Gay got saved at Kilgore protest

[FTL_Ian]

Yes. You can't prove a universal negative. But Ian and Lloyd are saying they "don't need to be proven."  And using that as "proof" if you will that there is no God.

I don't have to "prove" there is no god.  That is self-evident.  Just like it's self evident that there is no snark.  Can you prove there is no snark?

Interesting that the religious posters have all avoided addressing the snark issue.

[Russell Kanning]

I am not sure snarks exist. I kinda doubt it.

If I called myself a non-snarkist or a snark agnostic that would sound silly. That is how I view it when people identify themselves as atheists, when I haven't even asked them if they believe there is a God. The reason they do is because they know they are responsible to an all-powerful creator ..... but don't wanna be.

[Michael Fisher]

I am not sure snarks exist. I kinda doubt it.

If I called myself a non-snarkist or a snark agnostic that would sound silly. That is how I view it when people identify themselves as atheists, when I haven't even asked them if they believe there is a God. The reason they do is because they know they are responsible to an all-powerful creator ..... but don't wanna be.

There's theism and atheism.? Atheism, in general, is a very large tent including anyone who does not have a positive belief in a god or gods.? It does not necessarily mean you have a positive belief that a god does not exist, only that you have not reached the conclusion that one does.? That is the most important point to keep in mind, in my opinion.

Being theistic requires a leap of faith, however small, that I haven't taken.? That's why I call myself an atheist, not because I am positive that absolutely no god exists, but I simply haven't taken the leap of faith to positively believe in a god.

I know this definition is hard to accept given the typical religiously intolerant atheists, but think of it this way:? there are also a lot of religiously intolerant theists as well.

I paint all religions and non-religious categories with a big brush of tolerance and save the small brush of intolerance for individuals who often do not represent their religion accurately.

[Michael Fisher]

You know, how come when Mike comes on here and talks about the "virtues" of celibacy and what-not everybody's OK with that, even though it's quite out of the ordinary in a marriage relationship, but as soon as I start talking about the virtues of not-being gay everybody jumps down my throat.

I don't think anyone said they're okay with celibacy, they just prevent themselves from insulting me openly.? ?  THAT is tolerance.

There's a huge difference between saying "celibacy is okay" and saying "being gay is immoral."? Huge difference.

I have? different view of morality then some of the people here, and because it's a little more traditional I'm suddently piryah.
...
If you think loving somebody and honestly trying to help convince somebody to not pursue a self destructive lifestyle is "Intolorant" or "immoral," then so be it.

Being gay, in itself, is not self-destructive.

I agree that some lifestyles are immoral, like secret adultery, sex with animals or children, and general promiscuity.? But I would still show tolerance toward people who engage in most of these lifestyles.? Mutually-consenting BDSM, on the other hand, is not immoral in my view, so maybe I'm just weird.? ?

Ignore the manufactured statistics for a moment.? How on Earth can you say that two mutually-consenting, loving homosexual adults are immoral based on the simple fact that they're both men or women?? Even if you believe they are immoral, you have the option of being tolerant toward them, but from what I'm reading, it doesn't sound like you are.? ?

I respect many of your other views, but I try not to surround myself with people who are intolerant toward homosexuals.

[Michael Fisher]

I also try not to surround myself with people who are religiously intolerant. 

[wdg3rd]

To me it doesn't matter whether any god(s) exists or not.  I live my life by the ZAP, not the Ten Commandments.

Of course, if the christers _are_ right, and there _does_ come a Day of Judgement, I hope to be in the jury if not actually at the prosecution table.  Because that bastard has a lot to answer for.

Job 4:17 -- "Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?"
Yes.  Their G-d has according to their sacred scribblings initiated force many times on people who were incapable of harming him.

[Michael Fisher]

I also try not to surround myself with people who are religiously intolerant.?

