And, they wonder why the right has had enough!

Clown world

Democrats would protect those who burn or spit on the country's flag, but will dox you if you're caught denigrating the gay flag.

My problem is not the denigration of the gay flag, but the idea they need a flag to promote their s3xual preferences. Where's the straight flag or the bi-s3xual flag? The idea it's somehow okay to flash your s3xual preferences around in everyone's face, when it should be a private matter, is laughable and disgusting to me.

1) No sexual act should be out in the open.
2) I'm not talking about kissing, unless it's sucking face and done in a sexual manner. Kissing is one thing, sexual acts is another.

I don't care, cause I don't really pay attention to people just kissing. Like I said, if they were really going at it, it's not something I want to see (gay or straight), because it makes me uncomfortable.

Adolfo had already been convicted of two previous felonies and was treated as an "habitual offender," in keeping with Iowa state law. In that circumstance, his criminal history tripled the maximum available sentence for arson from five years to 15 years.

This is how it works, regardless of your stance on rainbows.

and yet there are people who actually did many more than 2 previous violent felonies walking the streets.
Case in point "Ricky Plotts" who shot up Fitzgerald Mercy hosp. He had many drug felonies and armed robbery of a bank that got him 80 years. He was released in 16 yrs and went on to kill an innocent woman.

Fitzgerald Mercy Hospital is in PA, so how does that relate to state law in Iowa?

You can always find discrepancy in the law. That's nothing new.

This guy would likely have gotten the same regardless of the colors of this flag. This is nothing more than a half truth story dressed up to incite anger.

its just an example of how there are worse criminals walking free.. had he burnt a Christopher Columbus, St paddys ,etc flag, I am sure he would be free.
I am all for free speech, including someones right to have a rainbow flag .

No, I'm not sure that he would have been set free. I'm sure though, that it would have been a non-story.

yup..non story 4 sure..

Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere. Your use of the word 'discrepancy' suggests that this is a minor matter. I think this is more a matter of inconsistency and a failure to apply the law equally.

No, I'm saying life isn't fare and no one said that it would be.

People go to jail for smoking weed while child rapists somehow go free. This happens all the time.

We are human and while we try to make the court system fare, it doesn't always work our that way given prosecutors, judges, defense teams and the human error that comes into play.

This meme is using LGBTQ people as an example of, "see, look, I told you" to suggest that in America they are getting more rights than the rest of us and even more than the American flag. This is an attempt at legitimizing discrimination to a small subgroup of people who have always been discriminated against since the beginning of time. I could give a shit about the LGBTQ population but I know they automatically get hit in any society just by being who they are and by being different. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Our flag is strong and we've determined that burning it is LEGAL!

You will get no argument from me regarding life being unfair.

Smoking weed, like prostitution, is harmless to society in theory, but in practice becomes insidious.

One can make the argument that it is our demand for fairness that results in an unfair system. I think it best to be 'fair' (which I arbitrarily define as unbiased toward either party without objective justification) in local examples rather systemwide, but that can result in the appearance of lopsided justice.

Child rapists going free is a failure of those judges and lawyers administering the system, not the system itself.

I, too, don't give a damn about LGBT etc. It seems to me that their methods are in part to blame for their troubles, but that is none of my business. It does appear to me that acknowledgement of their right to marry (for example) has enboldened some members of that group to attempt to strongarm the majority, thereby securing rights they are not entitled to.

That is how I view the spirit of the meme, though the incidents on which it is based are distorted.

Legitimate.

The two so called felonies were non violent, victimless crimes relating to traffic tickets and marijuana. Not hardly worthy of a 15 year sentence. The courts slant toward the protected minority. Simple as that!

No, there is nothing here that is simple.

No, it actually is simple. The case is very clear cut. The prosecuting attorney, Jessica Reynolds, said specifically that the bulk of the sentence this man received was due to what they characterize as a hate crime. Most of the man's sentence - 15 years - was due to that charge alone.

"Story County Attorney Jessica Reynolds said hate crime charges were added because Martinez is suspected of criminal mischief against someone's property because of "what it represents as far as sexual orientation."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/19/hate-crime-iowa-man-sentenced-prison-burning-lgbtq-flag/2705226001/

Now, if you're going to tell me these same charges would have applied to some granola in an antiwar protest - or a minority in the black lives matter movement doing the same to the American flag. I'm without a choice, compelled to tell you, you're not being honest about the matter.

