Started By
Message
re: Indiana Religious Freedom Bill
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:33 pm to the808bass
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:33 pm to the808bass
quote:
They like the conference of legitimacy of society upon their relationships.
Obviously. Is that a negative?
What is the down side of society embracing their lifestyle as legitimate?
2
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:39 pm to Duke
God won't like it and will turn his back on America.
No really, that's why. Every other reason is a direct or indirect extension of that belief.
No really, that's why. Every other reason is a direct or indirect extension of that belief.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:37 pm to Duke
quote:
Obviously. Is that a negative? What is the down side of society embracing their lifestyle as legitimate?
Is it an expedient form of the marriage relationship? Will it give more stability to the society or less?
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:46 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
God won't like it and will turn his back on America. No really, that's why. Every other reason is a direct or indirect extension of that belief.
You're typically shitty at theology. I don't see any difference in that predilection in this post.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 4:54 pm to the808bass
Opposing gay marriage in 2015 is synonymous with religious belief. Is that a coincidence? Perhaps, but the correlation is incredibly strong.
Now if you are suggesting that religious people can come up with reasons that superficially appear to be unrelated to their belief in God then I agree. However, I assert only those with predetermined beliefs go to the effort of coming up with such convoluted reasoning. Nobody else sees the need to fit such a square peg into a round glory hole.
Now if you are suggesting that religious people can come up with reasons that superficially appear to be unrelated to their belief in God then I agree. However, I assert only those with predetermined beliefs go to the effort of coming up with such convoluted reasoning. Nobody else sees the need to fit such a square peg into a round glory hole.
This post was edited on 3/27/15 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 3/27/15 at 5:03 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
However, I assert only those with predetermined beliefs go to the effort of coming up with such convoluted reasoning
It's not convoluted reasoning. It's just foreign to you because you've swallowed the blue pill.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 5:07 pm to the808bass
The seemingly non-religious reasons (gay parents are bad for kids, society is built upon one man/one woman unions, slippery slope, etc.) require such a distortion of the evidence and history that I don't see any reason fro one to go through the trouble unless they were trying to make their religious belief seem more legitimate.
I've never met a single non-religious person make the argument that gay marriage shouldn't be legal because THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
I've never met a single non-religious person make the argument that gay marriage shouldn't be legal because THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 5:15 pm to Roger Klarvin
OMG!! Roger says it's a distortion.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 5:27 pm to the808bass
Exhibit A
LINK
A "non-religious" case made by a notoriously religious writer which includes (among other things) distortion of facts, outright lies and round about theology dressed up as social reality.
No non-religious person would ever have the lack of shame necessary to try and write such a thing regarding this topic.
LINK
A "non-religious" case made by a notoriously religious writer which includes (among other things) distortion of facts, outright lies and round about theology dressed up as social reality.
No non-religious person would ever have the lack of shame necessary to try and write such a thing regarding this topic.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 5:31 pm to the808bass
quote:
Is it an expedient form of the marriage relationship?
Two people (or more since adoption is a thing people do) sharing resources to build a family. Seems like a good use of the relationship to me.
quote:
Will it give more stability to the society or less?
Likely won't make a difference. If anything a slight positive of having more families.
What downsides do you foresee?
Posted on 3/27/15 at 5:38 pm to the808bass
quote:
Will it give more stability to the society or less?
In the short term, it would be de-stabilizing due to all the court battles and protests. However that is purely a product of social conservative resistance and not an inherent result of gay marriage. The de-stabilizing effect social conservatives fear is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a scenario which they themselves would create in response.
In the long-term, it would be stabilizing because eventually people will move on, the baby boomers will die off and (hopefully) Christian entities would stop believing it is better for children to grow up without any parents than with gay ones. More families, less money spent fighting it in court on both sides and a populace which can more easily focus on the political issues that matter.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 5:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
No non-religious person would ever have the lack of shame necessary to try and write such a thing regarding this topic.
You must live in a catatonic state.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 6:32 pm to the808bass
I'm listening
Posted on 3/27/15 at 6:34 pm to Roger Klarvin
Your hyperbole gets the best of you. I would agree that that was a shitty blog article with a lot of nonsense in it. To argue no one who's not religious would argue anything so foolish ignores mountains of evidence on this very website.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 6:37 pm to the808bass
Not ANYTHING so foolish, only something so foolish regarding gay marriage. It is an inherently religious opposition.
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News