i am for phil

jimbuick said:
You do realize that post is him saying he doesn't want to debate with you based upon how your responses have been in this thread, right?


Nowhere does he say he won't talk to you because of your views.
Click to expand...

Yes, about homosexuality. My responses on homosexuality.
 
JoeBrooklyn said:
Josh, here it is above.
Click to expand...

How about we add some context.

Fight back posted and stated a theory is not repeatable

fightbackhxc said:
I don't have any reason or need to set out and prove God exists. Most athiets and scientists have theories that are generally perceived as true yet they can never repeat or prove their theory. Does Jesus being God really sound more ridiculous than something being created out of nothing?
Click to expand...

to which I corrected him by defining what a theory was

JudoJosh said:
by definition, a scientific theory is an observed and repeatable phenomena. So if something is a theory it is based upon facts that have been repeatedly observed via experimentation.
Click to expand...

to which you came with a red herring

JoeBrooklyn said:
Very true, therefore based on that the so called theory of evolution is not a theory.
Click to expand...

to which I attempted to clarify that evolution isnt really debated and is generally considered a scientific fact (like the earth orbits the sun is a scientific fact) and that the theory of evolution applies to the mechanism.

JudoJosh said:
Nope, if anything evolution is considered a scientific fact with the exact mechanism behind it considered a theory.
Click to expand...

Then you tried to defend your stance

JoeBrooklyn said:
There are 11 quadrillion bits of information in the human genome. There are 11 million bits of information in the western brown frog. If we gave the western brown frog 1 million years to evolve into a man, 11 million bits of information would have to be produced every year. To date no scientist has observed even 1 bit of new information being created. Remember when this so called theory came out in the 1800s they didnt know about DNA.
Click to expand...

and I responded that I had no desire for a back in forth with you on the topic of evolution.

JudoJosh said:
I have absolutely no desire for a back in forth with you, especially after seeing your reaponses in this thread on homosexuality.

" If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence.

If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument would you invoke to prove they should value logic?" - Sam Harris

Evolution is the foundation of biology. It is a scientific fact just like the earth orbits the sun is a scientific fact. The onlm
y individuals who object to evoultion do so because they are misinformed (do not understand it) or out of cognitive dissonance. I suspect you are in the later group in which case debating this would be a waste of time
Click to expand...

I realize I didnt specify saying it was limited to the topic of evolution but within the context of our discussion it was pretty clear my statement saying i didnt desire a back and forth was in regards to evolution being a reality or not
 
jimbuick said:
You do realize that post is him saying he doesn't want to debate with you based upon how your responses have been in this thread, right?


Nowhere does he say he won't talk to you because of your views.
Click to expand...

correct

JoeBrooklyn said:
Yes, about homosexuality. My responses on homosexuality.
Click to expand...

JoeBrooklyn said:
Ok, I was thinking they were kind of the same; but ok, let me rephrase. My responses.
Click to expand...

no. It had nothing to do with your view. It had everything to do with your previous responses on the subject which indicated you either refusing or being incapable of articulating a rationale and logical defense and instead resorting to the typical nonsensical replies which are frequently used by people who are intolerant and blinded by their cognitive dissonance.

The back in forth did not appear to have the potential to be fruitful, as in no one would have learned or gained anything. I thought me including the quote by Harris made it obvious why I did not wish to engage in a back and forth but I guess not.
 
JudoJosh said:
How about we add some context.

Fight back posted and stated a theory is not repeatable



to which I corrected him by defining what a theory was



to which you came with a red herring



to which I attempted to clarify that evolution isnt really debated and is generally considered a scientific fact (like the earth orbits the sun is a scientific fact) and that the theory of evolution applies to the mechanism.



Then you tried to defend your stance



and I responded that I had no desire for a back in forth with you on the topic of evolution.



I realize I didnt specify saying it was limited to the topic of evolution but within the context of our discussion it was pretty clear my statement saying i didnt desire a back and forth was in regards to evolution being a reality or not
Click to expand...

Ok, if I misunderstood then I apologize. The post merely said you had no desire to talk to me about evolution based on my responses about homosexuality, so that means you would talk to me about other topics? Im not being a smart ass, I a little concerned because I honestly don't think I have said anything so horrendously ugly that would cause someone on this thread to not talk to me about say AAS, especially coming from people who claim to be for love and tolerance.
 