How about Madonna threatening to burn down the White House? You thin she should get 15 years, too, right?

her herpes are on fire lol

You keep making this claim, but offer no citations to back it up. It's simply not a true statement.

Yeah, arson of a FLAG! How come burning the American flag is called Free speech, but burning a rainbow flag is arson? Double standard?

"Yeah, arson of a FLAG! How come burning the American flag is called Free speech, but burning a rainbow flag is arson? Double standard?"

How can the above comment be seen any way other than, a snowflake crying about unfairness?

These are long established rules in American society. It's really quite simple. If you don't like the rules, stop crying about it and work toward making a difference.

I will say though, making the burning of the American flag illegal, empowers people around the world giving them a new format to show their hatred for America. It would in effect, make flag burning a standard norm for any American protest around the world.

Keeping it legal, devalue's flag burning. The act of burning our flag, actually signifies the freedom in our country because it is not illegal and everyone has the right to do so. Protesters doing so, are actually hurting their own cause.

"His 15-year sentence was because he was an habitual offender, so the sentence was expanded beyond what it would have been."

Which is nothing but a claim. The prosecution said why he received the lengthy 15 yr. sentence - and that reason had nothing to with a prior police record of minor offenses. I posted a citation to back that up You offered nothing but a claim.

"Arson is not a small deal. Making threats to burn down a building is not a small deal."

No it's not, but it doesn't typically warrant a 15 yr. sentence - Nor were those the specific charges. You haven't offered an argument or citation to back up what you're suggesting - You're just claiming that.

"This doesn't specify if it was the arson or the hate crime addition that made it a 15-year sentence"

Yes it does. and the citation I gave above has a quote by the prosecuting attorney saying exactly that. Did you even read the link I posted? The Attorney specifically mentions that the hate crime charges were specifically because of it being an act against homosexuals.

"I don't see a problem with that"

This is a Red Herring fallacy. Whether you have a problem with it or not is an entirely separate issue from whether or not Martinez was sentenced because of having a prior, minor, criminal, history. Which was precisely your initial claim.

"Do you condemn his actions?"

Yes, I do, but what has that to do with the current topic of discussion as to whether or not the punishment fits the crime?

Again, the American flag can be legally burned. If you don't like that, change the laws.

The prior offenses made him qualify as a habitual offender TRIPLING the amount of jail time and also instituted the states, "three strikes you're out" law.

WTF is wrong with you?
Next you'll post about some dude getting to light a sentence by some liberal judge and going out killing somebody. People can't win with you.

You win either way.

What you're saying is that this guy should be able to be a douchebag and get away with it. You condone his behavior.

You're just pissed because in your eyes, this is the wrong kind of crime falling under harsh penalty.

“Again, the American flag can be legally burned. If you don't like that, change the laws.”

First. This only strengthens the initial point of the meme and the arguments conservatives here are making - that the rainbow flag and the perverted minority and behavior it represents are being elevated over and above that of the American flag and the entire nation it represents – it doesn't diminish it.

Second. The changing of the laws in Iowa is for the people of Iowa to decide. While such a change may be possible in a swing state like Iowa – it's just about impossible in a blue state like NY where I live or CA.

“The prior offenses made him qualify as a habitual offender TRIPLING the amount of jail time and also instituted the states, "three strikes you're out" law.”

That's good to know. However, that only argues for the legality of the sentence – not the justice or ethics of it - or for sexual perversion being a legally protected status.

“WTF is wrong with you?”

You mean other than the fact that I'm in touch with objective truth, reality, and morality and don't believe that the perverted views of a small fringe minority and the symbol that represents them should be elevated above that of the entire country and the symbol that represents all people of that country? Or were you referencing something else?

“Next you'll post about some dude getting to light a sentence by some liberal judge and going out killing somebody. ”

That's a possibility because the same judge who would give a man a 15 yr. prison sentence for burning a flag representing sexual perversion – even if as a result of being combined with prior charges – would also be the same judge to give a felon in a rape or murder case a slap on the wrist. Thankfully, Donald Trump has already stacked the courts with more judges in his almost four years in office than Obama did in eight. That's a good start to combat judicial oligarchs.

“ People can't win with you. You win either way.”

No, I will admit when I'm wrong, but I'll also admit that's it hard for me to do and you would have to make a very clear case that that this in fact the case. I'm just like any other prideful guy who has a hard time taking driving directions from his wife when he's lost.

It's really strange how you repeatedly call this sexual perversion.

