RexMilotic

What? I believe equal opportunity also implies that those who take advantage of it should receive the benefits from it, not suffer from more taxes because of it. Instead everyone should have the same taxes, since that would be part of "equal opportunity". Read and understand the rest of the post? :roll: I read it, and I understood it. I was saying your logic sucks. Taxing the reach is not at all the most logical thing to do if you're supporting equal opportunity, so why even bother posting it if it contradicts your own views?

That's why I suggest getting something else, and maybe give cash with it. You can't really go wrong with cash imo, and if it's with something special, then it should work out.

Nearly every girl I know who claims to be bi actually mean that, they constantly flip flop the gender they're going out with. I honestly don't get how it works with girls, but for guys I know it's not something that you just choose to switch.

Cash. It normally works out really nice if you're really having a hard time. You could also get something cheap like a teddy bear and give cash also, then you'll have the nice cute gift and something else for that person.

What? I believe equal opportunity also implies that those who take advantage of it should receive the benefits from it, not suffer from more taxes because of it. Instead everyone should have the same taxes, since that would be part of "equal opportunity".

I could use one verse an attempt to defend it, but it's not worth the effort. Instead, the Bible speaks more of not allowing Jews to marry outside of Jews because of mixing religions and cultures.

This always bugs me... People have known that the Earth was round for centuries before Christianity. It wasn't discovered by the scientific elite, but by sailors (Phoenicians, unless I'm wrong) who noticed that boats disappear over the horizon. With the knowledge that it was curved an ancient Greek scientist whose well-known name escapes me was able to measure its diameter though. ...And I think that the interracial marriage thing was more based on racism than religion. There have been racist atheists too, look at H.P. Lovecraft, showing us that racism and religion aren't necessarily related... By we, I'm referring to anyone who doesn't just take what the book says and call it a fact. The interracial marriage is not allowed going by what the Bible says.

I had no problem at first with this thread, then I realized the author is trying to seem like an anarchist or failed rebel, something along those lines. Normally people like that don't understand what goes into law or economies. That is the perfect example. If there was no government, your money would be useless and wouldn't be able to get those services from those businesses. Then, if you did manage to get something, what happens if they scam you or cause you to get hurt? Are you going to sue them? You can't, because there's absolutely nothing preventing them from doing that,.

You weren't condescending in anyway fyi, and I agree with a lot of what you said. Except for one point. How is homosexuality in anyway not a choice? Admittedly someone raised by a homosexual parent/couple will be more inclined to it, but is still a choice. From whatever standpoint you look at it from, evolutionist or religious, it still doesn't make sense. From an evolutionist, gay couples can't reproduce, so if it was a gay gene it would more than likely die out. From a religious standpoint, you've probably heard many arguments why it's wrong. But here's another. You were right that sin is a choice, it's a warping of the things God intended for us. And as for the original sin, I think it's more of an ability to rebel against the Law, which is part of free will. And when you do look at a woman lustfully, it is considered the same as sleeping with that woman because in your heart you want to. It's the same with a man, if a man looks at a man and lusts after him, it's the same as him sleeping with him. It's not the act itself it's the intention behind the act. And from a Christian standpoint, even a non-denominational one(which I am too, meaning I take everything I believe directly from the bible and not from what some preacher said) marriage is solely between a man and woman, and it always has been, you can't deviate from that. And it's a sin to lust after someone other than your husband/wife. and as for the Ruth being a lesbian thing, I'll look into that, I have read Ruth as of yet, so I'm not sure. Although I'm not so sure it would matter much, seeing as Sinners run rampant in the bible. King David slept with someone other than his wife, and many other examples are everywhere in the bible. Just cause it's in the bible doesn't mean that God agrees with it. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite gender, or is that just how it is for you? The same thing goes for homosexuals. If it was a choice, then we wouldn't observe differences such as: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm between straight and gay people. As for the gay gene, instead of viewing it as one, view it as multiple different traits together. Those traits also have other effects, close relatives of gay person are more likely to produce more children, passing on the trait. Also, homosexuals can reproduce, why people ignore that I don't understand. From a religious standpoint, it doesn't matter. They would still believe the Earth is flat had we not corrected them. Marriage is not religious, a majority of things involved with marriage are actually due to the State. Also, your idea isn't the same as other religions, which others do allow marriage between male/male, female/female. Hell, we also had to force them to allow interracial marriage, because they're too incompetent to be allowed to run something such a marriage.

I'm not sure how you really need a different circumstance. They were cursed to be slaves by God, that alone is a good enough reason. Oh, sorry, I don't agree on that. I was referring to the parts in the Bible where after Israel (or another tribe\country) won a battle, they would enslave the losers. Oh, I'm referring after the Flood whenever Ham's family was cursed to be slaves by the family of the other brothers. Ham's family is also happened to be the family who moved into Africa after the Flood.

