Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've got a history of confounding atheists on these boards with simple arguments that can't be refuted--such as the moral argument for the existence of God, the cosmological argument, and other ones.
But if you want to pretend you're superior, good on ya.
And atheists have a history of confounding you on these boards with simple arguments that can't be refuted. Your turn.
I've got a history of confounding atheists on these boards with simple arguments that can't be refuted--such as the moral argument for the existence of God, the cosmological argument, and other ones.
But if you want to pretend you're superior, good on ya.
I'm sorry, but "because god says so" confounds no one, and is easily refuted.
I've got a history of confounding atheists on these boards with simple arguments that can't be refuted--such as the moral argument for the existence of God, the cosmological argument, and other ones.
But if you want to pretend you're superior, good on ya.
Because the single dumbest reason for doing something a certain way is the feeble excuse: "But... that's how we did it yesterday!".
Churches are free to define religious marriage how they so choose. If they want to define it as between any two consenting adults, that is their business (and the fact that some marriages do indeed do that totally obliterates the ridiculous claim that legalizing same-sex marriage infringes on the religious rights of those who oppose it).
The definition of secular marriage is nothing but whatever civil law says it is. And, again, this fetishizing of how things were done yesterday as some great ideal is not only hopelessly hypocritical (because everyone constantly is changing their behavior and way of life in many ways) but useless.
That's what I have been trying to say but I get attacked for it. If my state ever changes the meaning of their civil marriage to include the sinful choice of homosexuals I will end my civil marriage and not be a part of that system. I won't end my marriage since the state has no right to regulate it to begin with.
That's what I have been trying to say but I get attacked for it. If my state ever changes the meaning of their civil marriage to include the sinful choice of homosexuals I will end my civil marriage and not be a part of that system. I won't end my marriage since the state has no right to regulate it to begin with.
That's what I have been trying to say but I get attacked for it. If my state ever changes the meaning of their civil marriage to include the sinful choice of homosexuals I will end my civil marriage and not be a part of that system. I won't end my marriage since the state has no right to regulate it to begin with.
You seem to keep ignoring some of my questions about this. Your state already includes sinful choices in its meaning of civil marriage. Divorced people getting married again, swingers getting married, cheaters getting married. So why haven't you already ended your civil marriage?
You seem to keep ignoring some of my questions about this. Your state already includes sinful choices in its meaning of civil marriage. Divorced people getting married again, swingers getting married, cheaters getting married. So why haven't you already ended your civil marriage?
There may be people like that who get married but the state has not made a law making their inclusion a special proclamation. If they did I would not be connected with it.
And yes I do tend to ignore straw-man, trolling tactics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.