To me, your wording really says a lot more about you than it does about LGBTQ people. Your syntax is very strange. Like in some way, you think these people are just this way because they like to play wild occasionally and this is not part of their makeup, which says a lot about your own personal mindset!

THIS, is the root of why you care so much about this issue. It's not about LGBTQ people, it's about your own inner strangeness.

"It's really strange how you repeatedly call this sexual perversion."

I would expect this from a secular progressive. They're really big on political correctness and mincing words. Unless they're attacking their opponents. Political correctness is the antithesis of who I am. I also use the term perversion to counteract the constant mischaracterization of LGBTQ behavior as " Love " when it's about as antithetical to the term love as is hate.

"To me, your wording really says a lot more about you than it does about LGBTQ people."

Cool ! You're gonna give me a phycological profile? Let me guess, It says I'm really a closet homosexual. Right? This is a popular one secular progressives like to use.

"Your syntax is very strange."

Yes, it is. I'll admit that it is for multiple reasons. I have a hard time getting words out of my brain onto a page. I also often type things off the cuff and don't really look them over well. Often in rush before or after work when tired.

"Like in some way, you think these people are just this way because they like to play wild occasionally and this is not part of their makeup"

No, that's not what I think at all. I have no doubt that they have very real desires to engage the same sex. However, an urge or desire is not legitimate to act upon by virtue of an individual possessing it.

However, they have no way to determine good desires that should be embraced, and bad ones to reject or resist because they're being raised in a culture which has largely jettisoned objective moral standards for " Do whatever you want as long as it feels good and you're not hurting anyone"

"which says a lot about your own personal mindset! "

Actually it has nothing to do with a mindset, but rather with epistemology. Few people today have a solid, objective, moral, epistemology. The embracing of all kinds of immoral behavior is the result. LGBTQ behavior is only one of many examples of this.

"THIS, is the root of why you care so much about this issue. It's not about LGBTQ people, it's about your own inner strangeness."

This is an appeal to motive fallacy. I care about this issue because it is greatly damaging to a culture and to future generations. When you attack traditional marriage and the family - you are attacking the very foundation of culture.

2 of 2. "What you're saying is that this guy should be able to be a douchebag and get away with it. You condone his behavior. "

Not at all. I'm saying that the damaging or vandalizing of property shouldn't carry a 15 yr prison sentence and that sexual perversion and the symbol representing it shouldn't be a legally protected status or item elevated over and above that of all Americans and the symbol item representing them. That was the initial point of this meme and discussion. Remember?

"You're just pissed because in your eyes, this is the wrong kind of crime falling under harsh penalty."

You're absolutely right - I own this. It's the wrong kind of crime that falls under too harsh a penalty. I would agree to a crime of damaging public property, criminal mischief, or vandalism, but not hate carrying a 15 yr. sentence. and I hold to that even if it could be proven that he actually hated them - which I don't believe that he did. Hate is not a crime. Acting on that hate with violence would be and should have been punished had he engaged in it.

He admitted to hating them when he was asked and stated it was why he did what he did!

Yeah, I know, but that's really quite irrelevant. Had he acted on that with violence, it wouldn't be.

Tearing down a flag owned by another and burning it, is violence.

No, it's not. and if you insist that it is - you have no command of the English language.

What do you consider it?

I don't have anything against normal gay people. And, I don't think anyone can get married illegally. I think marriage is a religious ceremony that should not be governed in ANY way by law.

Unfortunately, the government has to be involved, because if this were not the case, people could arbitrarily define marriage any way they want. They're doing that anyway even with the government involved. It would, even more, be the case without them. Are you Libertarian? They seem to be big on your position. It's the government's job to perpetuate the flourishing and strengthening of society. The chief way they accomplish this is by encouraging traditional marriage and procreation. You know, everything most secular progressives are against.

First: Your question is self-defeating and makes no sense. If they "got married illegally" they didn't get "married" because it wouldn't have been recognized by the state - and it sure wouldn't be recognized by an orthodox Christian Church.

Second: What about "consenting" adults who engage in same-sex activity? Should society prosecute them? Generally speaking, No, but they definitely shouldn't accommodate them. Homosexuals should have human rights like every other person - and they do - but they should not have uber rights that pertain to or facilitate their chosen behavior.

"When Gavin Newsom gave marriage licenses to same-sex couples before it was legal in California, were they legally married, or no?"

Not at all. These officials would also be violating their oath of office.

