gay marriage

[RDK]

Hm? Oh, I already stated, I do not believe that homosexuality is right because I am religious. The Bible says it is evil, and I believe it is evil. I have nothing against gays, however.

I must admit that I have violated some of the strictures in the Bible. I work on Sunday. On occasion, I wear cotton polyester blend T shirts. I love lobster. When I have children and they disobey me, I will most likely choose to let them live. I don't own any slaves.

Does this make me a bad person?

 

[SkylerOcon]

The bible says a lot of things are evil. Did you know you should be put to death for working on the Sabbath? The bible also lists things you should not do on the Sabbath. The bible also condones murdering children, repeatedly, ****** women, slavery, and dowries. So, really you can't pick and choose. Either you support or are against all of that.

Don't forget that eating shellfish condemns you to hell.

 

[Aesir]

Lets not forget if some dude ***** your daughter, she has to marry the degenerate.

 

[Lixivium]

So, really you can't pick and choose. Either you support or are against all of that.

Sure you can. Not being flexible in your thinking of religious texts is what leads to religious fundamentalism.

 

[Crimson King]

Sure you can. Not being flexible in your thinking of religious texts is what leads to religious fundamentalism.

No, it leads to hypocrisy. So, god totally didn't mean you will die on if you work on the sabbath, but he DEFINITELY meant "if a man lies with another man as he lies with a woman, blood is on his hands," or whatever the quote is?

If you live a SINGLE RULE by the bible word for word, like condemning homosexuality, but you ignore others that are in the same god **** book, then you are a liar, a hypocrite, and a moron because nowhere else do you see that kind of thinking. If you are going to pick and choose, why not choose "Love thy neighbor as thyself?"

 

[Lixivium]

If you live a SINGLE RULE by the bible word for word, like condemning homosexuality, but you ignore others that are in the same god **** book, then you are a liar, a hypocrite, and a moron because nowhere else do you see that kind of thinking. If you are going to pick and choose, why not choose "Love thy neighbor as thyself?"

By the same token, you're saying that if you choose only to "love thy neighbor" but reject slavery, you are not a true Christian. That might be a rational conclusion, but I don't think it's a very helpful one.

 

[Crimson King]

By the same token, you're saying that if you choose only to "love thy neighbor" but reject slavery, you are not a true Christian. That might be a rational conclusion, but I don't think it's a very helpful one.

How did you get that at all? I said if you are going to pick and choose, why choose ones that hurt other people.

Hell, Jesus speaks OFTEN about rejecting riches and becoming poor, but you don't see too many Christians doing that. So, when I see a Christian who thinks homosexuality is a sin, I see a hypocrite unless they follow every law in the bible.

 

[w!zard]

if you can pick and choose what to follow in the bible, it means "because the bible says it" cannot be a reason for believing in ANYTHING. otherwise you contradict yourself.

RK, provide a valid reason

 

[Lixivium]

How did you get that at all? I said if you are going to pick and choose, why choose ones that hurt other people.

Sorry, I was defending the prerogative of people TO pick and choose. That is how one is able to love thy neighbor but reject bigotry/slavery.

 

[|RK|]

Jesus showed that certain beliefs could change with the times, and they killed him for that. Right? Right.

Now, I believe in the Bible, right, wiz? Therefore whatever it says is a sin, I believe is a sin. Simple? I don't reject gay people, attack them, I don't deny gays their rights to marriage. Why do the people her find it fit to jump all over religious beliefs? I don't think that this is a religious debate. At all.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Now, I believe in the Bible, right, wiz? Therefore whatever it says is a sin, I believe is a sin. Simple? I don't reject gay people, attack them, I don't deny gays their rights to marriage. Why do the people her find it fit to jump all over religious beliefs? I don't think that this is a religious debate. At all.

This is a bit of a fallacy right here, man. Good money says that you eat (or have eaten) shellfish. Not to mention...

"Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8"

You can't pick and choose what you follow.

 

[|RK|]

Once again, exactly what is in the Bible is not the end-all-be-all. That's why we need pastors and theologists. From what I was taught, I should be hanging around those who DON'T believe, but not those who do and make a mockery of it. Once again, if the Bible contradicted itself that much, then I probably wouldn't believe it. That's why I have teachers to clear up those seeming contradictions.

