Context of "Homosexuality is an abomination"

[spantol]

Haha, k, I will.

cc me on that one, if you could. I lost a bet on this once, and I'm pretty sure the Constitution hasn't changed since.

[spantol]

I know this is gonna open a whole new can of worms, but sex before marriage is wrong too. Even if it is heterosexual.

Are you twice as damned if you have premarital gay sex?

[ScatterPlot]

So religion is somewhat viral, then?

I never claimed to be the authority on what's right and wrong. I merely claim that there is no rational basis for thinking homosexuality is wrong. If you disagree, please provide said rational argument.

If I follow what you mean by "viral" then yeah I guess it is, what's wrong with that?

Also, believing homosexuality is wrong comes from believing in the Bible. If you don't believe in that, well, there are whole classes you can take on Christian Evidences. I can get you some stuff if you want me to, just say the word.

[ScatterPlot]

Are you twice as damned if you have premarital gay sex?

No, I didn't say that. I just meant that it's just as sinful to have premarital sex if it's homo or hetero.

[spantol]

Honestly, I'd be very interested in reading any material you have handy. As you've probably guessed, I'm not the biggest Bible fan. I'm more of a deist.

You have heard of the Jefferson Bible?

If I follow what you mean by "viral" then yeah I guess it is, what's wrong with that?

Also, believing homosexuality is wrong comes from believing in the Bible. If you don't believe in that, well, there are whole classes you can take on Christian Evidences. I can get you some stuff if you want me to, just say the word.

[-Carnifex-]

Haha, k, I will.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

[ScatterPlot]

Actually, no, what is the Jefferson Bible? I'll get you some stuff as soon as I can, it might take some digging. I will try to do this fast though. Some books I can reccommend are "The Case for Faith" and "The Case for Christ". I'll try to find mine and send em to ya if you want.

[NJPaint]

Lemon v. Kurtzman

That isn't part of the Constitution.

[spantol]

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Which article is that?

[Person]

1 Corinthians 6:9 and id say read the whole chapter.

I couldnt bear to read all of these posts so I didnt.

BTW whatever was in the original post, I noticed alot of the Bible quotes were taken out of context.

[-Carnifex-]

That isn't part of the Constitution.

Judiciary Review makes it part of the constitution.

[spantol]

Actually, no, what is the Jefferson Bible? I'll get you some stuff as soon as I can, it might take some digging. I will try to do this fast though. Some books I can reccommend are "The Case for Faith" and "The Case for Christ". I'll try to find mine and send em to ya if you want.

I wouldn't worry about going that far--they'd probably end up on the big pile of books I've been meaning to read. Online resources would be better, as I can read through those during lulls at work. I'm more interested in the reasoning than the actual content--my beliefs aren't likely to change, but I can always appreciate a good solid argument.

The Jefferson Bible is a compilation by Thomas Jefferson of the various gospels, focusing purely on Jesus's philosophy.

[spantol]

Judiciary Review makes it part of the constitution.

Judicial review makes it part of the common law. The Constitution itself can only be modified by amending it.

Even if that were accurate, though, that phrase doesn't turn up in the opinion.

[ScatterPlot]

Hmm... Maybe this could help. What part(s) do you have problems with believing?

[spantol]

Hmm... Maybe this could help. What part(s) do you have problems with believing?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the divinity of the book as a whole. From the Sumerian creation myth to the immaculate conception, it borrowed liberally from past and contemporary cultures. I'll get more specific in the morning.