JudoJosh said:
correct





no. It had nothing to do with your view. It had everything to do with your previous responses on the subject which indicated you being incapable articulating a rationale and logic defense and instead resorting to the typical nonsensical replies by people who are intolerant and blinded by their cognitive dissonance. The back in forth did not appear to have the potential to be fruitful, as in no one would have learned or gained anything. I thought me including the quote by Harris made it obvious why I did not wish to engage in a back and forth but I guess not
Click to expand...

ok, I misunderstood. You know how irrational I can be.
 
Geoforce said:
Who's scarier for the future to push people? Let's have Hitler back guy or me saying let's have respect and tolerance for those who are different?
Click to expand...

Honestly after reading one post of whom you speak why read more, I have not, it is not about tolerance...we need not tolerate things we feel wrong. you and josh continue to push this world view upon the forum why?
 
Touey said:
Honestly after reading one post of whom you speak why read more, I have not, it is not about tolerance...we need not tolerate things we feel wrong. you and josh continue to push this world view upon the forum why?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't want to tolerate people with different beliefs than yours (assuming they aren't harming you or anyone else)?


Why did you even come to the US then? This country is, and always was, a mixing pot of different religions/races/cultures etc. coming together to avoid persecution from the places they originally hailed from. But now, you, a person who is also an immigrant from another country/culture should shun the very tolerance that brought people here in the first place?
 
Touey said:
Look Geo I appreciate love you have for family so you feel to change the world over to the side you see is good.. Josh bounces through the forum posting as if he sees properly..reality is I do not dislike you nor he but I dislike what you two try to push on others here.
Click to expand...

jimbuick said:
s (assuming they aren't harming you or anyone else)?
Click to expand...
assumptions will get you in trouble
 
jimbuick said:
You wouldn't want to tolerate people with different beliefs than yours (assuming they aren't harming you or anyone else)?


Why did you even come to the US then? This country is, and always was, a mixing pot of different religions/races/cultures etc. coming together to avoid persecution from the places they originally hailed from. But now, you, who are also an immigrant from another country/culture should shun the very tolerance that brought people here in the first place?
Click to expand...

Jim are you aware what Governor Andrew Cuomo said?
 
JoeBrooklyn said:
LOL!!!
Click to expand...


Figured that would make you laugh ;)

Actually, funny thing is I am about to re-read "Origin Of Species" for one of my current classes I am taking this semester and will most likely have to write a paper on evolution. You can do me a huge favor by sending me a list of questions, concerns, critiques, whatever you have regarding evolution so I can include the responses in my paper and then I will send you a copy. Whaddya say pal?
 
Touey said:
assumptions will get you in trouble
Click to expand...

So, how does someone being a homosexual harm you, exactly?

Because Josh/Geo are talking about heterosexuals in the U.S. not tolerating homosexuals and are trying to explain why they should get the same treatment from their peers that heterosexuals get.


What are you arguing, exactly? About how we shouldn't tolerate people who believe different things than we do? Where do you draw the line? Should Christians start persecuting Muslims and vice versa because they have differing beliefs?
 
JudoJosh said:
Figured that would make you laugh ;)

Actually, funny thing is I am about to re-read "Origin Of Species" for one of my current classes I am taking this semester and will most likely have to write a paper on evolution. You can do me a huge favor by sending me a list of questions, concerns, critiques, whatever you have regarding evolution so I can include the responses in my paper and then I will send you a copy. Whaddya say pal?
Click to expand...

Sure, do you want me to PM you? Also, have you ever heard of a book called "The Descent Of Man" by Darwin?
 
jimbuick said:
So, how does someone being a homosexual harm you, exactly?

Because Josh/Geo are talking about heterosexuals in the U.S. not tolerating homosexuals and are trying to explain why they should get the same treatment from their peers that heterosexuals get.


What are you arguing, exactly? About how we shouldn't tolerate people who believe different things than we do? Where do you draw the line? Should Christians start persecuting Muslims and vice versa because they have differing beliefs?
Click to expand...

calm down my friend I am to say noone need to compromise standards on integrity nor beliefs to fit some hodge podge ideal of what politically correct Americans espouse

love the person but hate the sin
 
JoeBrooklyn said:
Sure, do you want me to PM you? Also, have you ever heard of a book called "The Descent Of Man" by Darwin?
Click to expand...

when I started to read this sentence and came to the part where you said "the book called" I thought it was gonna read "Darwins Doubt" next. lol

No I have not read that but I assume you have. Is it good?

