I don't believe in God, but I hate it when gay guys hit on me (it's happened more than once, lol), but you can't help who you're attracted to. I have a negative reaction to homosexual contact, but I still have gay friends, and I think that they are entitled to the same legal and financial benefits that straight couples can get.

Also, T, what are your views on straight oral sex and straight anal sex?

@vaportrail said:

That's a pretty nasty statement Vape.

Who hates gays?

One need not hate gays to feel that marriage is meant for natural bioligical couples.

You don't have to even believe in god to have a negative reation to homosexual contact.

The gay marriage initiatives went down bu 60 to 70% when on state ballots even in areas that went to Kerry.

WSS

I liken it to the Soviet Union criticizing the United States for oppression of

Soviet satellite states, and saying that America uses false propoganda.

Here, Sev, if you don't get what I'm saying:

http://www.freedomnuts.org/

@vaportrail said:

I dont hate anyone except steelers fans. edit: I hate the acts of sinful nature, but not those who commit them.

*****************************************************

I didn't go there. I simply chided you on what you say other times, and what you referred to that one time.

That doesn't seem very outlandish, does it? It's a chat board.

But to hate anybody who disagrees with you, or teases you, and you think that it's okay to bite their ear off?

Or ridicule their professions? What? So blunt force is okay if somebody disagrees with your opinions on stuff?

Must be weird to so hateful, and accuse anybody who disagrees with you of "Hate".

Maybe you hate yourself like you hate religion or something.

I am quite capable of defending myself, Sev, but I didn't attack you, so grow up a bit.

critical thinking, when you criticize others for not thinking critically.

You however, have ridiculed my career over decades, and my

love and career of farming for no good reason.

Just a hateful low blow, justified by all liberals by NON critical thinking.

But, I guess I brought a piece of sawdust to an argument, so you brought

a gun, per Obamao's orders.

Sad. and wrong.

@calfoxwc said:

....wait... I just can't.................

..........................................

ROF,LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry, I tried to stifle it.

Like you calling yourself a programmer

sorry, i tried to stifle it.

maybe you should stick to posting some more Hitler to Obama or Mao references at least than you can always fall back on some folksy Palinesque references to your farming.

....wait... I just can't.................

..........................................

ROF,LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry, I tried to stifle it.

Seriously the "dark" ages were glorious for religions for a reason...... ignorance enhances their value proposition......

why do you think they have fought scientific growth for the last few thousand years? Why do you think they pushed the Intelligent Design PR campaign into education? They were losing ground to generations of children being taught to think ......CRITICALLY by science..... they can not stand that.

Dogma and fables written by humans who would have worshipped a plane as a chariot of gods a few hundred to thousands of years ago is not exactly critical thinking......

Of course they know they cant stand up to historical or scientific scrutiny so they use catch all concepts like Faith to turn of inquisitive or critical thinking to logic that does not stand up to observation.

It will grow as long as education and science grows.......... Missionaries teach 3rd wold countries with food and from the Bible for a reason..... they dont want to teach from real education curriculum for a reason.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

So I should just give up and move out? Nope, we're a growing minority. Some estimates have shown that we are up to 15% of voters, though it's more likely ~10%. How atheists were perceived between today and 10 years ago is completely different. Obviously we're starting to gain respect in the world of politics as shown by Obama taking time to meet with us. You can plug your ears and close your eyes and pretend that the number of faithful isn't shrinking and the number of godless isn't growing, but you'd be wrong. I feel that secularists will have even more muscle 10 years from now.

@vaportrail said:

What are you talking about? Advocating equality of treatment of people of every religion or lack thereof = misguided? Okay.

Yes. You've hit the nail on the head.

I think you're in for a shocker. Some atheist from San Francisco tried to sue to have them removed a few years back and lost. It will never happen, not in your lifetime. Sorry. You can always move to a more atheist friendly country (are there any?). The majority of people in this and all countries are not atheist. You are a small minority.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see it removed in the next 10-15 years.

@mr.-t said:

You still gotta love the misguided ones who feel that we need to be fair.

What are you talking about? Advocating equality of treatment of people of every religion or lack thereof = misguided? Okay.

Here is an ideal, all of those liberals who feel that the world is not neutral enough should stay silent so they wont offend anybody.

Yes. You've hit the nail on the head.

Here is an ideal, all of those liberals who feel that the world is not neutral enough should stay silent so they wont offend anybody.

@vaportrail said:

Nobody was telling anyone they had to pray.

Agreed.

Plus the National day of prayer isn't a violation of the first amendment.

Yes, it is.

It neither creates or endorses a national religion.

That's not the issue. While it doesn't endorse a national religion, it does endorse religion.

