Prop 8 was in the first quote…you just ignoring reality.
Lot’s of people are opposed to prop 8 on non religious grounds. Lots of people support it on religious grounds. A case can be made either way without mentioning God, the Bible, faith, or anything else you find abhorrent.
Try again.
DOMA, DADT, Tennessee’s Senate Bill 893
Sure. DOMA.
Um no. The only reason for prop 8 is religious grounds.
Explain to me how two consenting adults entering a contract matters to anyone who is not religious.
Keep trying.
DOMA laws are seeking to keep marriage traditionally defined. There’s no furthering of some agenda, there’s only seeking the status quo.
Please try to focus. Name ONE proposal by any candidate that is overtly religious, that is by design seeking to enforce religious dogma of any kind, that prevents you from doing anything you’re doing right now.
OK I’m done, you are not a serious poster and I don’t want to derail this thread.
Sorry hoopified,
That came across more snark than I intended.
I will discuss it in another thread if you wish, but you may want to search for the other threads that exist on it, most importantly please come with a valid justification for your definition of a “traditional marriage”
That’s a very narrow understanding of Christian theology. Substitutional atonement (which is what I think you mean by “vicarious redemption”) is one tradition, but by no means the only one. And “ask the person you sinned against for forgiveness” is a very Christian (of course not uniquely Christian) concept. Jesus would approve.
Bwah? I don’t mean to be snarky, but please name one of these many sects. I have no idea what you are talking about. I can’t imagine a Christian community that would not find that repugnant and unthinkable.
If you want to reject Christianity and all religion because you reject the supernatural or spiritual altogether, that’s fine. I can respect Naturalist position. But don’t reject it for made-up reasons like a specific theological interpretation or wild cannibalism claims.
Tennesee state congress, Answers in Genesis, Templeton Foundation, Discovery Institue.
Any generalization about any group will have exceptions, that is just reality but if you are claiming that a large portion or a majority of Christians do not believe in redemption for THEIR acts through reverence for and through the celebration of the human sacrifice of Christ I would appreciate a cite.
So because it is possible for people to break the law it is a fantasy that teh laws exist? Your logic is unique, if not exactly compelling.
And please point out one comment I have made that supports the idea that I have an “anti-religion agenda”.
Seriously? Others have already offered a few examples, but if you truly do notn believe that any influential grou in America is striving to force Creationism into publi schools then I doubt we have anything meaningful to say to each other on this subject. Facts are not subject to opinion, and willfil ignorance cannot be overcome by a cite.
I neither stated nor insinuated either thing. I aked you to please pay more attention to the political diaogue in this country. Thank you for demonstrating why my advice was sound, if ultimately fruitless.
Great. I’m familiar with all of them. Please cite the reference from their position papers that does what you say.
Which is not what I offered. I asked you to cite one example where creationism is to replace a traditional science curriculum. You can’t.Of course creationism has been proposed in various places as an addendum or coincedentally to standard science fare, I don’t know who’s denying that. But to buttress your point, you will have to show that someone or some group is wishing that creationism replaces science curriculum, thereby reducing the amount or quality of knowledge students receive.
The nexxt question is, of course, does creationism do what I’ve described above? Another thread, I’m sure. I’m leaning toward more information is better than less. (I’m using creationism and IDism interchangeably as for this point it’s irrelevant what the differences are. For now.)
Indeed.
Of course you did. It’s SO liberal P.
The implication being that one who disagrees with you does not pay enough attention. Oh, if only the rest of us bumpkins could have the nuanced thinking of the liberal elites.
Thank you for demonstrating that my retort was applicable.
NOted that you have no response to a clear and unambiguous position.
I don’t claim to have any answers, and except for people who provoke me most profoundly, I’ve stopped trying to argue anyone around to my point of view. When my mother reminds me that she is praying for me, I thank her and change the subject. When someone casually says ‘God bless you’, I don’t launch into an atheist rant. Only when some smarmy S.O.B. who is disagreeing with me about something decides they get to end the argument by claiming something along the lines of ‘you’d understand if you believed in Jesus, so I’ll pray for you’, etc., do I tend to get in their face.
Didn’t say you did actively campaign for your position. But the fact remains that you’ve come to a world view that you think is better than a world view that included some dimension of spiritualism. So you’ve become that which you criticize.
hoopified, please quit cluttering up GD with your purposeful ignorance of the facts, ok? No matter how much you try to deny it, the GOP has proposed and passed many theocratic laws based on some book from two thousand years ago.
There is absolutely zero reason to keep marriage as any way for any reason except to satisfy people’s invisible sky fathers. We’ve redefined shit over and over throughout history. And even if there isn’t a precedent, so fucking what? I see real human beings being hurt by this, not the fake disapprovals of some mythological deity. Religious shit like that should never be the basis of law, the basis of the GOP, the basis of half the fucking people in the god damn country. So take that cowardly fear of change and use it to help some real fucking people
the poster called out santorum, romney, and gingrich. I asked for citations that supported his/her assertion.
I can see that you’re beyond reasonable discussion. common with liberals, I’ve found.
Exactly. To put it bluntly, who gives a flying fuck? Why bother to confront this? Even if the MIL said to my face that she’s praying for my soul, I would take her intentions as well-meaning, thank her, and be on my merry way. What’s the point of rocking the boat here?