Also for the record, I dont have a problem with anyone just because we disagree on something. I come from a pretty religious family. I mean I met my wife at church for fuks sake! lol.. I am quite used to dealing with religious people in my day to day life (they are the majority remember) so engaging with someone with different beliefs than me isnt a problem. I have just learned that its not always worth it to go down that exhausting and frustrating road. So to be clear I dont have a problem with you, just didnt feel like getting into that convo. I am sure you have felt a similar feeling when someone has tried to debate you on something before
 
Geoforce said:
The divorce rate is too high I agree, but it's also partially higher because we have allowed people to get out of bad marriages. In the past we pressured them to fight through cheating, abuse, etc. Now we tell people to ditch that loser.

I think the divorce rate being a negative is certainly up for debate. We used to make battered women stay and spouses who had been unfaithful always tough it out. We sentenced people often to a lifetime of misery.
Click to expand...

that is one way of looking at it...another might be that women were much more family 1st oriented in those days and made sacrifices for their children. to be honest, i think society as a whole is more me oriented today, and women along with men put their personal success equal to or in many cases above what is best for their children.

on one hand you could pity a woman in those days who stayed in a bad marriage....on the other hand if she thought she was looking out for the best interest of her children, she would at least imo, be deserving of respect and admiration....believe it or not but many women in those days took a lot of pride in being housewifes and caring for children and household and i truely believe those kids were raised better than todays kids who are shipped off to industialized child care centers many at the tender age of 1 and under.

remember, it was much tougher to be a single mom in those days, not only that but a stigma was attached to kids who came from a broken family. i know this from living in the 60's and 70's and no amount of statistics can change what i saw to be true....

actually statistics can be very misleading, just like history they are only as accurate as the people recording them, and people almost always seem to have an objective other than merely reporting the truth. spin can be applied to statics as easily as it can to history, and anyone who has ever read a history book knows that the old saying 'history is written by the victors', is probably, if not certainly true....just throwing out numbers without taking into consideration the conditions and standards of the time is very illegitimate, imo.
 
JudoJosh said:
when I started to read this sentence and came to the part where you said "the book called" I thought it was gonna read "Darwins Doubt" next. lol

No I have not read that but I assume you have. Is it good?

Also for the record, I dont have a problem with anyone just because we disagree on something. I come from a pretty religious family. I mean I met my wife at church for fuks sake! lol.. I am quite used to dealing with religious people in my day to day life (they are the majority remember) so engaging with someone with different beliefs than me isnt a problem. I have just learned that its not always worth it to go down that exhausting and frustrating road. So to be clear I dont have a problem with you, just didnt feel like getting into that convo. I am sure you have felt a similar feeling when someone has tried to debate you on something before
Click to expand...

I've read parts of it. The jest of it is that just like man evolved, he can devolve and then he says something that in my opinion is very racist. He says that black people are proof of devolution. If any Christian or right winger would have said anything like this he would have never been quoted by anyone ever again.
But yes I do know what you mean about fruitless debates; but I'm a gluten for punishment, especially when it comes to economics because I feel there is more empirical evidence but those turn fruitless many times as well. I live in NYC, so if I shunned everyone who didn't agree with me I would be very alone. I enjoy debating; what i dont enjoy is when personal attacks come.
What church did you meet your wife in? I saw on your profile you are hispanic, where are your ancestors from?
 
jimbuick said:
Then no, I most certainly do not.
Click to expand...

Ok, well he said that people who are against abortion and homosexual life style and are for guns dont belong in NY. Is that tolerant? Imagine if a Republican would have said anyone who supports homosexuality and abortion doesnt belong in my state?
See Jim, as a Christian (crappy as I am) I am often held to a higher standard by non-believers and rightly so. But it's a two way street. If the left claim to be so loving and tolerant they should act like it. Cuomo should resign. He is a disgrace. As we say in Naples dialect, he is a sfacim!
 