"From a legal standpoint that doesn't matter."

No kidding. Did you have to think long about this reply?

" Why is consenting in quotes? "

Because secular progressive seem to think that adults consenting to an act gives it moral legitimacy. An immoral act is no less immoral because adults consent to it.

A baby doesn't consent to an abortion - nor can it - but its life is no less taken by progressives supporting abortion as a result.

"Define "accommodate" as you're using it"

e.g. Giving marriage licenses, benefits or "rights" as a homosexual "couple" vs just accommodating them as individuals or traditionally married couples to perpetuate the human race. etc..

"A sexual orientation isn't a behavior."

Yes it is. It's the very definition. Look it up.

"And I'm not sure what "uber rights" you are referring to."

I'm referring to marriage licenses under the guise of "equality" when the truth is no other rights exist among our populace by which they can characterize it in this faulty manner. For them to characterize it as " inequality " there would already have be same-sex adults being offered marriage and benefits which they're being denied. This is clearly not the case.

"LGBT people want to be treated equally. "

They already are. The fact that they're demanding uber-rights based on the mischaracterization I alluded to above - makes that no less true.

"They aren't treated equally in every state."

They in fact are. The only basis by which you're offering this is their demand for uber-rights based on a choice, sexual, deviancy, and the state's refusal to accommodate those demands.

"I think that should change."

I think everyone should like Chocolate ice cream or my favorite sports team, but that's just an arbitrary preference and opinion, not an objective standard or argument for those positions.

1 of 2.

“Consent is a factor in determining whether something is moral or not.”

No, it's not – nor do you hold and objective basis by which to determine this. Another consenting adult only means they had an accessory to their moral crime.

“Same-sex couples should have the same rights, benefits, and recognition as straight couples. No more, no less.”

They already do, but if what you mean is that they “should” have uber-rights or extraordinary rights. You would need to provide an objective standard to ground the term “should” otherwise it amounts to no more than a subjective and often arbitrary preference or opinion.

“Sexual orientation is an identity, not a behavior. Being attracted to someone and engaging in behavior are two different things.”

It's an identity based on inward desires and those desires lead to the behavior. If you're going to deny this – you're not being honest.

“Sexual orientation is about whom you're attracted to, that's all. Behavior is a separate issue.”

Right. And that attraction motivates the behavior. Just like all thoughts motivate all behavior. You're splitting irrelevant hairs here.

“Please explain, because I'm not understanding.”

I'm saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. For LGBTQ people to suggest the issue of them being denied a license - which only applies to this demographic I've described, alone - as inequality, would not fit the definition of that term.

Inequality is when the same people ( A man and a woman ) Are being granted the same rights or privileges ( Marriage ) That other people meeting these specific criteria are not receiving. That excludes homosexuals. The qualifiers are being a man and a woman and it's not discrimination that homosexuals are being denied it, it's an issue of objective reality and morality.

“LGBT people are not treated equally in all 50 states. In many states, there is no legal protection in housing or employment for LGBT people. That is not equality.”

Do you mean no legal protection regarding their behavior as a legal couple? There shouldn't be unless they legitimately get married to someone of the opposite sex. Now if you're saying they don't hold the same rights single, straight, individuals do. That's another story.

“In all 50 states, no one can be legally fired for their religion, race, color, or national origin”

That's because those are legally protected statuses under our Constitution.

You're suggesting that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Sorry to break this to you but that ship sailed about 25yrs ago. Just because you don't think the dam should ever break and that it would be horribly wrong if it did, doesn't mean history does not prove that it did! There are pictures and documented evidence that it broke. Your argument is no longer even valid!

I could care less what any church thinks in terms of marriage. Marriage is for the financial benefits found through government, in taxes, death rights, insurance purchase and everything else that comes with that. This was the main thing same sex couples wanted and if they are in a long term relationship, what is wrong with giving them that?

"You're suggesting that marriage can only be between a man and a woman."

Not suggesting - Stating an objective fact.

"Sorry to break this to you but that ship sailed about 25yrs ago."

You haven't broken anything to me. You've simply made an empty claim with nothing to back it up. However, I think as has been typically the case - You're conflating issues of morality and reality with legality.

"Just because you don't think the dam should ever break and that it would be horribly wrong if it did, doesn't mean history does not prove that it did!"

Oh wow ! A euphemistic analogy. I love stories to try to give credibility to arbitrary preferences and opinions. It doesn't actually stop them from being arbitrary preferences and opinions, but it's still entertaining. Please go on.

