becomes at risk (i.e. raping babies). Gay marriage doesn't threaten the public.

Same as above.

Part of the argument against gay marriage is that it is a religious institution and shouldn't be forced upon a particular religion. Well, by logical extention, if you prohibit gay marriage, you are forcing ANOTHER religion that finds gay marriage acceptable, to not recognize it. Is it a great argument? No. Is it valid? Yes.

OK I didn't really see it as a counter argument like that, but even so it's silly.To counter the forcing gay marriage on religions argument, all you have to do is take it to its true logical conclusion and say it means that not having deep throating infants as legal is forcing laws on any religion which supports deep throating infants.Which, ironically, has been my pont all along

But as you infer, bacon (if i am incorrect, please say so), this is one of the reasons religion should stay OUT of this debate. This is a governmental rights debate--the government should give a license to get hitched regardless of the orientation of the couple--and then that couple should either go to a church that accepts their lifestyle or go to a justice of teh peace and do it that way. No one is being forced either way.

Completely agree.

Need a hug?*There is no good hug emoticon or I would add one here*Also, I am not actually pro or agaisnt gay marriage, I really don't care. I just think you comparing a religions saying gay marrige was ok to a religion saying raping was ok was the dumbest thing in this thread.

Sorry, guess I'm not a big fan of people calling me an idiot when they lack basic reading comprehension and then never admitting how blatantly wrong they were.

[timwakefield 68]

Unfortunately it's impossible to separate the issue from religion with Captain Coo-Coo-Bananas in the White House.

[hotbacon 0]

Unfortunately it's impossible to separate the issue from religion with Captain Coo-Coo-Bananas in the White House.

heh.I doubt we'll ever be able to completely separate the issue from religion (no matter the party in charge), seeing as how religious america is.

[brvheart 1,752]

So what your saying is that the church does something until they find out it's unpopular, then they change. Who gives them the power to change gods "laws". This is my #1 issue with the bible, one chapter you are being told not to kill, the next god is wiping out civilizations with plagues... I can see why you have a problem with the sexual harasment thing, but the fact you stated he was hired to fill a quota only tells me your distaste for his lifestyle. Last time I checked, employers are not allowed to ask your sexual orientation to fill quotas. I'll give you an example.One of the guys I play basketball with is married to a girl whos father killed himself when she was very young. She was the one that found the body, this obviously caused tramatic issues for her but she handles it pretty well. Shortly after this her mom started taking her to church on a regular basis, obviously because the mom needed some kind of emotional support.A few years later her mother started seeing another man she met in church who molested her whenher mom wasnt around. She went to her mom and told her about it, but she didnt' believe it and blamed it on her acting out about her father. This "step dad" was heavely involved in the church, and her mom said that was another reason she didnt believe her. This guy goes to church 4 days a week, volunteers most of his free time to church activites and pretty much every conversation I have had with the guy is about religion. He eats, drinks and sh*t's the bible, yet he is a child molester. Extreme case, probably... are there more like it, most definetly.

QFT. Sadly, this does happen... but what is the point? Is this guy Jesus? No. Will he be judged for his sin just like everyone else? Yes.

Can He even inspire stories which are not meant to be interpreted literally? And the question isn't how God did it, it's how Noah did it. God didn't build the ark and fill it up, Noah did.

Dude, have you ever read your Bible? Open it up. It explictly says that Noah just stood there and the animals came to him.

[timwakefield 68]

Dude, have you ever read your Bible? Open it up. It explictly says that Noah just stood there and the animals came to him.

Yeah but Noah built the ark. That's not really important though. My point is that it is much more rational to believe that the story of the flood is a fable than it is to believe that God somehow fit 2 of every species on earth into a boat, and that they all survived at sea for 40 days. What did they eat?How did they reproduce? The second generation would have nobody to mate with.

[Canada 0]

And the question isn't how God did it, it's how Noah did it. God didn't build the ark and fill it up, Noah did.

Dude, have you ever read your Bible? Open it up. It explictly says that Noah just stood there and the animals came to him.

I think Tim's point was that Noah was collecting the boarding passes.Bit like Captain Stubing.The Love Ark soon will be making another runWith 2 of all creatures, yes I mean every oneBut no queers allowed - so stay at homeIf you like it up the bum...

[Jadaki 0]

QFT. Sadly, this does happen... but what is the point? Is this guy Jesus? No. Will he be judged for his sin just like everyone else? Yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you just have to ask to be forgiven for your sins to be accepted?

Sorry, guess I'm not a big fan of people calling me an idiot when they lack basic reading comprehension and then never admitting how blatantly wrong they were.

I think your lacking the reading comprehension. I never called you an idiot, I said comparing raping children to gay marrige was retarded and it is.

[copernicus 0]

Dude, have you ever read your Bible? Open it up. It explictly says that Noah just stood there and the animals came to him.I think Tim's point was that Noah was collecting the boarding passes.Bit like Captain Stubing.The Love Ark soon will be making another runWith 2 of all creatures, yes I mean every oneBut no queers allowed - so stay at homeIf you like it up the bum...

Ohhhhh! Canada!!!!

[DonkSlayer 1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you just have to ask to be forgiven for your sins to be accepted?

Not "accepted". "Forgiven". Like the same argument that non-Christians have, "Oh, I thought Christianity was about "Tolerance." It isn't, and has never been, about "tolerance." It's about love for all and forgiveness for the repentant.

I think your lacking the reading comprehension. I never called you an idiot, I said comparing raping children to gay marrige was retarded and it is.