I am not picking and choosing. Just following. As I constantly note to my parents, the Bible is NOT to be taken at its bare surface. That's why translations from the original languages help understanding further.

 

[w!zard]

Jesus showed that certain beliefs could change with the times, and they killed him for that. Right? Right.

Now, I believe in the Bible, right, wiz? Therefore whatever it says is a sin, I believe is a sin. Simple? I don't reject gay people, attack them, I don't deny gays their rights to marriage. Why do the people her find it fit to jump all over religious beliefs? I don't think that this is a religious debate. At all.

so you believe working on sundays is a sin?

and that is such an ignorant thing to say. you say you don't believe homosexuality is right because of your religion and then you tell us it has nothing to do with religion.

 

[w!zard]

Once again, exactly what is in the Bible is not the end-all-be-all. That's why we need pastors and theologists. From what I was taught, I should be hanging around those who DON'T believe, but not those who do and make a mockery of it. Once again, if the Bible contradicted itself that much, then I probably wouldn't believe it. That's why I have teachers to clear up those seeming contradictions.

the more you study the bible, the more you'll find that it doesn't make sense. unless you throw logic out the window.

I am not picking and choosing. Just following. As I constantly note to my parents, the Bible is NOT to be taken at its bare surface. That's why translations from the original languages help understanding further.

so now you're admitting the bible is extremely unclear. this makes it just as useful as a book that says "act morally."

 

[Crimson King]

Once again, exactly what is in the Bible is not the end-all-be-all. That's why we need pastors and theologists. From what I was taught, I should be hanging around those who DON'T believe, but not those who do and make a mockery of it. Once again, if the Bible contradicted itself that much, then I probably wouldn't believe it. That's why I have teachers to clear up those seeming contradictions.

I am not picking and choosing. Just following. As I constantly note to my parents, the Bible is NOT to be taken at its bare surface. That's why translations from the original languages help understanding further.

You are really all over the place. By saying homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so, but then saying parts are up for interpretation you are saying if something fits, you believe in it, if not, you don't. The bible is LOADED with contradictions both to itself AND to history, so I don't see how you can say homosexuality is a sin without resolving those first.

And the fact of the matter, religion is a huge part of this issue. Without religion, Gays would be marrying.

 

[|RK|]

You are really all over the place. By saying homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so, but then saying parts are up for interpretation you are saying if something fits, you believe in it, if not, you don't. The bible is LOADED with contradictions both to itself AND to history, so I don't see how you can say homosexuality is a sin without resolving those first.

And the fact of the matter, religion is a huge part of this issue. Without religion, Gays would be marrying.

Sexual Orientation is not a Sin
There is a tendency to confuse homosexual tendencies and feelings with acts of homosexual intercourse, because the English word "homosexuality" is often used to describe both.

However, regardless of how we interpret the Bible's teachings about homosexual acts, it is important to note that the Bible does not condemn people for having homosexual tendencies. It is certain actions that are prohibited by Bible teachings, not tendencies or feelings.

A boy or girl who discovers homosexual feelings should realize that, like other interests and feelings, it may be only a passing phase that will fade away in time. Meanwhile, he or she should avoid becoming obsessed with the feelings or indulging in any kind of sexual activity.

A homosexual Christian man or woman is presented with great challenges, and great strength is often achieved by learning to deal with great challenges. Perhaps God has some special mission in mind for that person that is best accomplished outside the restrictions imposed by marriage and family duties.

Avoiding Self-righteousness
Ironically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18:9-14).

Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)

Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17), but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.)

James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice):

You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13)

As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145:9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39).

Of course, society has a legitimate right and duty to take legal action against those sexual offenders, homosexual or heterosexual, who use coercion or who prey on children or the disabled.

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_homosexuality.htm

 

[Crimson King]

So, to you they should ignore their true feelings and pretend to be something they are not?

I would rather die than live like that. That probably explains why homosexuals have a higher suicide rate.

