"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Brian37]

Guess what Franky, we are NOT a theocracy so it doesn't mater what you fucking think!

[Chad32]

In your version of your religion. Why should your version of religion be law? And, 'it's a sin in my religion' is not a rational argument for why something should not be allowed.

The logic is perfect.

---

If you want to follow a book written by men, claiming to be inspired by a deity that hasn't been proven to be true, then that's your prerogative. It doesn't mean we should base laws on it.

Who said anything about basing laws on it?

Just about the entire evangelical base. The people who actually made it illegal in the US. The people fighting against the supreme court's recent decision to make it legal. Pick a group, assuming it's not all just one group. And if no one ever made laws against it, or planned to, or harrased people for doing it, then whether or not it's immoral is kind of a moot point.

[Amarok]

I’m not arguing a tu torque fallacy. That would be saying that it is right, because you do it too. This is more argumentum ad absudum, that if you weaken the definition so that everyone is a bigot, then it is basically meaningless. 

Unless you are saying it is wrong for anyone to tell another that they are wrong. Which is a logically suicidal arguement.

And this statement is rubbish .You don't like being called a bigot when you are one and that's is all .Every other bigots pulling this same trick to get off the hook .

[RoadRunner79]

Guess what Franky, we are NOT a theocracy so it doesn't mater what you fucking think!

No we are a democratic republic which means it does matter what he thinks.

[Amarok]

No we are a democratic republic which means it does matter what he thinks.

Nope his religious opinions hold zero sway in any meaningful sense . He might as well have just said blah blah blah it would be the same .

[SteveII]

There should at least be an attempt to correctly characterize the other side's position in a civil discussion.

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.
2. Sexual immorality is sex outside of marriage.
3. Sexual immorality is a sin.
4. Homosexual activity is outside of marriage (from 1)
5. Homosexual activity is a sin (from 2 and 3). 

Then again, there are very few that want to have a discussion...and even less at AF.

I hate to burst your bubble there, Steve, but marriage and religion are not exclusive to one another. The NAI had marriage ceremonies long before the white man showed up. They didn't even know the Abrahamic god existed until the pilgrims came here. Furthermore, they married any two people who loved one another - not just man and woman. So your first statement is false. 2-5 are merely the opinions of your religion.

The bubble is intact. I was clearly replying to and describing a Christian belief. #1 is a perfect characterization of that belief.

[Anomalocaris]

I hate to burst your bubble there, Steve, but marriage and religion are not exclusive to one another. The NAI had marriage ceremonies long before the white man showed up. They didn't even know the Abrahamic god existed until the pilgrims came here. Furthermore, they married any two people who loved one another - not just man and woman. So your first statement is false. 2-5 are merely the opinions of your religion.

The bubble is intact. I was clearly replying to and describing a Christian belief. #1 is a perfect characterization of that belief.

That’s nice. Now move along.

[Amarok]

The bubble is intact.

Nope sanity is 

 I was clearly replying to and describing a Christian belief.

Which is derp 

 #1 is a perfect characterization of that belief.

Which is meaningless

[SteveII]

The logic is perfect.

---

Who said anything about basing laws on it?

Just about the entire evangelical base. The people who actually made it illegal in the US. The people fighting against the supreme court's recent decision to make it legal. Pick a group, assuming it's not all just one group. And if no one ever made laws against it, or planned to, or harrased people for doing it, then whether or not it's immoral is kind of a moot point.

More mischaracterizations. The "evangelical base" objects to redefining marriage. You edited out that part of my response. You can't possibly discuss this issue without understanding the other side's position. Again: can you understand their objection to that given their belief system?

[Amarok]

More mischaracterizations. The "evangelical base" objects to redefining marriage. You edited out that part of my response. You can't possibly discuss this issue without understanding the other side's position. Again: can you understand their objection to that given their belief system?

Yup it's based on ideological bigotry and ignorance and clinging to antiquated bullshit. And is worthy of zero respect .