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

[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.

Marriage is a social construct that can be changed. Just like at some point it was decided that monogamy was the proper way to do things, even though polygamy was the way it was done for most of history. Including pedophilia. If we can change that, we can change it so all consenting adults can get married, regardless of gender. Because they're adults. If you can't make a good argument for it being wrong, it shouldn't be wrong.

That is your opinion. Christians believe it was ordained by God. I couldn't care less if you agree--just wanted to clarify the near constant mischaracterization of the belief.

[Amarok]

That is your opinion. Christians believe it was ordained by God.

Nope yours is just an opinion 

 I couldn't care less if you agree--

And we couldn't care less about your  sacred maoning 

just wanted to clarify the near constant mischaracterization of the belief.

Too bad it wasn't 

[Chad32]

Marriage is a social construct that can be changed. Just like at some point it was decided that monogamy was the proper way to do things, even though polygamy was the way it was done for most of history. Including pedophilia. If we can change that, we can change it so all consenting adults can get married, regardless of gender. Because they're adults. If you can't make a good argument for it being wrong, it shouldn't be wrong.

That is your opinion. Christians believe it was ordained by God. I couldn't care less if you agree--just wanted to clarify the near constant mischaracterization of the belief.

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.

[Minimalist]

Too bad you can't produce evidence that your god exists and your fucking bible was not written by primitive fuckheads who spent most of their time picking goat shit out from between their toes.

[Amarok]

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.

Marriage is a social construct that can be changed. Just like at some point it was decided that monogamy was the proper way to do things, even though polygamy was the way it was done for most of history. Including pedophilia. If we can change that, we can change it so all consenting adults can get married, regardless of gender. Because they're adults. If you can't make a good argument for it being wrong, it shouldn't be wrong.

But chad the just "your opinion " 

[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.

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.

---

That is your opinion. Christians believe it was ordained by God. I couldn't care less if you agree--just wanted to clarify the near constant mischaracterization of the belief.

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? 

I think you confuse the redefining of of the word 'marriage'. You can't understand why religious people have a hard time redefining that word given their belief system?

[Amarok]

That is your opinion. Christians believe it was ordained by God. I couldn't care less if you agree--just wanted to clarify the near constant mischaracterization of the belief.

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.

Now watch Steve throw up a wall of text that demonstrates nothing in hope of bamboozling us with his "cleverness" (bullshit assertions)

---

ho said anything about basing laws on it? 

I think you confuse the redefining of of the word 'marriage'. You can't understand why religious people have a hard time redefining that word given their belief system?

Yes i can they are ignorant and bigoted and cling to antiquated bullshit .

[Joods]

It would help the case of religious people if they could make a rational argument for the immorality of gay sex. But they can't do that. That's why it's bigoted.

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.

[Anomalocaris]

Marriage is a social construct that can be changed. Just like at some point it was decided that monogamy was the proper way to do things, even though polygamy was the way it was done for most of history. Including pedophilia. If we can change that, we can change it so all consenting adults can get married, regardless of gender. Because they're adults. If you can't make a good argument for it being wrong, it shouldn't be wrong.

That is your opinion. Christians believe it was ordained by God. I couldn't care less if you agree--just wanted to clarify the near constant mischaracterization of the belief.

That you believe your opinion was ordained by god does not either make god exist, or that to be anything more than your opinion.  “God” is just your way of raising voices and posturing when confronted with the lack of persuasiveness of your opinion.   You can not stand what you believe firmly reflects badly on you, so you like other bullies fantasize about a big daddy who will beat up for you anyone who thinks badly of you for holding the opinions you do.

[RoadRunner79]

No;   If you mean that I think that homosexual activity is a sin and immoral.   I don't think that disagreement or thinking that something is wrong, means that you are intolerant.  When you loosen the definition that much, then you are a bigot as well.  

I think it's poor polemics to stretch the definition of emotionally charged words, and then go on to equivocating them afterwards.

*TWEET*  10-yard penalty for tu quoque fallacy on the field.

If you think that someone is immoral, RR, then whether it's opinion or bigotry is irrelevant.  Both are red flags useful for identifying hostile people so that they can be weeded out of one's circle of acquaintances.

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.

Edit to add: I wouldn’t be so hostile as to say that I wouldn’t or couldn’t be acquaintances with someone who is homosexual. That to me, seems more like intolerance.