A perfect example of the religious intolerance that I abhor:

To me it doesn't matter whether any god(s) exists or not. I live my life by the ZAP, not the Ten Commandments.

Of course, if the christers _are_ right, and there _does_ come a Day of Judgement, I hope to be in the jury if not actually at the prosecution table. Because that bastard has a lot to answer for.

Job 4:17 -- "Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?"
Yes. Their G-d has according to their sacred scribblings initiated force many times on people who were incapable of harming him.

Some people who are atheists are religiously intolerant.  Some who are religious are intolerant of other religions.  If atheists wish to call themselves "better" than those who are religious, they will never accomplish this with religious intolerance.

[Fluff and Stuff]

It's also true that less then 2% of people who engage in homosexual activity have monogamous or even serial monogamous relationships.

What is good about a monogamous relationship.  Most of my friends don't have one and would not even want one.  However, if you think a monogamous relationship is good for you, I'll not hate you for it.

You don't need to be religious to think that maybe homosexuality isn't a wise course of action.

I have religion and I think homosexuality is fine, if that is what you want to do.

I would rather try to help them see the error of their ways BEFORE they realize the negative consequences of their actions.

I cannot figure out what any of these would be.

If you knew somebody with a gambling addiction, you'd help them see the error of their ways and try to help them out of it wouldn't you before you see them bankrupt themselves?

Most of the people I know have problems managing money.  I have told them that I think they have a problem.  Also, I show them how I live my life as an example to them.  However, they own their bodies and I will not try to force them to change their ways or even bug them about it.  They have every right to do what they want as long as they do not hurt anyone.

OR if you knew somebody with a drug addiction?

Again, most people I know are addicted to drugs.  Again, they own their bodies and I am not incontrol of them.  However, I do discourage the smokers from smoking around other people, as that hurts others.

"immoral"

Morals are a personal issue.

[FTL_Ian]

I think monogamy is dangerous to a loving relationship.  Mine has been so much better since we opened up.  Even though opening it was my idea, my fiance is the one who went out and took advantage of her new "freedom of association"!

Some people can't even begin to grasp what this is about!

[Dreepa]

This forum has gotten interesting in the past few days.
Nothing seems to stay on thread.

All this because Joey doesn't like gays.

[Russell Kanning]

"Morals are a personal issue."

Now that is funny ..... what happens when poor Ward (abiding by zap) runs into Russell (doesn't believe in property rights) who steals his chili?

[Russell Kanning]

Some people can't even begin to grasp what this is about!

I can't ..... at least you both agreed to it.

[Michael Fisher]

I think monogamy is dangerous to a loving relationship.? Mine has been so much better since we opened up.? Even though opening it was my idea, my fiance is the one who went out and took advantage of her new "freedom of association"!

Some people can't even begin to grasp what this is about!

Good for you! 

I will never blame a couple for loving too much to stay monogamous.  Whatever makes you both happy, that's what I say.

[FTL_Ian]

Some people can't even begin to grasp what this is about!

I can't ..... at least you both agreed to it.

The basic idea is it removes all suspicion and potential jealousy that mars so many relationships.  It is a relationship model that accepts man's natural state.  Monogamy is unnatural, and the large percentage of people that ADMIT to having affairs is solid evidence of that.  So our relationship basically says, "I love you so much you can go spend time with / have sex with someone else, with the simple caveat of safety."  There's no reason for either party to hide their actions, to be suspicious of the other's fidelity, etc.

Not that I had been unfaithful, but now the prospect of straying is less attractive, simply because there is no more rule to be broken.  Cheating isn't exciting when it's acceptable!

As a bonus, the sex was good before the open relationship, but now it's even better.

For couples with the courage to try an open relationship, I think you'll find it a wise move!

[Fluff and Stuff]

"Morals are a personal issue."

Now that is funny ..... what happens when poor Ward (abiding by zap) runs into Russell (doesn't believe in property rights) who steals his chili?

Property threat is illegal.