Christians, Jews, Muslims all pray. I would bet that even Scientologists, Buddhists and Atheists meditate.

Have you read anything sev or I have said? Meditation isn't inherently religious, prayer is. That's why the government endorsing prayer is unconstitutional.

It is no different than saying "One Nation Under God" or saying "God Bless America".

I agree, and I think that the nation under god should be removed from the pledge and in god we trust taken off our money.

Tough. It won't be.

Nobody was telling anyone they had to pray.

Agreed.

Plus the National day of prayer isn't a violation of the first amendment.

Yes, it is.

It neither creates or endorses a national religion.

That's not the issue. While it doesn't endorse a national religion, it does endorse religion.

Christians, Jews, Muslims all pray. I would bet that even Scientologists, Buddhists and Atheists meditate.

Have you read anything sev or I have said? Meditation isn't inherently religious, prayer is. That's why the government endorsing prayer is unconstitutional.

It is no different than saying "One Nation Under God" or saying "God Bless America".

I agree, and I think that the nation under god should be removed from the pledge and in god we trust taken off our money.

Nobody was telling anyone they had to pray. Plus the National day of prayer isn't a violation of the first amendment. It neither creates or endorses a national religion.

Christians, Jews, Muslims all pray. I would bet that even Scientologists, Buddhists and Atheists meditate.

It is no different than saying "One Nation Under God" or saying "God Bless America".

@smalls1129 said:

I might be able to buy this ruling if praying was solely a Catholic or even Christian practice, but it is not, it covers (especially when considering praying and meditation signify the same purpose (in general)) practically all religions. Certainly enough to where having a National Day of Prayer doesn't equate to the government sanctioning one religion over another (again the purpose of the 2nd amendment).

Meditation is a mental exercise that some religions have incorporated but is not inherently religious...... Prayer to a "higher power" IS inherently religious which is why there is a problem with state sanctioning of prayer.........

Get over the fact that a federal judge is enforcing secularism......

the attempted economic and legal tyranny by the Obamao admin will be ruled unconstitional,

as an attempt to impose the statist religion of socialistic tyranny upon us.

Which violates our rights, since some of us don't believe in that tyranny.

Thusly, we have our rights to our beliefs, and they cannot be infringed upon.

The Obamao and leftist Congressional regimes are trying to impose their religion upon us.

Separation of Church and state, says I.

Gar-r-r-r-r. (crap. where's a pirate emoticon when you need it?)

I think the point to take away from this is that people of any belief should not be discriminated against by the government for those beliefs. I would contend that since some Americans are atheists, that their religious beliefs of a lack of belief (ironic, eh?) should be respected too. I just think that the "of vs from" argument is really sketchy because atheists' beliefs are still religious beliefs.

For this judge to rule in the manner she did presupposes the later. Also, if you are an atheist or even agnostic than you should have no problem any way, shape or form with any of this. To my knowledge there is no atheist 'sec' or religion. Since there is no religion there is not one that can be violated by the notion of pray or meditation in general.

Yes, while there is no 'sect' of atheism, it's still a set of beliefs that gets infringed upon by encouraging us to pray. I am an atheist and I see no reason that a government should encourage me to go out and pray, it's a fruitless and completely religious activity as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to say, as a government, that you're going to treat all of the beliefs of every American citizen equally, then holding a special day of prayer singles out atheists because it's a religious function.

I might be able to buy this ruling if praying was solely a Catholic or even Christian practice, but it is not, it covers (especially when considering praying and meditation signify the same purpose (in general)) practically all religions. Certainly enough to where having a National Day of Prayer doesn't equate to the government sanctioning one religion over another (again the purpose of the 2nd amendment).

Can you expand on this?

People can pray to that deity they believe in.

Okay, if that's what they want to do, it's fine, but not above my criticism, feel free to critique me as well.

I don't diss and ridicule other religions, but you lefties go berserk with dissing Christianity.

Not only Christianity, but that's probably what you'll hear most about seeing as it's the major religion of the country, and most of the people you know are Christian, and most members on this forum are Christian.

Do any of us diss your worshipping Obamao? NO.

I don't hold Obama as infallible or divine, like you do to God or maybe even the pope. I like much of what he's done, giving more government support to student loans, taking a step toward universal healthcare. There are things I don't like. Why are we not moving more troops out of Iraq like he said he would? Why are whistleblowers getting f*cked by his administration? He's not all-knowing, he's not all-good, hell I'd say that he's been doing a half-decent job since he's been in office, which is way more than I can say about the last guy.

Would I think badly of you if you pray to him? No, because when you find out what his "answer" is, you won't think he's a deity anymore.

He was never one to begin with.