"There are pictures and documented evidence that it broke. "

I think you're confusing legality with reality. You do know these are separate terms and concepts. Right?

"Your argument is no longer even valid!"

I haven't made an argument yet. I'm watching you offer an opinion which I think you think in your mind somehow equals an argument, but we can go there if you want. I really don't think it's going to bode well for you, but we can if you like. Are you game?

"I could care less what any church thinks in terms of marriage."

Ok, well that's good to know, but that says more about you than the Church or this issue.

"Marriage is for the financial benefits found through government, in taxes, death rights, insurance purchase and everything else that comes with that. "

Which is nothing but an empty claim. Those are a small part of marriage and side benefits, but not the primary purpose. However, how could you know otherwise considering your limited world view and epistemic source?

"This was the main thing same sex couples wanted and if they are in a long term relationship, what is wrong with giving them that?"

That's not what they wanted. If that's all they wanted - they would have stopped and civil unions, but once they got civil unions, they then wanted to push the envelope. Your claim does not stand to rational or historical scrutiny.

That response came close to topping the most words, while saying nothing, that I've ever received. Nice work.

By the way Octavia_Melody - Although you haven't come out and admitted this to me. And I could be wrong - I strongly suspect you're a homosexual - which - among other things - is precisely why you get so worked up about these issues.

Your issue is not with me, but with God. I am not here sitting on my Christina high horse viewing you as this awful sinner and I a just a wonderful, non-sinning, Christian saint, and althought this is probably a day late and a dollar short - apologize for my much less than Christlike behavior towards you in the past.

However, the difference between you and me is. I recognize that I am a sinner, and you celebrate and promote the fact that you are. This problematic.

The answer to your and all homosexual's dilemmas is not waling aginst God so you can live in sin. The answer to your dilemma is to acknowledge it as sin, repent of that sin, and turn to Jesus Christ.

1 of 2.

“I'm not gay, but I am bisexual. That's only part of the reason I'm so passionate about LGBT issues.”

Well, I would agree you could be passionate about LGBTQ issues and not be gay, but I've been debating progressives a long time and notice things in your language that are typically characteristic of LGBTQ people.

“The other main reason is a basic desire to see people treated equally and not oppressed.”

Yes, I know - You've expressed this before. The problem is - characterizing the issue as one of inequality or oppression just doesn't meet the definition of either of those terms. For those words to hold application here - others would have to already be receiving what LGBTQ people currently are not. This is not the case. LGBTQ people aren't asking for equal rights, but rather uber-rights or extraordinary rights a particular lifestyle.

“I'm not Jewish but I feel very strongly about anti-Semitism as well for the same reason.”

Well, this is not surprising. Secular progressives are notorious for supporting American Jews. Most American Jews are very liberal and hold loosely to Judaism.

“I understand that you believe that, but since I don't believe in God, I would disagree.”

I would expect this. If you're engaging in immoral behavior – which you are – you would naturally want to suppress the God who objectively grounds immoral behavior and judges that behavior. This is precisely why the bible says men primarily deny God's existence for sinful purposes.

“I appreciate that, and I know I've been less than civil at times myself. I apologize as well. It's easy to get worked up over issues we feel very strongly about.”

This is true. I'll have to be honest. You've probably been more civil than I have. It's something I need to work on. I think the anonymity of the internet also plays a role in this. It's really easy to spout off hurtful or crass comments from behind an internet screen - Not so much when you're face to face with a person.

“Just remember that it's never too late to apologize if you feel you've wronged somebody.”

This true. The thing is there is always the possibility of the person throwing such an apology back in your face, but my apology would have stood even had you had done that. I'm glad that you didn't though.

2 of 2. “I don't recognize sin as a legitimate concept, so it's a moot point.”

Yes, I know, and that's problematic for you. We've talked about this in the past. Your position makes morality purely subjective and often arbitrary without much weight to it. This is – in my estimation - the Achilles heel of atheism

“It's like a Scientologist saying "unlike you, I recognize my need to be set free from harmful thetans"

No, it wouldn't be, because they have no basis for that statement, but since you see Scientology as being in the same category as Christianity – you make the faulty comparison. A faulty comparison fallacy is only as strong as the degree to which the individual making the comparison see the two things being compared as being alike. And since you just admitted this – we know you committed such a fallacy.

