I just got rejected last night

[J@3]

If he was tolerant of Axel's religion, I don't think he would have felt the need to call his lifestyle "immoral"

But it has nothing to do with Axel's religion. For all we know Axel and Riot could share the same religion and just not apply the exact same beliefs on this particular matter to their lives. You don't have to be an athiest or a non-believer to be gay.

Ok, so you're talking about mainstream religions - I'm talking about any system of ideas dealing with a transcendental ultimate concern.

You said "religion".. I'd assume 99.9% of people on Earth (you being the 00.1%) would have taken that as mainstream religions, not systems of ideas dealing with a transcendental ultimate concern. Either way, I get the feeling you were trying to goad Riot into something and when he didn't give you the exact response you were after you just posted the argument you were planning on following up with regardless.

[Oznogrd]

@ illini: I'm well aware of the differences between the three religions. I'm saying if a Christian believes that the Islam fine print is plausible, they are not really a Christian.

Basically the heads up was for anyone who sees those three religions as so massively different they cant tolerate each other. They all teach the same thing, one of the main things is to love your fellow man, regardless of race/creed/religion etc....you dont have to believe something is plausible in order to not be judgemental about it. Also the only true meaning of Christianity is believing Jesus was the Savior...as long as you do that and are a semidecent person, it seems the details dont really matter so i dont see why a true christian couldnt believe some Islamic ideas.

To the commentators:

Dont forget to thank our sponsor's Farmer Dan's Hot Dogs....MMMM MMM.....Love those dogs!

[BigKaboom2]

I'd assume 99.9% of people on Earth (you being the 00.1%) would have taken that as mainstream religions, not systems of ideas dealing with a transcendental ultimate concern. Either way, I get the feeling you were trying to goad Riot into something and when he didn't give you the exact response you were after you just posted the argument you were planning on following up with regardless.

I assure you I am not 6 million people.

Anyway, I'm wondering how you would have responded knowing I was defining religion that way (I always have, mainstream religions with lots of bizarre claims and little evidence really don't make sense to me).

To contradict what you said, I got the impression that Riot was trying to goad the entire forum into flaming him for being anti-homosexuality, hence my "troll" comment.

[J@3]

To contradict what you said, I got the impression that Riot was trying to goad the entire forum into flaming him for being anti-homosexuality, hence my "troll" comment.

That's what Riot does in 99% of his posts, but I know you were after something that you didn't get from him.

Anyway, I'm wondering how you would have responded knowing I was defining religion that way (I always have, mainstream religions with lots of bizarre claims and little evidence really don't make sense to me).

Well what Riot said could definitely be taken as an attack on Axel's beliefs (he clearly believes being gay isn't immoral) so it would have made a difference, since I did take your post to mean religion in the mainstream/general sense.

[Gundy]

Hey Riot, it seems as though you are letting the Bible decide what you believe. So the Bible says homosexuality is wrong? So what, the Bible says a lot of stupid shit and it isn't straight out of God's mouth as you'd like to think. How can you say it is immoral? Do you know any gays or do you know why they are the way they are? Or do you just not bother to find out for yourself and let a book tell you what to think?

[shadowgrin]

@ Shannon and illini. Thanks.


: The defense collapses on BigKaboom2 resulting in a turnover. This thread is already heating up, and Riot is still on the bench.

Try and buy Farmer Dan's Hotdogs. As Axel can testify:
"MMM MMM MMM, so meaty and big".

[BigKaboom2]

^ (Gundy) Now THAT's how you goad someone into an argument.

What did I say that made it seem like I was going for something else? I'm not one of those types who wants to argue just for the hell of it. I was seriously just wondering about his religious beliefs and how he applies them to other people that conflict with them.

[---]

Another thing Shadow, I suggest you finish every sentence with a "!". Post like your Diddy, exclaiming your love for Craig David or Eddy Curry. Much more commentator like.

By the way, the last part of your post had me in stitches.

[J@3]

What did I say that made it seem like I was going for something else?

Just a hunch I had I'd tell you but I don't want to end the thread or anything.

Axel this better not be another joke, I'm not wasting my time discussing your lust for men on here if it is.

[shadowgrin]

: Gundy taunts the benched Riot, and a timeout is called by BK2. As BigKaboom screams to Gundy about the value of good sportsmanship and not losing focus. This team is on the verge of a collapse!

We would like to acknowledge that great author Converse Dwyane. Who wrote the best-selling books "How To Be Smart, For Dummies" and "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Being Smart."
Available at bookstores near you.

[BigKaboom2]

I'd tell you but I don't want to end the thread or anything.

I think that post ended the thread anyway. Spill the juicy details if you please.

[Drex]

I wonder how many players Axel will dickride this season. Get it? *pats self on the back*








I'll hide now.

[benji]

EDIT:

I am opposed to state recognized gay marriage.

Explain.

I am opposed to any state recognized marriage. Gay, straight, whatever Homer marries this week, etc. The state should stay away from anything not protection of life and property and not be establishing morals. I also do not know why religious people want to take marriage away from God and give it to the state to decide.

[BigKaboom2]

Alright, then I agree with you - I was referring to the gay rights issue, rather than the whether-or-not-marriage-should-exist issue, and in the process assuming that civil marriage was not going anywhere anytime soon, however perplexing it is. As long as it does continue to exist, I don't recall anything in the Constitution preventing homosexuals from being married as well, so opposition to it absolutely baffles me. I don't see how you can advocate banning gay marriage (seemingly always a religious belief) without also supporting your religion as a state religion, which would breach the First Amendment in my interpretation.