You argument pops up a lot when this issue is being debated; people that are pro gay-marriage will find anything compared to it in a logical equation to be "retarded" or "not comparable", ex. murder/alcoholism/adultery/fornication/etc.Fact is lots of Christians view homosexual action to be a sin. I view a sin as a sin as a sin. Some view sins to be "ranked". Either way, you have people that would disagree with you coming from a completely different perspective, so essentially you're trying to convince them of your argument by a method they cannot relate to. You'll fail.

[MDXS 0]

Yeah but Noah built the ark. That's not really important though. My point is that it is much more rational to believe that the story of the flood is a fable than it is to believe that God somehow fit 2 of every species on earth into a boat, and that they all survived at sea for 40 days. What did they eat?How did they reproduce? The second generation would have nobody to mate with.

Not to mention all the geographically isolated creatures (kangaroos, koalas, etc...) went out of their way to him...then decided to go right back to Australia when this thing was done....etc...there are so many silly things about that story if you take it at face value.

[Farnan 0]

Fact is lots of Christians view homosexual action to be a sin. I view a sin as a sin as a sin. Some view sins to be "ranked". Either way, you have people that would disagree with you coming from a completely different perspective, so essentially you're trying to convince them of your argument by a method they cannot relate to. You'll fail.

I simply don't believe that even close to 10% of Christians TRUELY believe a sin is a sin is a sin. If you ask every christian which is worse, stealing an apple or murdering your neighbor---you know, most, if not all, would choose the murder.The reason these Christians view homosexuality as such a big sin is the whole "icky" factor--they think it is gross. They think they're pedophiles. They think they're perverts. They think homosexuals are lower than heteros. That is their personal feelings getting into the mix--and considering the bible doesn't mention homosexuality as much as other sins they feel less gung-ho about----i think most of the time these Christians are using their faith as a way to justify their own prejudice and homophobia. They CHOOSE to pick these few passages out to make it into some crazy "super-sin" that will cause the coming of the apocolypse if these people are given equal rights. It is a cop out, plain and simple.They can think it is a sin all they want--that is fine. But when you try to withhold rights, that is where they cross the line. I didn't see them get all worked up when adultry was decriminalized--and infidelity is more of a threat to marriage than anythign else!!

[custom36 4]

I simply don't believe that even close to 10% of Christians TRUELY believe a sin is a sin is a sin. If you ask every christian which is worse, stealing an apple or murdering your neighbor---you know, most, if not all, would choose the murder.The reason these Christians view homosexuality as such a big sin is the whole "icky" factor--they think it is gross. They think they're pedophiles. They think they're perverts. They think homosexuals are lower than heteros. That is their personal feelings getting into the mix--and considering the bible doesn't mention homosexuality as much as other sins they feel less gung-ho about----i think most of the time these Christians are using their faith as a way to justify their own prejudice and homophobia. They CHOOSE to pick these few passages out to make it into some crazy "super-sin" that will cause the coming of the apocolypse if these people are given equal rights. It is a cop out, plain and simple.They can think it is a sin all they want--that is fine. But when you try to withhold rights, that is where they cross the line. I didn't see them get all worked up when adultry was decriminalized--and infidelity is more of a threat to marriage than anythign else!!

I love you in a completely plutonic way.

[brvheart 1,752]

Yeah but Noah built the ark. That's not really important though. My point is that it is much more rational to believe that the story of the flood is a fable than it is to believe that God somehow fit 2 of every species on earth into a boat, and that they all survived at sea for 40 days. What did they eat?How did they reproduce? The second generation would have nobody to mate with.

You forgot about, why didn't the lions eat the sheep and so on. What you guys are all forgetting is THAT GOD WAS INVOLVED. The story makes NO SENSE if you don't believe in God. (Someone bold that last sentence in your reply) No God = Bible is crazy. God = Bible is true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you just have to ask to be forgiven for your sins to be accepted?

Great question Jakaki. The Bible is clear that EVERYONE will be judged according to their deeds. But in the end, you will be forgiven and accepted into heaven if you believe that Jesus died for you. (prior to death of course) All of us will stand before God and have all your sins read aloud, (which will be embarassing) and then we will not be found blameless, and be condemned to die, at which time Jesus will say to God, "This is my good and faithful service, with whom I am well pleased (or something to that effect)". BUT, the Bible also says that their will be people that will cry out to Jesus to save them, and he will say, "I never knew you". Which will suck. The cool thing is that it's so easy to know Jesus. Just believe that he died for you and you will be saved. Acts 16:31.

Not to mention all the geographically isolated creatures (kangaroos, koalas, etc...) went out of their way to him...then decided to go right back to Australia when this thing was done....etc...there are so many silly things about that story if you take it at face value.

...from the point of view that there is no God. I agree. Of course, there is a God and so that makes it perfectly logical. God did it, because he wanted to do it. He had the kangaroos 'FLY' up from Australia. End of story.

[Farnan 0]

Of course, there is a God and so that makes it perfectly logical. God did it, because he wanted to do it. He had the kangaroos 'FLY' up from Australia. End of story.

Do you seriously believe that? Seriously? And you think this isn't as much of a leap of faith as the belief in some intergalactic walrus or the flying spaghetti monster?

[hotbacon 0]

Of course, there is a God and so that makes it perfectly logical. God did it, because he wanted to do it. He had the kangaroos 'FLY' up from Australia. End of story.

is this a joke or are you serious?I wanna believe you're being sarcastic or something, but I don't see what the purpose would be.

[custom36 4]

Do you seriously believe that? Seriously? And you think this isn't as much of a leap of faith as the belief in some intergalactic walrus or the flying spaghetti monster?

There's an intergalactic walrus?