2 of 2. “In many states, people can be legally fired for their sexual orientation”

That's because sexual perversion isn't – nor should it be - a legally protected status. And by the way. I'm not using perverted as a pejorative to be inflammatory. That's what it is. And I can argue that.

“By definition, that's not equality.”

You're wrong. Your comparing positions legally protected under our Constitution to a choice, perverted, behavior. That you possess not the world view or epistemology to determine this, makes that no less true.

“ Not being fired because of their sexual orientation is not an "uber-right". “

Yes, it would be. Let me use this example. I'm heterosexual. If I began shacking up with a woman I'm not married to and My employer was a strict Christian and canned me for this. I would have no problem with that. It's his business and he doesn't want to be facilitating my immoral behavior – nor should he be forced to by law.

“Then your argument would apply to everything else, too.”

No, it wouldn't. I'm not offering an argument, I'm just offering an example to show how silly your prior quote of “ I think that should change “ is, in regards to your claims of inequality.

“Saying people should be treated equally because of their religion or skin color is arbitrary personal opinion too. Not everyone”

No, it's not. It's constitutional and moral law this country was founded on.

I've had the discussion of God and morality many times with people and am quite fascinated by those who lose all moral compass without a God to look to for support.

I don't get it and never will.

That is basically saying without God, people would be screwing dogs and children in the streets, slitting throats, drinking blood and murdering people because that is their nature.

I am probably a Universalist in that I believe there may be something out there beyond us because this world is pretty magical if you just look around. But, I don't need any God, any book, to know the difference between right and wrong and living a moral, just and good life.

I believe people are basically good, not bad.

Homosexuality is found throughout nature. Many species can even switch gender after adulthood. This isn't a moral or immoral behavior at all.

2 of 2. "Many species can even switch gender after adulthood. "

Ok. Well, that says nothing about that behavior being moral or not for humans to engage in.

"This isn't a moral or immoral behavior at all. "

Not in animals, it's not, because there is no such thing as morality in the animal kingdom. Animals are driven by instinct.

"How do you define morality?"

The same way most dictionaries do. However, that may have some exceptions. Dictionary definitions change all the time due to popular, cultural use - and those changes may or may not reflect reality. Progressives butchering or misusing terms in culture is largely to blame for this. The terms gender, discrimination, and bigotry come to mind.

"So are humans, because humans are also animals."

No, they're not. This precisely why when you see a human being very immoral you'll often hear the phrase coined " That person is acting like an animal " Animals act consistent with animal behavior and is them just being animals - If a human doe sit, that is not consistent with them as an image-bearer of God.

Humans are created in God's image and hold all the characteristics of God. e.g. Justice, morality, purpose, the ability to reason. When they suppress that image they will act like and look to lower life forms to take their ques. This is precisely what we see secular progressives doing.

This is also manifesting itself in the fact that people in modern times - This is especially true in blue states - show more concern for animals and the environment than humans. I don't know if you've noticed, but pet idolatry and worship of the environment have become especially popular in our society. This is consistent with a society that jettisons biblical principles for their own flesh. The bible talks about this. I"ll post it below.

Yet despite not having such a moral code, laws, and the eternal threat of punishment by the GodS, animals do not come close to the types and level of brutality humans do (yeah, I know about cats and orangs, so skip it), and even what little they do do is in in terms of survival needs, not for sheer grotesque indulgement & pleasure and the excuse that knowing better therefore leads to absolution from the Divine just a mere prayer away.

There is proof every day of animals acting more humane and morally than people.

WE ARE NO DIFFERENT!

1. There is a bottle nose dolphin in the wild right now, raising a baby whale.

2. Monkeys share their food when they see an individual who has not gotten an equivalent amount.

3. Dogs save their owners from house fires.

4. Horses help people who have had traumatic events in their lives.

5. A small child fell into a gorilla enclosure at a zoo. The gorilla cradled the injured child and carried it to the nearest door where zoo personnel were waiting.

You say LGBTQ people are making an individual choice, a sin and immoral choice. You rate sexual orientation as an optional system, a choice one can make like it is not internal wiring when there are more examples in the wild of sexual conversion, of gay and lesbian behavior than NOT yet use a figure in space as your moral authority and a book written 2000yrs ago as your testament between right and wrong, making you able to school the rest of us between right and wrong and morality?

You're no different than a traveling snake oil salesman in the mid-1800's.

Your morality is not based on science or on reality. If you don't see animals as having some of the same basic rights as humans, you're not a very moral person.

