The gay attack on religion is dangerous

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here...are you stating that every coupling should be allowed these 1000 benefits? Or are you claiming that you should get to decide what a "Fake" couple is?

Perhaps that there should be a "Fertility Clause" added to marriage certificates, or that the Government should monitor sexual activity and regulate it?

Seriously, you are not making sense at all.

 

Well, in order so that this doesn't devolve into a yes-it-is-no-it-ain't argument, let me sum up my position.

You have not shown in any way that having two parents is a right. You have provided no proof whatsoever and I have found that there is nothing common about sense.

You have also not shown that having same-sex parents are in any way harmful to children and I'm talking about two parent homes, not single parent homes.

 

Fertility clause cannot be added to certificate, because you do not know in advance which couple is fertile and you cannot discriminate.

 

Hardly any need for that, as the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your position has been clear from the outset.

I've provided way more substantiation than I should have to, which is none.

That can only be because for all practical purposes, you haven't got any - which would certainly explain your slack-jawed credulity when it comes to the pronouncements of psychological authority figures.

 

In order for it to be a false equivalency, it actually has to be false. Turds are found in nature as well. Lots of undesirable things are found in nature. Your argument is hollow.

When I'm discriminated against, I find other avenues. When you are discriminated against, you whine to Big Brother.

Of course I would care. I, however, respect the free association rights of the other party to find other avenues. You, on the other hand, are arrogant enough to demand that such a person be forced to deal with you.

Your reaction is totalitarian.

 

Meh. If that is the best you've got, then you have my sympathies.

 

Please do yourself a favor and actually look of the meanings of terms before you try to argue against them.

At least I don't go whining to Big Brother to make laws to protect me from the scary gays.

Easy to say until it really happens to you.

It is funny, that is what the liberals of the 60's used to use against the conservatives. Now the conservatives try and use it against the liberals. Figures, some people have no imagination.

 

Unaware that Gays as a group are attacking religion. I would say it is more the Socialists and radical left that puts religion at the bottom of importance. The basic principle of the majority of religions is to value like. That is a good thing. And, to value and respect all people. Also a good thing. And, to respect their right to their own opinions even when they don't agree with yours. Healthy and also a good thing.

I will say that if you read and believe what is written in both the old and new testaments, Jesus never condemned individuals for their actions, but he also didn't condone all of their actions, rather he preached to them how they should conduct their lives.

Only if our Government could take the same approach instead of passing laws that force us to follow rules and regulations we don't agree with. To live our lives how they, the Government wants and not how we believe is correct or within our human rights.

 

The biggest hypocrisy is that they don't seem to be attacking black churches who are more virulent about their hostility towards homosexuals than some conservative Christians.

 

There are lots of people other than gays who prefer that religion should have No role in politics
I am not gay, nor anti religious, but i do find certain assertive religious people and views to be repugnant. For example those who claim a religious proof that the world is 6000 years old----and insist this lunacy be taught as science in schools-----and who claim victimhood if this demand is rejected.

I was raised by deeply religious parents and find many admirable things in religion. But imo the entire logic of faith is based on a personal decision. And that decision loses its meaning when it is foisted upon people--- which is inevitably the consequence of mixing religion with governance.

This view is not uncommon. It far preceded the gay rights movement.

Characterizing this view as the evil spawn of homosexuals is profoundly delusional--- and illustrates a personality profoundly deformed by pathological homophobia. Sadly the disturbed mind invariably defends its psychosis as a point of pride based upon recognician of fundamental moral, religious, or patriotic principals.

I expect Your fulminating hysterical response which is the involuntary and totally predictable response of your crippled soul

 

I like your response, except for one minor flaw.

Faith is not logical. That's why it's faith.

And you're right, it really does lose a lot of meaning when it is imposed on people, and so does morality.

A hell of a lot of the times morality and religion are just excuses to hurt people.

 

Rules and regs are required exactly when unencumbered human inclinations are inadequate
Up to this point the government has had few rule protecting homosexuals

One would hope for a christ like response to that lack of rules
But the opposite is the case
Lack of civil rghts law has seen pernicious civil rghts abuses

 

If Christ did actually come back he'd go after the Christians who are acting like the Pharisees he was so very critical of, and they'd try to get rid of him too.

Not much has actually changed in two thousand years of human social evolution.

Greed ruled back then just as it ruled now.

And anybody who gets in the way of that greed gets stomped.

 

Hell...if the Christ came back today, he would defiinately be Atheist.

 

I think I agree.

Remember, the Christians claims atheist is against religion, so since he would be against them and their religion, he would be an atheist.

And also remember, a lot of Christians and Islamicists are against every other religion but their own, so that makes them an atheist too.

 

And of course religions-particularly the evangelising variety-don't have an agenda; that being the conversion of people into a cult of mythology, prejudice and bigotry?

 

Good! The removal of bigotry, hatred, ignorance and basic dumb stupidity can only be a positive move. I despise organised religions and the less they seek intrude into the lives of normal people the better. Do I need a grinning idiot banging on my door of a weekend, asking me if I spoke to a invisible being that day?

 

As if anyone with a lick of sense gives a damn for your "sympathies".

I guess no one should be surprised that an atheist thinks He'd be retarded enough to forget just Who enabled Him to come back in the first place.

 

Your lack of understanding, rational thought, and humor are very clear. YOUR "God" is very clearly not his God...and thus he would not follow it, which would mean he is an Atheist in your feeble little mind. Every Muslim, Christian, Mormon, Hindu...etc...has their own version of this thing you refer to as "God", and it is absolutely impossible they are all correct. That being said, YOU are Atheist to every Muslim and they are all Atheist to you. Jesus would not believe in your God either, as it clearly does not wish for you to do as he did.

 

the issue here, since your assertion patently rejects the possibility of His believing in any God whatsoever.

More to the point, they're all wrong, since God is not a contrivance of human imagination.

I'm well aware of how comforting a conceit that is for people like yourself, but you really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I like to think that there is a possibility that they all exist, every single one of them.

 

Okay then....please answer these questions for me.

If one does nor believe in anothers version of God are they a disbeliever?

Are disbelievers in God Atheists?

Do you see Muslims as disbelievers?

- - - Updated - - -

They obviously do....even if only in the minds of the followers.

 

No one is forcing you to accept or agree with it. However that doesn't give you the right to deny me the right to marry the man I love.
What is this "perversion" that you do not condone?

If I were wanting to purchase a cake for my wedding. I walk into your store and ask for a wedding cake. I don't tell you I'm gay and therefore you don't know I am. I want just a generic cake, no writing and no topper(I could care less about the topper to begin with). You take my order and on the day of my wedding, I pick it up. As I'm walking out I mention that my husband and I appreciate the cake. What would you do? You don't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. I'm sure this has happened or could happen. Not every gay man is flamboyant.

 

I mean otherwise.

After all, the Bible does say "thou shalt have no other gods before me for I thy god am a jealous god and will visit them in their iniquity".

So what if they all exist?

But probably not.

This is just something I like to think about on occasion.

In many ways I really would like there to be a real afterlife where the truly wicked and malevolent will get the justice they deserve and the honest and decent people get to go to a real heaven.

 

Personally I prefer snuggling with my husband. He is pretty cool to snuggle.