Homosexuality

[harper]

There was this pastor lady at my father's church that I was forced to go to once and she said that eventually Jesus will go into hell and take back all of his people because he loves us all so much that he doesn't want any of us to suffer eternally. Isn't that sweet. :p

[optmusprimenumber]

i can guarantee with as much certainty as one can muster to the contrary that nobody's gonna "burn in hell eternally" for putting anything in their butt

don't try to save them, let their proctologist handle that

[lisalover1]

Don't try to save them, let their proctologist handle that

[s1mplehumar]

Don't try to save them, let their proctologist handle that

LMAO.

[flex wood]

Million to one shot doc, million to one shot.

[DinnerX]

You can set up a chain of logic that creates a particular secular law. A religious-only law cannot (it relies on a divine postulate to kick things off). Essentially, regardless of what non-scientific and non-factual beliefs that someone has you can construct a system of laws.

You can set up a chain of logic, but I still can't think of a way it doesn't start off without a belief about freedom, stability, fairness etc. I think this is evident by the large number of secular viewpoints. It certainly can't be said that all nonreligious people agree on how the government should work.

You can arrive at stability by starting with the postulates "I want to live" and "Other people exist". Fairness arises from the fact that other people start from the same place. Freedom automatically goes out the window when you introduce government, by its very nature.

How do you know one can get "stability" or "fairness" (both pretty subjective words particularly "fairness") by starting with a belief about human behavior? As I said, the huge range of thought on the matter would seem to indicate there is more belief involved.

I have tried in this thread to point out the similar attitude between the opposing sides. Both sides adamantly believe their perspective (and when I say perspective I mean their entire view of the world) is correct and are willing to act on it. Neither side is provable. I had hoped to promote understanding. That does not seem to be the current effect, so I suppose I really ought to quit. I apologize for the abruptness, but I really don't see this discussion going anywhere new now. I feel like I've already repeated myself a few times and made some unduly harsh comments.

Thanks to all those involved for sharing their perspective. The effort has been thought provoking and is appreciated. I really do enjoy seeing what you racketeers think.

*Hops into a swirling vortex.*

[dsheinem]

It seems odd to me that DinnerX and mjm have both bowed out, given that they have been the strongest proponents for their (mostly shared) point of view...

[BoringSupreez]

It seems odd to me that DinnerX and mjm have both bowed out, given that they have been the strongest proponents for their (mostly shared) point of view...

Well, like DinnerX said, the discussion isn't going anywhere anymore.

[mjmjr25]

I have tried in this thread to point out the similar attitude between the opposing sides. Both sides adamantly believe their perspective (and when I say perspective I mean their entire view of the world) is correct and are willing to act on it. Neither side is provable. I had hoped to promote understanding. That does not seem to be the current effect, so I suppose I really ought to quit. I apologize for the abruptness, but I really don't see this discussion going anywhere new now.

I agree. We hit the wall a few pages back. I think you articulated your view well, and it is quite similar to mine, and many others on this site who didn't participate in the conversation

If nothing else, I'm glad that for the vast majority of posting, the thread was on topic and respectful. Certainly passionate, but not ad hominen.

[mjmjr25]

It seems odd to me that DinnerX and mjm have both bowed out, given that they have been the strongest proponents for their (mostly shared) point of view...

Odd? We're repeating ourselves, Dave.

You state you don't see how there is a victim, I do.
You state it should be a secular issue, I don't. There are in fact, no secular issues, in the grand scheme.
You view it is a "civil rights issue", akin to being black, or old, or poor. I don't.

I've explained why I don't, repeatedly. Either i'm not a good rhetorician, or the audience isn't willing to look at the other side. In either case, I don't see much point in making the same post over and over.