 

[|RK|]

No, sir. According to the Bible, it only says that if they have sex. I have a problem with it because God has a problem with it. After all, I did say that I supported gay marriage. So if religion is the reason gays aren't getting married, it isn't my fault, especially since the Bible says nothing about gay marriage in specific.

(Hey, can I get a little more critique. It seems like I'm not getting into the DH anytime soon at this rate...)

 

[SkylerOcon]

No, sir. According to the Bible, it only says that if they have sex. I have a problem with it because God has a problem with it. After all, I did say that I supported gay marriage. So if religion is the reason gays aren't getting married, it isn't my fault, especially since the Bible says nothing about gay marriage in specific.

(Hey, can I get a little more critique. It seems like I'm not getting into the DH anytime soon at this rate...)

Actually you're not doing too bad...

But I have to point out another fallacy. Do you expect people in love to not have sex? Sex is natural. You can't assume that there's a magical off-switch to anybody's sex drive, as any couple that starts to get serious (and some that are just in it for the sex) will... have sex. That's what sexual orientation is, man. It's being attracted to the body parts.

 

[Crimson King]

No, sir. According to the Bible, it only says that if they have sex. I have a problem with it because God has a problem with it. After all, I did say that I supported gay marriage. So if religion is the reason gays aren't getting married, it isn't my fault, especially since the Bible says nothing about gay marriage in specific.

(Hey, can I get a little more critique. It seems like I'm not getting into the DH anytime soon at this rate...)

You have one major fallacy here - to consummate the marriage, a couple MUST have sex. So, by your logic, either gay couples can never consummate the marriage or they have to live in a sexless marriage.

There is so many grey areas you are leaving out here.

 

[w!zard]

RK you still haven't given a valid reason for your being against homosexuality. "because it's in the bible" isn't a valid reason because you do not follow that reason for everything that's in the bible

 

[KrazyGlue]

RK you still haven't given a valid reason for your being against homosexuality. "because it's in the bible" isn't a valid reason because you do not follow that reason for everything that's in the bible

Agreed. Religion should never factor into law, or even into whether something is morally correct. Different people have different beliefs and you can't force yours upon them.

This is exactly why I think gay marriage should be allowed, just as long as they don't marry in a church.

 

[|RK|]

You have one major fallacy here - to consummate the marriage, a couple MUST have sex. So, by your logic, either gay couples can never consummate the marriage or they have to live in a sexless marriage.

There is so many grey areas you are leaving out here.

No... there are so many couples who don't have sex. I don't see what you're saying here.

Wiz. Unless you actually believe and go to church, you will not understand. There are a whole bunch of things the english translation of the Bible does not say. If all we went to church for was to read the Bible... that'd be rather sad, really. Thing is, unless you believe and go to church, you won't be able to understand how the Bible doesn't contradict itself and how I am actually following God's laws. I can't explain because of the broadness of what you're asking. Give me something specific and I can ask my pastor to prepare a response.

 

[Faithkeeper]

RK you still haven't given a valid reason for your being against homosexuality. "because it's in the bible" isn't a valid reason because you do not follow that reason for everything that's in the bible

The Bible is no good

This thread is not about RK's views on homosexuality or the Bible, it's about gay marriage. RK explicitly said he supported gay marriage in this quote:

I say "yes" to gay marriage, ...

Due to a separation of church and state, he can believe one thing via his religious views, and believe another thing is best supported by the constitution and civil rights, and therefore should be legalized by the government.


Kindly get off his back and on topic.

 

[RDK]

No... there are so many couples who don't have sex. I don't see what you're saying here.

Wiz. Unless you actually believe and go to church, you will not understand. There are a whole bunch of things the english translation of the Bible does not say. If all we went to church for was to read the Bible... that'd be rather sad, really. Thing is, unless you believe and go to church, you won't be able to understand how the Bible doesn't contradict itself and how I am actually following God's laws. I can't explain because of the broadness of what you're asking. Give me something specific and I can ask my pastor to prepare a response.

I went to church every sunday of my entire life up until high school graduation, and I can safely say the Bible contradicts itself in more ways than one person can count. And as if that wasn't enough, the preacher would contradict himself when speaking about Biblical concepts that were clearly contradictory.