Romans 1:21-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

21 For even though they knew God, they did not [a]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [b]crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [d]forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [e]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [f]indecent acts and receiving in [g]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

I stopped reading at, "Romans 1:21-32."

Let me know if you want an exposition of the below bible passages. It contains a whole lot pertaining to modern society that goes far beyond the topic we're currently discussing.

Nobody cares about your idea of morality. NOBODY.
They don't care about my idea of morality either.
It's a waste of time discussing it.

It will do nothing to change the world or make it a better place.

No, I don't need a book to know how to treat other people. To do people no wrong or no harm and to know right from wrong, is pretty simple for anyone of sound mind.

The bible is full of things considered barbaric today that no one would consider appropriate.

Humans aren't driven by instinct? Bullshit!

I find your assumption regarding the LGBTQ community as making an, "immoral" choice, offensive and I'm not even a part of the LGBTQ community. Sexual orientation goes to the heart, the very core of the individual. Your suggestion that it's superfluous, an emotion, is very strange. Sexual orientation is NOT a choice.

Do you believe in conversion therapy? A therapy outlawed in many states and proven to cause individuals harm? Is that a moral choice?

1 of 2.

"Nobody cares about your idea of morality. NOBODY."

Nobody except the millions of Christians who support the same things. I'll let others speak for themselves - you'd be wise to do the same. However, let's assume "NOBODY" did care about my "idea" of morality. How is that relevant?

"They don't care about my idea of morality either."

Oh, I think you're being too hard on yourself. I think they do, but once again. That's completely irrelevant in arguing for your position on morality.

"It's a waste of time discussing it."

I don't think it is. It's doubtful we'll change one another's minds, but it's still healthy to have discussions about issues in which people disagree.

"It will do nothing to change the world or make it a better place."

I don't think you have any way of knowing that. Dialogue is always healthy. Even if the two parties disagree.

"No, I don't need a book to know how to treat other people."

No, you don't necessarily need a book. Every human is created in God's image and has a conscience. That holds true whether they acknowledge that or not. However, you can suppress and seer that conscience to where it no longer responds to your moral shortfalls. This is where a book like the bible comes in.

"To do people no wrong or no harm and to know right from wrong, is pretty simple for anyone of sound mind."

Apparently it's not that simple, because most cultures have gone off the rails morally speaking. But most of them have rejected objective moral standards found in God alone, so they have no way of knowing this.

2 of 2.

"The bible is full of things considered barbaric today that no one would consider appropriate. "

Do you mean the historical accounts? Or the moral admonitions? Much of what is considered " barbaric " in the bible by secular progressives is them taking historical accounts and attempting to advance them as moral admonitions. That says more about those people than the bible.

Also, to discount the bible's morality based on what people "today " think is what's known in logic as an appeal to novelty fallacy.

"Humans aren't driven by instinct? Bullshit! "

Since you've dismissed this without a basis - I'll pay you back the favor and do the same.

"I find your assumption regarding the LGBTQ community as making an, "immoral" choice, offensive and I'm not even a part of the LGBTQ community."

That's good to know, but all that says is that you don't like my position - it does nothing to counter-argue my position nor bolster yours.

"Sexual orientation goes to the heart, the very core of the individual."

I completely agree - and the core of the individual is human depravity. Homosexuality is only one of many manifestations of this depravity. Another would be the fact that most people lock their doors at night in large cities.

"Your suggestion that it's superfluous, an emotion, is very strange."

I don't recall making this claim. Nor do I see how something being " strange " necessarily argues against it's truthfulness.

"Sexual orientation is NOT a choice."

I would agree that often sexually perverted desires are not a choice. However, acting on those desires is. A desire or urge does not possess legitimacy by virtue of someone being born with a predisposition to it.

"Do you believe in conversion therapy?"

Not at all. I do believe that a person by God's grace can be delivered from this behavior though. Former Syracuse University, PhD professor, Rossaria Butterfiled, is one of such people. Here is a link to her testimony if you're interested. It's an amazing story. I actually live 40 miles East of the university where she taught before she came to know Christ.

My Train Wreck Conversion | Rosaria Butterfield | CFC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN6yYSj08gI

"A therapy outlawed in many states and proven to cause individuals harm? Is that a moral choice?"

I'm personally against it.

Well, that's one positive.

to make atheists look bad

There is a good number of strong Christians who seriously need the idea of God in their minds just to keep them on the straight and narrow. Very shallow, weak individuals indeed, with no internal moral compass. I suppose for these people it is good they have found a way to cope in our world and be productive.

