Texas is... progressive?Follow

lolwut?

Do you even read what you write?

homosexuality is causing the destruction of the nuclear family...? Funny. I thought that would be divorce, adultry, and abuse.




Why is it wrong? What's wrong with it if it doesn't hurt anyone else?



The former, I would politely ask them not to, just like I would if they were dating anyone else. I wouldn't want to watch my child making out with anyone, personally. And that has nothing to do with thinking it's "icky."

The latter, I would be sure to knock before entering the bedroom of my adult children. Just like I would for anyone else.

Only among Republicans.

Remember Belkira, for Varrus, moral relativism only exists when there are terrorists to torture.

zomg but those empires fell! They don't exist anymore and homosexuality is to blame!!!

Varrus is a ****?

Muslims, Jews and Christians have a majority of commonalities, and a minority of differences. They even share Jesus. Don't be fooled by the dress codes that exist today. They only diverged significantly 120 years ago.

they all acknowledge Jesus existed. That's where the similarity ends in their treatment of Jesus, and it's a pretty significant difference. Overall there are of course lots of similarities, although that should be expected for Jews and Christians at least.

Edited, Oct 8th 2009 9:41am by Xsarus

But he's still willing to push government-legislated morality based on it.

So you don't really know that much about it, that's cool. Not that I disagree with the other parts of your post.

Edited, Oct 8th 2009 11:35am by Xsarus

I know lots, but I am simplifying it severely so I can be polemical towards varrus. Didn't we have that entire sub-thread recently about simplifying my words and writing to my audience? Sheesh. I can't win.

Legislating morality on 2,000 year old values is bad enough, even when you understand them. Which he doesn't.

Legislating religion is a subset of legislating morality.

There is still no real difference except, in the mean time, we had had some 200 year old morals made which say we can't use the 2000 year old morals.

Who cares? same source. The difference of time is something inherently flawed anyway. I'd much prefer he make up his own goddamn morals and try to get those legislated rather than following either a 2000 year old set, or a 200 year old set.

I cannot and probably will never understand why history, and the morals that come from it, a look backwards into the past, is taught at the beginning of it. Do you talk about the beginning of light when you look at a chair? No: you are immediately seeing the vision of the chair in your mind and then abstracting backwards to it. It shouldn't be: "this stuff was cool and lets apply it" it should be, "hmm we've got all of this new stuff as we make history together so lets look backwards (instead of forwards) to see if we can pick something to do among the flying wanton morals presented in the past.

Sure you don't want to break good things but just... there's something sad when we can't even entertain the notion of any progressive notion without killing each other. Progresss will and is happening whether or not humans participate. I'd rather participate than get bogged down in either the bible or the constitution.