So yes, it is a silly, ridiculous, outmoded book that, at the very best, gives us a dim representation of a barbaric Bronze-age culture. Morality notwithstanding.

And don't pull this garbage about how people without the Holy Spirit can't possibly "get" scripture. If the surrender of rational thought is what it takes to understand a megalomaniacal figure such as the Christian god, then I'd rather not understand it anyway.

This thread is not about RK's views on homosexuality or the Bible, it's about gay marriage. RK explicitly said he supported gay marriage

Kindly get off his back and on topic.

Oh, but this topic does have to do with RK Joker's personal view on homosexuality. We're trying to show him why his reasoning for homosexuality being a sin is bad reasoning in the first place.

Let me ask you this: if you believe it's a sin, why wouldn't you act on your beliefs? The last thing you should do is support gay marriage. You're basically endorsing something you believe to be wrong.

See the inconsistency?

Due to a separation of church and state, he can believe one thing via his religious views, and believe another thing is best supported by the constitution and civil rights, and therefore should be legalized by the government.

Um, no he can't, unless he wants to continue being illogical. If your religion directly opposes Constitutional law, then you have some problems on your hands.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Let me ask you this: if you believe it's a sin, why wouldn't you act on your beliefs? The last thing you should do is support gay marriage. You're basically endorsing something you believe to be wrong.

From that viewpoint, I believe I could support gay marriage while I think it's wrong, let me tell you why...

Hypothetical situation:
I view homosexuality as a sin. I have two options, support gay marriage, do not support gay marriage. Now the problem with not supporting gay marriage would be that not all people share my beliefs. Wouldn't opposing such law be forcing my beliefs on others? Oh I can tell people I disagree with homosexuality, and I can attempt to purge any thought of homosexuality from my mind, but who am I to tell others, who have no problem with homosexuality, what they can and can not do? I'd also be setting dual standards. I would be saying homosexuals shouldn't get married because it's a sin. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't heterosexual lust a sin? Does this mean I cannot get married because I sin? Marriage is not the problem, the sin is. Two homosexuals getting married would not inherently make them more sinful would it? I would nearly say the opposite if they were having premarital sex. Better one sin than two, eh? Marriage is not the problem, the sin is.

See the inconsistency?

Yes, I do, I see your point, and personally I agree with it, (the whole endorsing something you believe is wrong aspect) but hopefully my above post may explain a few other ways to look at it.

Um, no he can't, unless he wants to continue being illogical. If your religion directly opposes Constitutional law, then you have some problems on your hands.

First sentence: (See aforementioned points.)
Second sentence: Undoubtedly.

 

[Crimson King]

No... there are so many couples who don't have sex. I don't see what you're saying here.

There is a big difference between rarely have sex (every few years) and NEVER having sex. You will not find a married couple who has NEVER had sex. It just wouldn't be possible.

This thread is not about RK's views on homosexuality or the Bible, it's about gay marriage. RK explicitly said he supported gay marriage in this quote:


Due to a separation of church and state, he can believe one thing via his religious views, and believe another thing is best supported by the constitution and civil rights, and therefore should be legalized by the government.


Kindly get off his back and on topic.

I attack RK's arguments because he has a huge fallacy presented - he supports gay marriage but believes homosexual acts are wrong and a sin; therefore, gay marriage should be a sin to him. RK has a lot of potiental but this flaw he is allowing will make or break him as a debater. If he cannot present his arguments without such a glaring flaw, then he is not thinking in the manner he needs to be the best debater he can be.

 

[Faithkeeper]

I attack RK's arguments because he has a huge fallacy presented - he supports gay marriage but believes homosexual acts are wrong and a sin; therefore, gay marriage should be a sin to him. RK has a lot of potiental but this flaw he is allowing will make or break him as a debater. If he cannot present his arguments without such a glaring flaw, then he is not thinking in the manner he needs to be the best debater he can be.

I might have explained something similar to his situation with this post.

