Supreme Court will take up Gay Marriage. Decision expected in June.

[ripskater]

We're missing a certain someone in this thread. :icon_chee

Who are you missing?

 

[Gandhi]

I'm for teaching abstinence outside traditional marriage. If we all obeyed God's laws, we would have no AIDS problem.

That is what I thought. You don't care about young men dying. You care about morality for morality's sake. AIDs is just desserts and not a disease to be cured by science.

 

[Gandhi]

Who are you missing?

SSM's most useless advocate.

 

[texasbest]

I'm for teaching abstinence outside traditional marriage. If we all obeyed God's laws, we would have no AIDS problem.

This is true, if we didn't yearn to possess things that aren't ours, don't cheat on spouse, don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, and honor our parents......

IF we all did that, society as a whole would be in a MUCH MUCH better place.

 

[My Spot]

Society as a whole would be in a much much better place without religion at all.

 

[ripskater]

That is what I thought. You don't care about young men dying. You care about morality for morality's sake. AIDs is just desserts and not a disease to be cured by science.

Has there been a cure for AIDS yet? If not, you're better off following God's advice. And even if a cure is found, there are dozens of other diseases that can kill you or harm you. Either way, people are always better off waiting til marriage for sex. Every sin has a consequence. Some greater than others.

 

[ripskater]

This is true, if we didn't yearn to possess things that aren't ours, don't cheat on spouse, don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, and honor our parents......

IF we all did that, society as a whole would be in a MUCH MUCH better place.

I agree.

 

[ripskater]

SSM's most useless advocate.

Lol. I know who you're talking about. I think you guys are just tired of getting owned by him.

 

[Limbo Pete]

It's only a matter of time. If not now, later. Worse case will be the continued slow progression of more and more states coming on board.

 

[Gandhi]

Has there been a cure for AIDS yet? If not, you're better off following God's advice. And even if a cure is found, there are dozens of other diseases that can kill you or harm you. Either way, people are always better off waiting til marriage for sex. Every sin has a consequence. Some greater than others.

HIV used to be a death sentence, I know HIV positive people that will now live full and productive lives, thanks to science and no thanks to religious conservatives who wanted to block funding. As said, your concern about the death of young men is BS when you don't support scientific and rational ways to improve the situation.

 

[Strychnine]

If more young men die early of AIDS? How will that affect me?

Yes. How will that affect you?

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Where are these gay demonic destroyers you speak of?

 

[Darkballs]

I kind of agree. As an atheist I don't understand how people can expect a Christian NOT to include God in their argument, it would be disingenuous of them not to.

My grievance isn't that people invoke their religion to answer moral questions. As I think my posts made clear, I'm against the hypocrisy of being morally inconsistent.

The bible lists tons of stuff that constitutes sin. Christians today ignore 95% of it. Just take the eating of shellfish as one example. Where is the christian outrage over that? Or the wearing of clothing made from a combination of cloths?

I'd imagine the reality is that most christians are smart enough to realize that eating shellfish and combining cotton and another fabric can't possibly be a sin. But a good christian can't just come out and say, "yeah, the bible is just wrong here." So you get dishonest subterfuge such as: (1) "Well thats not really a sin. Yeah that passage expressly says that it's a sin, but look at this other non-related passage. That's the real message;" or (2) "Well that was just relevant to that time period and thats why it's there."

But that singular passage about a man lying with another man? Well THAT is clearly the word of god. Essentially, some parts of the bible should be taken literally and others, not so much. Without a qualifier as to how these decisions are made, this is hypocrisy.

Do you see no logical flaw in arguing the few things you are personally against (SSM) are clearly prohibited by plain language; yet, things you support amazingly need a more nuanced approach that disregards equally plain language?

 

[ripskater]

HIV used to be a death sentence, I know HIV positive people that will now live full and productive lives, thanks to science and no thanks to religious conservatives who wanted to block funding. As said, your concern about the death of young men is BS when you don't support scientific and rational ways to improve the situation.

The best way to rid the world of AIDs is to follow God's guidelines. And it's rational and scientific at the same time.

 

[ripskater]

Yes. How will that affect you?

It would have very little affect on me unless I know someone. Even so, it's something I would not like to see happen to anyone. That is one reason I hate the lies that are out there that tell young people that gay sex is normal and healthy. You can do that if you want, but it's extremely dangerous.

 

[ripskater]

My grievance isn't that people invoke their religion to answer moral questions. As I think my posts made clear, I'm against the hypocrisy of being morally inconsistent.

The bible lists tons of stuff that constitutes sin. Christians today ignore 95% of it. Just take the eating of shellfish as one example. Where is the christian outrage over that? Or the wearing of clothing made from a combination of cloths?

I'd imagine the reality is that most christians are smart enough to realize that eating shellfish and combining cotton and another fabric can't possibly be a sin. But a good christian can't just come out and say, "yeah, the bible is just wrong here." So you get dishonest subterfuge such as: (1) "Well thats not really a sin. Yeah that passage expressly says that it's a sin, but look at this other non-related passage. That's the real message;" or (2) "Well that was just relevant to that time period and thats why it's there."

But that singular passage about a man lying with another man? Well THAT is clearly the word of god. Essentially, some parts of the bible should be taken literally and others, not so much. Without a qualifier as to how these decisions are made, this is hypocrisy.

Do you see no logical flaw in arguing the few things you are personally against (SSM) are clearly prohibited by plain language; yet, things you support amazingly need a more nuanced approach that disregards equally plain language?

Ippwnage already answered this on page 6.

 

[Gandhi]

The best way to rid the world of AIDs is to follow God's guidelines. And it's rational and scientific at the same time.

Just don't be gay, yeah so rational.....

 

[ripskater]

Just don't be gay, yeah so rational.....

Having gay attraction is not a sin. Acting out those homosexual desires is a sin. Some people live celibate lives. Some gay guys and even transexuals renounce their gay past and start liking women after a while.

 

[Gojujutsu]

The best way to rid the world of AIDs is to follow God's guidelines. And it's rational and scientific at the same time.

Yes because at this point all the millions of straight people with HIV (especially in Africa) will follow God's command to not be fruitful and multiply. We totally got rid of smallpox through following righteous orders as well. < Was an analogy, don't get all "not the same thing" on me. If you want something more similar we will go back to the shellfish theme. We don't get shellfish poisoning because we refuse to adhere to old superstitions.

 

[Darkballs]

Ippwnage already answered this on page 6.

No. He made a terrible post doing exactly what I complained about.

Perhaps you could drop some biblical logic on these inconsistencies instead of single arrogant sentences declaring victory.