I'm not sure how you really need a different circumstance. They were cursed to be slaves by God, that alone is a good enough reason.

Umm, without coming off as a douche: I respect your opinion, however I beg to differ, allow me to explain. I was raised Presbyterian Christian, (Mother was Catholic, Father Free Methodist) and now I'm non denominational, which I like better. I believe as I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe as well: that everyone is born with original sin. From birth we are sinful, and need Jesus' forgiveness to become clean. However, after this point, I define sin as something that is done wrong, on purpose, and is morally, or faithfully incorrect, as well as unlawful by the laws in the establishment. (from stealing cookies from the cookie jar, to rape and murder in the big city.) No one is sinless save Jesus, because know one can overcome sin, though there are some that sin quite rarely, if you even look at a girl based on her body (based on some translations of the bible) that is considered lust, and is a sin. Ever miss church? Unless it was a complete accident, that is a sin (unless you are unable to get to church). These are on purpose, you chose to check out the girl's [wagon], or party Saturday night and miss church. Its your fault and no one else's (an exception is as stated there's no way to get there, like you have no ride etc.)you have put an idol before God, and sinned. Now, along the years, the Church has twisted the words of the Bible to promote Slavery, war and racism. (The Isrealites enslaved a tribe, therefore we can enslave Africans!) Without really even trying to get the real meaning out of a message. As posted on either this thread, or same sex marriage the Christian church used to not allow interracial marriages, etc. However, it has come to light that being of a different race is infact not a sin, as some honestly believed. If you are born black, you will stay black. Theres obviously nothing wrong with it, and you were born that way, you didn't choose it. Now I ask, whats the difference between being Gay, and being an African-American? They're both quite similar inthat they are not a choice, they're not 'inferior,' they're not detrimental to society and most certainly not a sin to be. If you say being Gay is unnatural, its tantamount to saying being black is unnatural. If I, and many others did not choose to be Gay, and no malicious ideas are behind us being gay, how is being gay a sin? Ever read the Bible? Ruth, a woman God dearly loved, was a lesbian. SAY WHAT. She even had a book dedicated to her. P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, or condescending etc. Actually, the Bible says that the sons of Ham are destined to be slaves for the other brothers. Most Biblical scholars agree Ham's children are the ones who went Africa. Besides, in multiple cases the Bible supports slavery. There's not really any word twisting needed to be done to show the Bible supported enslaving the African race.

Funny, a lot of atheists stand behind the principles of science like it is doctrine. Yet when it comes to disproving God all you need is a bit of sense? Sense could lead one either way, it all depends on one's point of view / outlook on life. And of course I wouldn't take my own life unless I could be absolutely certain that there was no God and thus life had no purpose. I'm not totally certain about anything, really. But I just cannot accept that life has no purpose. Not unless I am given concrete, irrefutable evidence. I don't care what atheist do. Do you see me standing behind scientific principles anywhere on this thread (other than arguing with someone about science and facts). Now, there difference between science and religion is something to be taken into account. Science deals with things that can be observed and measured, while with religion it's just the books says it. Using what the book says though, you can refute the God. Science requires something similar, which would be science refuting other things in science. The problem with using the Bible against science is the fact the Bible is wrong a ton, like when it calls bats birds. Science can also be wrong, but at least when there are things wrong they can be changed. With religion, if it's wrong, then you have a much bigger problem (since it's supposed to be perfect). Whether life means anything or it does, why does that make a difference? Are you that weak that you can't simply choose to live on? I mean, I understand life is hard, but at the same time it's fun. I believe life has no purpose, so I just take what I can/want out of it.

I heard about that, and how people were forced to join the church? I would hate that, and even though I don't support religion, I can understand where you're coming from.

It is possible to disprove the existence of a God who is based upon standards. It's been done multiple times. It isn't science used to disprove God either, just a bit of sense. Personally my belief is Nihilism, which is based on the fact that morality, meaning, and other such things do not exist at all (much more to it, but this is an extremely simplified version) I don't see any reason to kill myself for that, because that just seems like a bad idea. Instead my goal in life is what I give it. That reason is to have fun with it. When I no longer exist, it doesn't matter at all. Everyone is going to have the exact same thing happen when they die. Eternal life means nothing to me, and instead that idea seems like it's making this world worse. We could advance in many ways, but there are people with the idea that "playing God" is a bad thing. We should be playing God, because we don't see God doing anything to advance us anyways. Since I believe there is no God, I can offer the top three reasons (in that order) that I think the idea was made for. 1) Control. 2) Wtf, how do natural events happen. 3) Insanity. A morale boost is further along the line somewhere.