Hypothetical situation:
I view homosexuality as a sin. I have two options, support gay marriage, do not support gay marriage. Now the problem with not supporting gay marriage would be that not all people share my beliefs. Wouldn't opposing such law be forcing my beliefs on others? Oh I can tell people I disagree with homosexuality, and I can attempt to purge any thought of homosexuality from my mind, but who am I to tell others, who have no problem with homosexuality, what they can and can not do? I'd also be setting dual standards. I would be saying homosexuals shouldn't get married because it's a sin. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't heterosexual lust a sin? Does this mean I cannot get married because I sin? Marriage is not the problem, the sin is. Two homosexuals getting married would not inherently make them more sinful would it? I would nearly say the opposite if they were having premarital sex. Better one sin than two, eh? Marriage is not the problem, the sin is.

If his thought process runs anything like this, I can completely understand his logic.

 

[Eor]

There is a big difference between rarely have sex (every few years) and NEVER having sex. You will not find a married couple who has NEVER had sex. It just wouldn't be possible.

Gandhi was married and tried to never have sex. There are other eastern religious people who do the same.

I attack RK's arguments because he has a huge fallacy presented - he supports gay marriage but believes homosexual acts are wrong and a sin; therefore, gay marriage should be a sin to him. RK has a lot of potiental but this flaw he is allowing will make or break him as a debater. If he cannot present his arguments without such a glaring flaw, then he is not thinking in the manner he needs to be the best debater he can be.

That's not really true, though. Marriage will probably lead to sex, if they're not already having sex, but it's not the same thing, and even if he thinks it's wrong he doesn't have to be against it. I don't think he ever actually mentioned gay marriage not being a sin, just that he doesn't think it should be illegal because it's his own opinion.

 

[Lixivium]

I attack RK's arguments because he has a huge fallacy presented - he supports gay marriage but believes homosexual acts are wrong and a sin; therefore, gay marriage should be a sin to him. RK has a lot of potiental but this flaw he is allowing will make or break him as a debater. If he cannot present his arguments without such a glaring flaw, then he is not thinking in the manner he needs to be the best debater he can be.

Seems like you're no longer debating gay marriage, you're trying to convince him that his own beliefs are wrong. I don't think he meant it as a persuasive argument, he was just stating his own personal opinion. Sure it's a little idiosyncratic, but everybody has them.

I believe smoking is wrong; it is absolutely wrong with no redeeming features. However, I would NOT support making it illegal for smokers to get married and have children, even though smoking is far more likely to harm your child than being gay. Is that being a hypocrite?

 

[Crimson King]

The difference between your belief and his: people are condemned to hell for smoking.

The point I am making is that his argument of supporting marriages but saying homosexuality is a sin is oxymoronic: if you support it, it cannot be a sin, otherwise you are supporting sin.

 

[|RK|]

Nope. I am supporting commitment and trust between gays. I still think that being gay is wrong, and by association, gay marriage is wrong. However the fact that there is no commitment (which many people marry for, mind you) is wrong. I do not attack nor prejudice gays, however their homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible. I don't get what you are trying to imply here.

 

[w!zard]

Nope. I am supporting commitment and trust between gays. I still think that being gay is wrong, and by association, gay marriage is wrong. However the fact that there is no commitment (which many people marry for, mind you) is wrong. I do not attack nor prejudice gays, however their homosexuality is a sin. I don't get what you are trying to imply here.

how do you know it's a sin? how do you know which parts of the bible to take literally? how do you know the bible is really god's words? how do you know if you can trust god?

do you really know what god thinks?

 

[|RK|]

how do you know it's a sin? how do you know which parts of the bible to take literally? how do you know the bible is really god's words? how do you know if you can trust god?

do you really know what god thinks?

I have pastors and there are theologists who help me with these things. I would really like you to stop questioning my faith and beliefs. Thing about religious debates is that unless you really understand what I'm saying instead of just seeing contradictions and such in the Bible, you won't understand. Religious debates won't go anywhere. So long as you do not believe, you shall not understand.

 

[w!zard]

and how do you know your pastors and theologists are correct about the morality of homosexuality? we aren't getting anywhere because you refuse to think for yourself. learn to question your assumptions or you won't be seen as anything but closed-minded.

