Posted by MikeT23 on 7/19/2016 2:11:00 PM (view original):
Well, he's declared homosexuals to be sinners. But, then again, he's also declared that they decided to be sinners. So, I guess, he's expecting them to believe what he believes and they have chosen to sin.

". . . Mike, and the rest of the "I Love to Argue" gang are obviously free to post whatever you want, and are certainly free to disagree as much as you want relative to religion, homosexuality, or anything else, but I really do wish you would get some reading comprehension."

Obviously the meaning of that post still escapes Mike. Will his comprehension issues ever end? Of course not. And if they would, he'd just lie anyway.

Are you going to give us a sampling of your many liberal viewpoints or not?

or rather on what some people think is a sin

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2016 5:48:00 PM (view original):
I still don't see what his point is. So what if he thinks homosexuality is a sin?

Lots of people view all kinds of legal things as sins: cursing, not believing in God, disrespecting your parents, not fasting during Ramadan, etc etc etc.

We don't base our laws on what is and isn't a sin.

Weren't you mocking anything and everything related to God and religious in other threads?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/19/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2016 5:48:00 PM (view original):
I still don't see what his point is. So what if he thinks homosexuality is a sin?

Lots of people view all kinds of legal things as sins: cursing, not believing in God, disrespecting your parents, not fasting during Ramadan, etc etc etc.

We don't base our laws on what is and isn't a sin.

Weren't you mocking anything and everything related to God and religious in other threads?

Why yes he was. In particular to you objecting to same sex unions being called a "marriage" as opposed to "civil union" with all the bells and whistles of marriage. I believe your objection was based on marriage being defined as between a man and woman. Which I think it based upon religion.

I wonder what DougOut thinks...

Posted by sjpoker on 7/19/2016 10:32:00 PM (view original):
I wonder what DougOut thinks...

I'm sure he'll tell us soon enough. Sadly, I think 100% of the people who post here have him blocked.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/19/2016 10:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/19/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/19/2016 5:48:00 PM (view original):
I still don't see what his point is. So what if he thinks homosexuality is a sin?

Lots of people view all kinds of legal things as sins: cursing, not believing in God, disrespecting your parents, not fasting during Ramadan, etc etc etc.

We don't base our laws on what is and isn't a sin.

Weren't you mocking anything and everything related to God and religious in other threads?

Why yes he was. In particular to you objecting to same sex unions being called a "marriage" as opposed to "civil union" with all the bells and whistles of marriage. I believe your objection was based on marriage being defined as between a man and woman. Which I think it based upon religion.

Don't think that was it. My objections to SSM had nothing to do with God or religion.

Wasn't your objection because marriage was defined as a union between man and woman? If that's not religious, where did it come from? Because, if it was just a law, those have changed many times over the years.

Honestly, if you WEREN'T arguing based on religious belief, it's one of two things:

1. You were totally failing. If you object because it changed a law, you should be arguing about a lot of law changes.
2. You were arguing just to argue. Thank, bad_wrg.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/20/2016 9:14:00 AM (view original):
Wasn't your objection because marriage was defined as a union between man and woman? If that's not religious, where did it come from? Because, if it was just a law, those have changed many times over the years.

It was based on tradition passed down through thousands of years of human culture.

If you want to say that it eventually ties back to religion, go ahead. But I was not thinking of it from a religious viewpoint. And that was not my argument.

And I'm not about to reopen an argument about SSM. That's a BL tactic.