[shadowgrin]

: BigKaboom2 catches the alleyoop and scores!
Great conversion after the timeout.

[---]

: Boy Shadow, did you see the athleticism on that BK kid?! Benji threw that lob and it wasn't caught and finished until 32 minutes later! He truly can stay in the air for as long as he wants! Amazing!

[Jugs]

i dont like buttfuckers

[Oznogrd]

i dont like buttfuckers

There are gay men who have never once had anal sex. There are other ways to get off than "put a penis somewhere preferably moist, thrust, repeat"

[BigKaboom2]

Wow, I think we need a "I just got rejected last night (sane, mature, and coherent)" and an "I just got rejected last night (put on your flame retardant suit)"

Do not flame other members. This includes (but is not limited to):


* Insulting criticisms or remarks
* Profanity directed towards another forum member
* Racial/ethnic slurs
* Using your signature/avatar/custom title to insult others


Also, do not start topics simply to flame or "call out" another member of the forum. Do not use the Private Messaging system to flame or bypass any of the forum rules.

# Do not post hate speech

[cyanide]

Seems like the older Jugs get, the more immature he becomes

[Jackal]

Old school fool...eh, Jugs just needed the attention. He got.

[J@3]

It's a shame. I think even OSF got a little bit more mature as time went on.

[benji]

As long as it does continue to exist, I don't recall anything in the Constitution preventing homosexuals from being married as well, so opposition to it absolutely baffles me.

Well, you know, some people don't use the Constitution as their document of beliefs of what the federal government should do. Instead they see it as that stupid thing that gets in the way of government, and therefore is an "evolutionary" document.

I don't see how you can advocate banning gay marriage (seemingly always a religious belief) without also supporting your religion as a state religion, which would breach the First Amendment in my interpretation.

And I don't see how you can follow that line of reasoning.

Murder is against most religions, is it establishing a state religion to have laws against murder? Supporting bans on abortion, opposing the invasion of Iraq on religious grounds, are these violations of the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What religion becomes the state religion if a federal law was passed against same-sex marriage? Christianity in general? Judaism? Islam? Jaeitology?

Of course, this also ignores those who are opposed to legalization (i.e. encoding in law) of same-sex marriage for non-religious reasons. There are people that consider marriages primary purpose to be reproduction, or those that see marriages as non state constructs. There are of plenty of scholars who are opposed to same-sex marriage for what they see as negative socioeconomic impacts of "cohabitation" proliferation.

Irregardless. Such a federal law would be overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment, not the First, as the Court has held marriage to be a right. The states can set whatever laws regarding this matter they wish until the Supreme Court agrees to hear anything on DOMA however. The federal government would never be able to, a Constitutional Amendment is the only method possible.

[BigKaboom2]

Murder is against most religions, is it establishing a state religion to have laws against murder? Supporting bans on abortion, opposing the invasion of Iraq on religious grounds, are these violations of the First Amendment?

Murder and abortion are both violations of the rights of an individual and are thus within the boundaries of government to protect against. Banning gay marriage is a violation of the rights of an individual (assuming that civil marriage shall continue to exist) that *would be enforced by the government*. As such it would be establishing a state religion other than liberalism as it takes a stance on something that is not within the realm of government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What religion becomes the state religion if a federal law was passed against same-sex marriage? Christianity in general? Judaism? Islam? Jaeitology?

Ok, so you're talking about mainstream religions - I'm talking about any system of ideas dealing with a transcendental ultimate concern.

Read the thread

Of course, this also ignores those who are opposed to legalization (i.e. encoding in law) of same-sex marriage for non-religious reasons. There are people that consider marriages primary purpose to be reproduction, or those that see marriages as non state constructs. There are of plenty of scholars who are opposed to same-sex marriage for what they see as negative socioeconomic impacts of "cohabitation" proliferation.

This is religion to me. I take a broad view.

Such a federal law would be overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment, not the First, as the Court has held marriage to be a right. The states can set whatever laws regarding this matter they wish until the Supreme Court agrees to hear anything on DOMA however. The federal government would never be able to, a Constitutional Amendment is the only method possible.

I say it would breach the First Amendment because I interpret it to mean that the government shall not impose a national religion. Since the Constitution is so devastatingly vague, I choose to apply my definition of religion to that interpretation.

[benji]

Except, the Constitution is not vague. The religion referred to clearly is intended to be in the forms you denoted as "mainstream" and the writings would bear (how can that be?) that out. We in this instance can only accept religion as a belief in the sacred/holy/divine, usually with blatant voluntary acts of worship.

If you are to consider liberalism a religion, then it is against the Constitution to establish that as the state religion, so either the entire thing is invalid for instituting a system of government held by some as a belief of government, creating a contradiction which invalidates itself. Or, you have to place it into the context separating religion and philosophy as is traditionally understood. The Constitution cannot enshrine liberalism as a state religion and also deny the state power to establish one.

If we are to denote state religion acceptable when it is a certain state religion, then the first words of the Bill of Rights are instantly contradictory and could not be applied. Therefore, it would not be a violation of said Constitutional text to ban gay marriage.

Accepting the statement that all philosophies are religions, any laws are violations of a separation of church and state, therefore even laws against murder and abortion are invalid and nonbinding, and the state is powerless, fraudulent and not authorized to exist.