JoeBrooklyn said:
Ok, well he said that people who are against abortion and homosexual life style and are for guns dont belong in NY. Is that tolerant? Imagine if a Republican would have said anyone who supports homosexuality and abortion doesnt belong in my state?
See Jim, as a Christian (crappy as I am) I am often held to a higher standard by non-believers and rightly so. But it's a two way street. If the left claim to be so loving and tolerant they should act like it. Cuomo should resign. He is a disgrace. As we say in Naples dialect, he is a sfacim!
Click to expand...

Are you inferring that I'm a Democrat lol?
 
JoeBrooklyn said:
I've read parts of it. The jest of it is that just like man evolved, he can devolve and then he says something that in my opinion is very racist. He says that black people are proof of devolution. If any Christian or right winger would have said anything like this he would have never been quoted by anyone ever again.
Click to expand...

That is an ad homiem. I am unaware of the context of that comment so cant really comment on the appropriateness of it or not but I am inclined to think it was based on empirical evidence. As to the " If any Christian or right winger would have said anything like this he would have never been quoted by anyone ever again", just because someone said something stupid before (and not saying Darwins comment was) it does not invalidate everything else they say. For example if Sarah Palin says 2+2=4 that does not become unture because she is a moron and says ridiculous things. When someone makes a statement, the statement should be evaluated, not the person making them

JoeBrooklyn said:
But yes I do know what you mean about fruitless debates; but I'm a gluten for punishment, especially when it comes to economics because I feel there is more empirical evidence but those turn fruitless many times as well. I live in NYC, so if I shunned everyone who didn't agree with me I would be very alone. I enjoy debating; what i dont enjoy is when personal attacks come.
Click to expand...

I am going to be in NY tomorrow at the Hayden planetarium. They have a pretty cool evolution exhibit. As a NY native you should go check it out ;)

JoeBrooklyn said:
What church did you meet your wife in? I saw on your profile you are hispanic, where are your ancestors from?
Click to expand...

My grandfather is a protestant, my grandmother is pentecostal, my father is catholic, my mother is non-denominational, my father in-law was a baptist pastor and my wife was baptist. I am puerto rican (since you're from NY you prolly have an idea of how religious and stubborn the individuals of my ethnicity can be ;) ) my father grandfather, and grandmother are from puerto rico and my great grandfather is from Portugal. I went to a number of various denominational churches while growing up ultimately ending up at my moms church for the bulk of my life. In which I was very active in the church as was my wife. She went to a christian school and was on the bible verse quiz team! My walk away from religion is not due to a lack of exposure thats for sure.

Does that satisfy your inquiry?
 
JoeBrooklyn said:
No, I have no idea what you are but I was referring to what you said about Touey. If he's not tolerant, are the people on the left?
Click to expand...

Is he a Republican?


I don't think either side are tolerant, they're both intolerant (along with a large amount of Americans in general) just about different things.

I'm not claiming that one side is any more tolerant than the other, so I'm not sure where that came from.
 
JudoJosh said:
That is an ad homiem. I am unaware of the context of that comment so cant really comment on the appropriateness of it or not but I am inclined to think it was based on empirical evidence. As to the " If any Christian or right winger would have said anything like this he would have never been quoted by anyone ever again", just because someone said something stupid before (and not saying Darwins comment was) it does not invalidate everything else they say. For example if Sarah Palin says 2+2=4 that does not become unture because she is a moron and says ridiculous things. When someone makes a statement, the statement should be evaluated, not the person making them



I am going to be in NY tomorrow at the Hayden planetarium. They have a pretty cool evolution exhibit. As a NY native you should go check it out ;)



My grandfather is a protestant, my grandmother is pentecostal, my father is catholic, my mother is non-denominational, my father in-law was a baptist pastor and my wife was baptist. I am puerto rican (since you're from NY you prolly have an idea of how religious and stubborn the individuals of my ethnicity can be ;) ) my father grandfather, and grandmother are from puerto rico and my great grandfather is from Portugal. I went to a number of various denominational churches while growing up ultimately ending up at my moms church for the bulk of my life. In which I was very active in the church as was my wife. She went to a christian school and was on the bible verse quiz team! My walk away from religion is not due to a lack of exposure thats for sure.