I went to a Christian School for over eight years, to even pass a grade you MUST pass Bible class. In all those years, I didn't learn as much from the Bible as I should have, because they ignored some of the most important parts. I was born gay, but God wants me to die because he created me this way. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)". Hell, I probably know more about the Bible than you do, and it's that reason that the God from the Bible disgusts me. The hypocrisy is just insane, and the amount of people he commands to be murdered is also insane. If there was proof God existed and he loved me, then this situation would be completely different. Problem: it's not, and it's not going to be changing (because God hasn't bothered doing anything in the last 2k years apparently). Dude, I'm gay as well. God doesn't hate us at all. I used to hate God because I thought he hated me, but he doesn't! I can post numerous links about facts that GOd doesn't hate gay people. And no, you probably don't know more than me. (Just saying) For starters: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian Do you still think God hates you? And if your background is the way it really is, then it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away. (just my $.02) P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, I probably did. I'm just sick of people claiming to have read the Bible, when its obvious they haven't they just want to appear more knowledgeable. The site actually brought up the exact thing I had assumed would be brought up, that the homosexuality orientation is not a sin. Instead it's the act that is considered a sin. The problem with the site is that many of it's arguments for defending itself are based on calling out other scriptures as wrong, or going completely off topic. It defense against the Levitcus laws is that is steers off into his life story, and then bringing up the laws about masturbation being a sin. Neither of those I would consider an acceptable excuse. As for my belief in God, there is none. I can understand how it comes off that I believe in God, but that's only because of the way I like to argue when it comes the religion. It deals with how the fact I prefer philosophy > science, and that philosophy is a better counter for religion imo. I do also make it appear that I believe God exists, but also is for the sake of arguing. It's not that I think he exists, but should he exist, then he would indeed want me dead. Arrgghh, didn't mean to double post.

Guess what, your answer would change, You wouldn't be happy with your life if you just lost money when someone asked, you'd be sad/mad about the money. It's something subjective, and it changes with people very easily. It's something you can compare to the tv stars, and think you're not really happy compared to what you could be. Or you could compare it to someone worth less than you, and think you're happier than you are. It's something that can't be accurately measured. You don't understand how complex things like this are, because happiness is not something that easy to understand. No, you may not be happy, but you'd still be happy about your life[/i[ even if you lost 20$. I hate repeating myself, but the fact that happiness is measured individualy by each person does not matter, because on the bottom line, if they define themselves as happy, it's because they are. To make sure we avoid more misunderstandings, I'll rephrase my initial statement- Religous people are more likely to define themselves as happy. I think your problem with that statement is your (possibly just) hatred towards religion which gets you annoyed when shown in a good light. You must remember that the fact that religous are more likely to be happy (or define themselves as happy for what it's worth), isn't necessarily good, I'd even call it bad. It's just like the example I gave, a drunk person is more likely to find joy in things, but I'd rather be sober most of the time. Please understand that the fact religous people are more likely to define themsleves as happy (about their lives...) has good reasoning behind it. A person who thinks someone is out there for them, that they're eventualy going to exist in Heaven, that a perfect entity is on their side, would likely make them happier. There's nothing "insane" about it. I'm actually more annoyed about it being called a fact than it having anything to do with religion. What I'm saying is, emotions are not something that are a constant. When you're happy about something, you're going to probably be thinking about the positive things. Whenever you lose some money though, you're going to be sad/mad. Then there's probably a high chance you'll think about other things that have gone wrong recently, and think you're life isn't that great. It's different for everyone. That makes it difficult for it to be studied, and anyone who actually understands what they're doing would never publish it as a fact. I'm happy with the idea that should I die, nothing happens. Other people who don't believe in God could also be happy knowing their body will continue on forever through multiple processes, such as when it decays it becomes nutrients for trees. How happy it makes people depends on their personal views, which once again makes a study on happiness very hard.

