Thread: Was Jesus Gay? Probably

Originally Posted by LokiGragg

Maybe I am, I can't help that. When looking at a religion, I first think of practical application, and I don't see it.

I agree, it is not a religion, it is a path to joy -the struggle keep negative thoughts out on a daily basis

Originally Posted by Loki

I agree, it is not a religion, it is a path to joy -the struggle keep negative thoughts out on a daily basis

Religion has a lot of stigma attached to it, particularly between atheists, and I think that's having a negative effect here. It's a system of faith, like the many we have, at the core though, they all agree on altruism.

Originally Posted by carpe diem

This is not about what goes on behind closed doors....

Of course it is. At least be man enough to stand behind your argument.

Adulterers and pedophiles are unique too.

Interesting that you should refer to pedophiles and adulterers together. Does that mean you consider heterosexual people who have sex with people other than their spouses to be morally the same as child molesters?

So...as usual...the liberals that say they are about tolerance, that they cherish our freedom of speech and our rights to disagree and dissent...Now state openly (and grossly hypocritically)favor in their particular cause or bent, the silencing of voices of dissent and disgreement.

I didn't disagree with your right to disagree. I just disagree with your opinion. Which you interpret as denying you a right to an opinion. Which naturally leads you to cry victim and claim that I am trying to muzzle you. Typical r/w extremist view. By the sounds of your argument you can't handle dissent. Definitely r/w extremist.

Originally Posted by kingrat

Why then do you insist on imbuing it with legal force, hmmmm?

I didn't. Society decided to grant legal force to spousal relationships long before I came on the scene. I only opine that gay spousal relationships not be treated legally different from other spousal relationships. I see no sense in it. It just opens the door to discrimination.

Originally Posted by wingrider

i see.. so here let me start if for you LOL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; unless a segment of the population deems the speech to be offensive, or abridging the freedom of speech, unless the speech is not in an approved form, or of the press; unless they make disparaging remarks about the government, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, unless they could be considered a impediment to what the government wishes to accomplish,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances as long as the government approves.

there that ought to do it.. i think I covered all the bases

Why must you go to the Constitution to define what is right and proper? If the Constitution permitted it would you approve of genocide? Can't you think for yourself?

Originally Posted by tubig

Why must you go to the Constitution to define what is right and proper? If the Constitution permitted it would you approve of genocide? Can't you think for yourself?

what? you cannot see sarcasm and tongue in cheek humaor whaen you see it?? awesome.

Originally Posted by wingrider

what? you cannot see sarcasm and tongue in cheek humaor whaen you see it?? awesome.

Nope, I saw no evidence of "humaor". You should know the Internet well enough by now that simply stating a stupid position is no guarantee that it, instead of you, will be seen as stupid. Where is the evidence that you were posting in jest?

Originally Posted by tubig

Nope, I saw no evidence of "humaor". You should know the Internet well enough by now that simply stating a stupid position is no guarantee that it, instead of you, will be seen as stupid. Where is the evidence that you were posting in jest?

here is what I wrote.. it was given in toungue in cheek to another poster who suggested we should rewrite the first amendment I jokingly changed hte first amendment and ask him if this would be what he wanted,, He and I were on the same page with this. YOu come along and interject yourself without knowing the context of the conversation and get all butt hurt and start yapping at me .. WHY..?



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; unless a segment of the population deems the speech to be offensive, or abridging the freedom of speech, unless the speech is not in an approved form, or of the press; unless they make disparaging remarks about the government, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, unless they could be considered a impediment to what the government wishes to accomplish,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances as long as the government approves. the red desigantes the changes in question.

Originally Posted by wingrider

here is what I wrote.. it was given in toungue in cheek to another poster who suggested we should rewrite the first amendment I jokingly changed hte first amendment and ask him if this would be what he wanted,, He and I were on the same page with this. YOu come along and interject yourself without knowing the context of the conversation and get all butt hurt and start yapping at me .. WHY..?

Why? Because it was there, of course. If you want a private conversation go somewhere private. I enjoy pulling the chains of rwnj's. I expect next you'll be citing constitutional property rights in your claim to a private conversation here.

Originally Posted by tubig

Why? Because it was there, of course. If you want a private conversation go somewhere private. I enjoy pulling the chains of rwnj's. I expect next you'll be citing constitutional property rights in your claim to a private conversation here.

whatever dude LMAO