Does that satisfy your inquiry?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that because someone says something stupid it doesnt invalidate everything they say. But the left does that all the time. Case in point. In the 1990's there was a book written called "The Bell Curve". The book was probably 500 pages, in 1 page he says that the bell curve shows that the average white and the average black's IQ is virtually the same but those who have higher IQs tend to be white or asian. For that he was labeled a racist and the Bell Curve has been subject of much debate.
So your Great Grand Parents on your Father's side are Puerto-Rican? What about your Father's Mother? And what about your Mom?
Many of my friends are Puerto-Rican, one is one of my best friends. They are jealous because I can dance Salsa better than them. I only learned Salsa because I wanted to get better at Bachata (which I love) and after going to a couple of Bachata socials I saw that even there they played Salsa. So I couldn't escape it so I decided to just learn. Now I like Salsa (not as much as Bachata). I mostly like Colombian Salsa.
 
jimbuick said:
Is he a Republican?


I don't think either side are tolerant, they're both intolerant (along with a large amount of Americans in general) just about different things.

I'm not claiming that one side is any more tolerant than the other, so I'm not sure where that came from.
Click to expand...

Ok. :)
 
JoeBrooklyn said:
Yes, I agree that because someone says something stupid it doesnt invalidate everything they say. But the left does that all the time. Case in point. In the 1990's there was a book written called "The Bell Curve". The book was probably 500 pages, in 1 page he says that the bell curve shows that the average white and the average black's IQ is virtually the same but those who have higher IQs tend to be white or asian. For that he was labeled a racist and the Bell Curve has been subject of much debate.
Click to expand...

You keep defaulting to this false dichotomy. Issues should not be twisted into a democrat vs republican thing. Similar to an ad hominem, it is an attempt to discredit something based on the person and not the issue. I could care less what the republicans or democrats have said or done. Making broad statements like that does not help you, if anything it makes you appear to be biased. There are going to be examples of extremist in any group you pick. Using them to paint the entire group as bad is silly.

JoeBrooklyn said:
So your Great Grand Parents on your Father's side are Puerto-Rican? What about your Father's Mother? And what about your Mom?
Click to expand...

fathers mom was from Puerto Rico and my mother was born in America.

JoeBrooklyn said:
Many of my friends are Puerto-Rican, one is one of my best friends. They are jealous because I can dance Salsa better than them. I only learned Salsa because I wanted to get better at Bachata (which I love) and after going to a couple of Bachata socials I saw that even there they played Salsa. So I couldn't escape it so I decided to just learn. Now I like Salsa (not as much as Bachata). I mostly like Colombian Salsa.
Click to expand...

I dance neither lol.. but am familiar with the music
 
JudoJosh said:
You keep defaulting to this false dichotomy. Issues should not be twisted into a democrat vs republican thing. Similar to an ad hominem, it is an attempt to discredit something based on the person and not the issue. I could care less what the republicans or democrats have said or done. Making broad statements like that does not help you, if anything it makes you appear to be biased.



fathers mom was from Puerto Rico and my mother was born in America.



I dance neither lol.. but am familiar with the music
Click to expand...

Now a days I dont believe there is much of a dichotomy to speak of. I dont believe the sides are left versus right anymore. Its more of a square, where the upper left quadrant is Statist, the upper right quadrant is facist, the lower left is liberal-libertarian and the lower right is conservative-libertarian.
As for bias, you can be bias and still be right. I like lifting weights. If someone came up to me and said: Joe what should I do to lose weight? And I said: You should lift weights. I am bias but not necessarily wrong.
So your Mom is not Puerto-Rican?
Both my parents were born in Italy. I was born in NYC.
 
Touey said:
Honestly after reading one post of whom you speak why read more, I have not, it is not about tolerance...we need not tolerate things we feel wrong. you and josh continue to push this world view upon the forum why?
Click to expand...

Josh and I did not create this thread. We merely defended a position we believe in. It differs from yours and you say we are pushing things on the forum? Why because it isn't what you believe? How are you not pushing your views on me? When it is someone you agree with like Joe or BigT it's preach on brother, but when Josh and I post we are pushing something on you?

I didn't start this thread and I didn't make Phil Robertson say ridiculous things. I just stated how I feel. I have done that in a clear, concise, and respectful manner. Your opinion is of no more value than mine is and you haven't articulated your position in a way to make me change how I feel.

Very illogical position to take t....especially from the side that says I will burn in hell if I don't believe something. If that's not pushy I don't know what is.

Then again, you are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't say I'm pushing views when you're pushing yours right back in this thread.
 