This actually is ideal. Since the church isn't the government it should be the government running the benefits behind it. Let the churches cover the religious factor of it, because that's what they're there for. That's what I originally thought of, but that would be removing the right to legally marry from the Church. Stripping power is kind of unfair. A religious marriage should count as a marriage and as a civil union, not just the religious aspect. Our bishops have already been reduced to not being allowed to speak of the morality of politics on threat of legal action and removal of tax benefits (which would hurt Christian hospitals and parochial schools, and one must admit that Catholics do contribute a lot in medicine and education). But if the church does give their powers away from this, what do they loose? The blessing over married couples would by all probability be counted among Christians as the wedding, and where the marriage is started, before the eyes of God. The only difference would be that you also had to sign a couple of papers at the local courthouse (or where you sign these kind of papers) The official part, just for economy, and registration goes for the government, while the religious part, the ceremony, and the celebration would still be at church (if you are a Christian, that is) To put this in a historical context as well: It wasn't before the 5th century (that's 400-499, right?) that Christian marriage also was counted as official marriage. This was when cæsar Constantin made Christianity the official religion of the roman empire. Normally when you take one step in one direction it doesn't just end with a step... It normally advances with a couple more, this goes for good and bad. As a result of the removal of the legality of their wedding of couples, it might be an excuse to move to further stripe them of something as I stated before. Humans have an inclination to not just take one step in a direction, even if that was their initial intent. Is that even an argument? It's not stripping anyone of the legality of their wedding, it's setting things how they should be. When you can accomplish practically the same goal with a different name(i.e. let gays be civilly union-ed with all the right of the married, but leave the Church as is), yes, it isn't worth it. It's starting a fire when one can be avoided. No, that's not the same thing. It's two different things. You think it isn't worth it because you're happy with the system, but the system is incorrect.

I went to a Christian School for over eight years, to even pass a grade you MUST pass Bible class. In all those years, I didn't learn as much from the Bible as I should have, because they ignored some of the most important parts. I was born gay, but God wants me to die because he created me this way. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)". Hell, I probably know more about the Bible than you do, and it's that reason that the God from the Bible disgusts me. The hypocrisy is just insane, and the amount of people he commands to be murdered is also insane. If there was proof God existed and he loved me, then this situation would be completely different. Problem: it's not, and it's not going to be changing (because God hasn't bothered doing anything in the last 2k years apparently).

Guess what, your answer would change, You wouldn't be happy with your life if you just lost money when someone asked, you'd be sad/mad about the money. It's something subjective, and it changes with people very easily. It's something you can compare to the tv stars, and think you're not really happy compared to what you could be. Or you could compare it to someone worth less than you, and think you're happier than you are. It's something that can't be accurately measured. You don't understand how complex things like this are, because happiness is not something that easy to understand. I prefer nothing happening after death over living an eternity of servitude. Yea... From here on out I'm gonna say you know nothing of Christianity. I know nothing because I would rather not exist at all than serve and worship a vengeful God who created me only to have me killed, along with many people I know, for the dumbest reasons imaginable? I think you have your reasoning wrong.

No, everyone should have civil unions. Marriage should give no legal benefits at all, but instead by married in the "Eye's of the Lord". That way, churches will be allowed to reject the marriage of females who've lost their virginity, mixed racial marriages, gays, atheists, other religions, divorced couples, and any other reason listed in that religion. On the other hand, we'll have civil unions which are for everyone, who will receive benefits from the state for it. That way also allows for churches who want to marry gays or any other sort of things if the church wants to, making it the ideal solution for everyone.

Subjective or not is does matter, because going by what you're saying, it's impossible to be a fact. A fact would be something supported by data, and what you're saying is not something that can be accurately measured. Instead, you're speaking of something that is not a science and calling it fact. As for it meaning nothing, I meant your "fact" is complete BS. It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P? And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are. Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that. No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature. Lol, you really think researchers just went to people and asked them whether or not they're happy? These researches are usualy built on 40+ questions and are spread across various areas. The happiness question was probably more ilike "Are you happy about your life in general?" etc. It was also not done by only one researcher, it was done by researchers all across the world, multiple times, and at different times. Once again, it's something subjective that just asking a question can not answer. Question type questions would work for other subjects, but something like "happiness" which has many other conditions, can not be answered purely by questions. Happiness is also different for different people, meaning saying one group is happier than another is just wrong. Also, say you just lost 20$, and you're asked if you're happy with life in general. I would say no, because that issue throws me off, and I'm sure other people would say the same.

Changing the churches views on homosexual marriages is something that should be done, just as in America and other countries they were forced to marry black and white people, or two people of different races. If the church is going to be allowed to marry, then they should be forced to followed the secular laws on it, or should lose the right to marry. Unless churches are changed to strictly religious unions, which provide no legal rights what so ever, then they should be following secular laws. If they gave no legal rights, then I wouldn't mind if they had the choice on who they marry.

Subjective or not is does matter, because going by what you're saying, it's impossible to be a fact. A fact would be something supported by data, and what you're saying is not something that can be accurately measured. Instead, you're speaking of something that is not a science and calling it fact. As for it meaning nothing, I meant your "fact" is complete BS. It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P? And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are. Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that. No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature.

I prefer nothing happening after death over living an eternity of servitude.