 

[|RK|]

Heheh... Faithkeeper noted this in a PM. Atheists are close-minded. Christians are close-minded. I'm not swaying to your side, and you aren't swaying to mine. Nor will you. Why don't you question science? Do you have the same materials to test the evolution theory? Big Bang theory? There were quite a few scientific scams pulled off before. See what I did there?

EDIT: No one sees me as close-minded, anyways. FYI, I do question certain things. How would I learn if not?

 

[Zero Beat]

I see you as being very close minded if you don't question your own beliefs. Part of having strong beliefs is reassuring they are correct by testing them thoroughly.

I used to be a catholic, studied religion for over four years, but when I started seeing the bull**** and questioning/made attempts at verifying those beliefs, they couldn't hold up. How are atheists close minded? More like, why?

Your arguments will carry no weight if there is not a why. Who says science is not questioned? Science needs to be CONSISTENTLY questioned in order for it to stay true.

Anyway, science is just a tool to explain events that happen in reality. Nothing more. Oh my god isn't more ridiculous than oh my science.

 

[KrazyGlue]

and how do you know your pastors and theologists are correct about the morality of homosexuality? we aren't getting anywhere because you refuse to think for yourself. learn to question your assumptions or you won't be seen as anything but closed-minded.

Heheh... Faithkeeper noted this in a PM. Atheists are close-minded. Christians are close-minded. I'm not swaying to your side, and you aren't swaying to mine. Nor will you. Why don't you question science? Do you have the same materials to test the evolution theory? Big Bang theory? There were quite a few scientific scams pulled off before. See what I did there?

EDIT: No one sees me as close-minded, anyways. FYI, I do question certain things. How would I learn if not?

People who are gay shouldn't be forced to follow any sort of religious path and therefore it can't be involved in the law.

I think w!zard is right to some degree, not necessarily about the close minded part, but that you have to form some of your own beliefs. Whether or not you say that you follow whatever the bible says, you have to have some reason as to why gay marriage is morally incorrect. If your reason is "the bible says it is a sin" then that only applies when you are speaking from a religious standpoint. But to form your own actual views about the morality of gay marriage, you have to consider the rights of the gay people, including the ones who don't follow the bible.

This is where what faithkeeper noted comes in. RK might have two different views: whether it is morally correct, and whether it is religiously acceptable. However, the latter viewpoint should only apply to those who follow and believe in an anti-gay religion. Therefore (correct me if I'm wrong) RK believes that gay marriage is morally correct as long as that person is not involved in an anti-gay religion (although even in the latter case I think someone can still believe in the bible and be gay).

As long as the couple don't get married in a church it should be allowed.

Also, I don't really see what science has to do with this (sorry if I missed something)...

 

[|RK|]

Heheh... Faithkeeper noted this in a PM. Atheists are close-minded. Christians are close-minded. I'm not swaying to your side, and you aren't swaying to mine. Nor will you. Why don't you question science? Do you have the same materials to test the evolution theory? Big Bang theory? There were quite a few scientific scams pulled off before. See what I did there?

EDIT: No one sees me as close-minded, anyways. FYI, I do question certain things. How would I learn if not?

In fact, I question a lot of things. I even debated with my pastor once. Come on, now. And I didn't say either was ridiculous, Zero. Nor did I say I didn't believe in science. YES I believe in evolution (not man from whatever common ancestor with monkey), and I do believe we are evolving, and much more. But that's totally irrelevant. If I didn't form my own beliefs from what I've learned, then I probably am no more than a brainwashed puppet. But because I really do believe, I must think. You guys are making assumptions too fast.

Anyways, gays should have commitment. Y'know, its a shame when either there's no debate because everyone agrees... or it's all vs one.

 

[RDK]

Why don't you question science?

That's the wonderful thing about science; it's based on questioning. Scientists are questioning the standard of knowledge every time they do an experiment.

This is what you guys aren't getting. Your railing against the scientific community is unfounded for reasons that would be obvious to anyone familiar with how science works. Do you realize what would happen to a person if they discovered the fossil or piece of evidence that destroyed evolution as a credible scientific theory? They would be bigger than Darwin.

In any case, scientists are constantly trying to outdo and falsify each other's work. It's called peer review, and it's why the modern system is so strong. When's the last time you heard about any faked evidence regarding evolution?