Piston Honda said:
Doesn't feel good to be discriminated against, does it? Too bad homosexuality isn't a choice like Christianity is. There's still hope we can change you all.

I don't think Mr. Duck thinks of things along those lines.
Click to expand...

Dude you're so ridiculous. Not only are you making fun of Christians but now you're lumping us all together. You realize your argument for tolerance has just failed? you ask me how it feels? Feels great! Jesus warned we would be persecuted. Totally fine with it bruh. When I think about my God and what he as done for me...I don't have a choice, any choice at all but to worship him and thank him for what he did for me. BOOM!
 
fightbackhxc said:
Not only are you making fun of Christians but now you're lumping us all together. You realize your argument for tolerance has just failed? you ask me how it feels? Feels great! Jesus warned we would be persecuted. Totally fine with it bruh. When I think about my God and what he as done for me...I don't have a choice, any choice at all but to worship him and thank him for what he did for me.
Click to expand...

I am going to add this to my favourite quotes file
 
Geoforce said:
Josh and I did not create this thread. We merely defended a position we believe in. It differs from yours and you say we are pushing things on the forum? Why because it isn't what you believe? How are you not pushing your views on me? When it is someone you agree with like Joe or BigT it's preach on brother, but when Josh and I post we are pushing something on you?

I didn't start this thread and I didn't make Phil Robertson say ridiculous things. I just stated how I feel. I have done that in a clear, concise, and respectful manner. Your opinion is of no more value than mine is and you haven't articulated your position in a way to make me change how I feel.

Very illogical position to take t....especially from the side that says I will burn in hell if I don't believe something. If that's not pushy I don't know what is.

Then again, you are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't say I'm pushing views when you're pushing yours right back in this thread.
Click to expand...

Geo you are a patient man but you see God may judge Nations for the sins of men we must do our utmost for His highest to bring the Truth of Him who loves us all to the light
 
fightbackhxc said:
Dude you're so ridiculous. Not only are you making fun of Christians but now you're lumping us all together. You realize your argument for tolerance has just failed? you ask me how it feels? Feels great! Jesus warned we would be persecuted. Totally fine with it bruh. When I think about my God and what he as done for me...I don't have a choice, any choice at all but to worship him and thank him for what he did for me. BOOM!
Click to expand...

Amen!!
 
Touey said:
Geo you are a patient man but you see God may judge Nations for the sins of men we must do our utmost for His highest to bring the Truth of Him who loves us all to the light
Click to expand...

God is responsible for sin. Couldn't he have not made Lucifer not be created with his innate pride? Why then doesn't God stop evil? Is he sadistic, or evil?

Your theology fails on so many levels. God didn't stop Adam and Eve from disobeying Him when He knew they would...then much later to fix ALL OF MANKIND (punished for what 2 people did? How sadistic) He sends His SON to Earth to be crucified.

GOD: Hmm...mankind is damned for something I could have prevented...Son, even though you're Me, I need you to go to Earth to be crucified.

JEEBUS: Why Dad?

GOD: It will solve the problem I created.

JEEBUS: How does me/you/us dying atone for everyone's sins? That's not logical. Because two people sinned, I have to die to fix that?

GOD:Umm...just go do it.


BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

Doesn't change the fact Mr. Duck said homosexuality leads to bestiality, plus girls should be married at 16. He never would advocate both if not for his religious beliefs. If you fail to see that, literally nothing else matters in this thread.
 
Touey said:
Geo you are a patient man but you see God may judge Nations for the sins of men we must do our utmost for His highest to bring the Truth of Him who loves us all to the light
Click to expand...

People like myself, Josh, and Geo do our utmost to bring the truth of logic and reason all to the light.
 
BoneDaddy said:
I like how abortion is so wrong but it's very cool that God murdered his son. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

Christians believe in retroactive abortions. Aka crusades, ethnic cleansing in the name of God (Old Testament), etc.
 
Touey said:
Geo you are a patient man but you see God may judge Nations for the sins of men we must do our utmost for His highest to bring the Truth of Him who loves us all to the light
Click to expand...

If God judges nations for the sins of men then God can judge nations for the sins of men. I don't think we should make laws based on what some people think is correct and incorrect.

I get that feeling from the United States Constitution which never mentions Jesus and only talks about religion in the sense to say that we should be tolerant of all religions and someone's beliefs can't keep them from running for public office.

The founding fathers were on the side of religious freedom so I feel it's pretty dang ok to be on that side as well. Being a believer in America is absolutely fine with me and always will be. It's only when someone believes their religion is better than someone else's and we should use that persons religion to make public policy.
 
JoeBrooklyn said:
The same people who are so pro homosexual also happen to be pro trillion dollar deficits, pro bigger government, pro open boarders pro Sharia Law even!! If your side wins, the secularists will not take over. The Islamists or Satist will and when they do homosexuals and hetrosexuals will not be in a better society they will be in a worse one. Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

So this is a bit old, but is a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy is when someone makes an argument by trying to tell everyone all the bad stuff that WILL happen if one thing happens. It's a very common mistake in logic. When desegregation (or any big social change really) was talked about many people said "if you let blacks and whites in the same school all this horrible stuff will happen." It wasn't correct then and it isn't correct now.

I live in Kansas which is as conservative as it gets. If gay marriage was allowed tomorrow you know what would happen? Jack ****. We'd still be governed by far right Republicans. We'd still have some budget issues. We'd still vote Republican in the 2016 election. We'd have all the same problems and all the same good things in our state as before. The only difference is the people in my state who are gay would gain the right to do something.

It's quite common from the fear mongers to use the slippery slope fallacy. It's how they sell books, get hits on their websites, etc. 17 states allow gay marriage right now. In those 17 states it's not anarchy. We don't have people running around the streets setting houses on fire. We don't have kids who decided to be gay instead of straight. None of that stuff.

And if Kansas changed TODAY none of that stuff would happen either. It's a common arguing mistake. Saying if gays get rights all the sudden Sharia Law will be the order of the day in America isn't based on anything logical. It's based on what some talking head has said over and over so he can sell fear. The people who make the most money on the left and the right in political discussions are those that sell fear the best.
 
Geoforce said:
If God judges nations for the sins of men then God can judge nations for the sins of men. I don't think we should make laws based on what some people think is correct and incorrect.

I get that feeling from the United States Constitution which never mentions Jesus and only talks about religion in the sense to say that we should be tolerant of all religions and someone's beliefs can't keep them from running for public office.

The founding fathers were on the side of religious freedom so I feel it's pretty dang ok to be on that side as well. Being a believer in America is absolutely fine with me and always will be. It's only when someone believes their religion is better than someone else's and we should use that persons religion to make public policy.
Click to expand...

Amen.

People being opposed to gay marriage baffles me. I have yet to see 1 logical answer in here as to why gay people can't get married. Because you don't like it and it's immoral? Then don't marry another man. Because your religious views say they shouldnt? What other views of the Bible are you not living by? How exactly does gay people having the same rights as everyone else affect you in a negative manner? Can someone please just answer that question in a common sense way? I've seen all the rhetoric and what not......but just how exactly? And why does your belief trump those of gay people?
 
All of their counterarguments to our logic comes from a book we deny on its illogical merits.
 
BoneDaddy said:
Amen.

People being opposed to gay marriage baffles me. I have yet to see 1 logical answer in here as to why gay people can't get married. Because you don't like it and it's immoral? Then don't marry another man. Because your religious views say they shouldnt? What other views of the Bible are you not living by? How exactly does gay people having the same rights as everyone else affect you in a negative manner? Can someone please just answer that question in a common sense way? I've seen all the rhetoric and what not......but just how exactly? And why does your belief trump those of gay people?
Click to expand...

Who knows. I think by nature it isn't a position of logic so it's tough to argue.

I have absolutely no problem with people being morally opposed to homosexuality. I have no problem with a religious person saying "man I'm against it." I only have a problem when people think that what they believe is somehow better than what someone else believes and therefore public policy should be what THEY want. That doesn't get us anywhere because we all want all public policy to be based on exactly what WE want. Hell I'd like a law that says the first 500 dollars any American makes goes directly to Geoforce! :)

The Constitution says not to make public policy based on religion. In a perfect world none of our politicians would tell anyone what religion they are because it ISN'T supposed to matter. A mormon, a catholic, an atheist, a buddhist, a muslim, a devil worshipper, whatever. All have the exact same right to hold political office. For a lot of people who seem to want to talk about "the good old days" we seem to be ignoring the founding document of this nation.

It's 2014. We're still against "all men are created equal?" Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top