How do you know he was a Christian? Simply because he self-identified as one? One self-identifying a certain way may hold legitimacy in the progressive world, but not in the Christian world. A person's claimed identity must line up with a certain set of objective criteria. It is not established by personal declaration, as is the case with transgenders.

"I offered a citation to back up my claim. You've offered nothing but denial. Where is your argument to back your claim?"

if you did read my comment, i was joking when i said "stalin wasn't a real atheist"

Methinks you were duped by an incognito Atheist. They're devious like that.

Thanks for your response, Octavia_Melody. By the way. This is not me attempting to imply Christians do not do bad things. Yes, even horrible things. The bible is full of examples to refute that position. It's to say that not everyone who identifies as a Christian is in fact a Christian. As a matter of fact, I can say with full confidence that most who identify in this way are not. and don't say that because they don't line up with my subjective, and personal criteria of what it means to be a Christian.

OH NO! SUSPICIONS THAT YOU'RE - EGADS! - HOMOSENSUALATEDED!

Looks like CentralBYGuy better put on his chastity belt in case you use your seductive prowess & your irresistable charms to get into his pantaloons.

You mean being manipulative and committing Red Herring logic fails in the mids of a conversation by trying to switch topics? I don't know what the connection is. It's something I've noticed they do. Which again, is not something unique to them, but something I've noticed they often due. Atheists are notorious for it too. So It may be a secular thing.

It's not possible to state any single fact with absolute certainty. This is basic philosophy. This is why knowledge was defined by the Greeks as justified, true, belief. To answer your question. No.

Gotta give him props for his delightful 2048 revisualizing of 1984.

'Removing the shackles of religion limits you'

'Contradictory myths in the Bible are not fairy tales'

&, of course, that old Orwellian classic,

'Free thought is mental slavery.'

1 of 2. “It shows faulty reasoning.”

I'll ask again. What rules or laws of logic does it violate? Faulty reasoning is by definition reasoning which violates rules or laws of logic.

“You're saying that no matter what answer I give, it proves you right.”

No, I did not say that. I gave you two criteria. So in attempting to apply a logic fail to me – you end up yourself committing a strawman fallacy.

“So you're basically saying in this context, you can't be wrong.”

No, I”m not basically saying that. This is a strawman. The fact that you can't grasp what's being said makes that no less true. When you reject God, Octavia, you are given over to a debased ( Inferior ) mind. You demonstrate this in just about every conversation.

“That's faulty logic.”

Once again, Faulty logic is by definition that which violates rules or laws of logic. What rules or laws of logic do you see my reasoning violating?

“Then provide evidence for that assertion.”

Can you provide evidence that evidence is the epistemic source by which this knowledge I”m alluding to is acquired? We've been through this enough times where you should know better than making this constant epistemological assumption.

“Freethinker means someone free from dogma. If you think I'm dogmatic, feel free to point out how.”

Be glad to. You are bound by naturalism, determinism, materialism, nihilism, and moral relativism – and most importantly – sin. These are the tenets of the atheist dogma. You are bound and a slave to all these things.

“And people who get their thinking from the Bible are thinking for themselves?”

Absolutely, no doubt about it. Is a person who does whatever they want like animals in the jungle free? Or does freedom only come by living according to the rules or laws by which something designed operates? I

Is a fish "free" if it jumps out of the water onto land? Or is it operating freely in water by how it was designed? Contrary to what you think. We were designed for God, to obey his rules, and live for him.

Anarchy and freedom are not the same things. The same is true with the laws of God. Atheists are essentially moral anarchists. That's not "freedom" The problem is with your use of the term “ free “

“Can you demonstrate that?”

Can you demonstrate that this knowledge needs to be demonstrated? When will you stop imposing your epistemological assumptions on others? The very fact that you hold solely to such assumptions is why you're in the boat you're in.

2 of 2. “In 20 years you've never encountered an atheist or gay person who admitted what?”

Admitted that they're denying my allusion to their being manipulative as evidence of behavior typically characteristic of homosexuals and atheists. Remember now?

“You're making a lot of assertions and not providing evidence for them.”

Which assumes and asserts that I need to. If you're in fact in denial – which you are – what good would putting evidence or a demonstration before you do?

“The Bible contains numerous falsehoods and elements which are obvious mythology.”

Which is nothing but an empty claim.

joseph stalin wasn't a real atheist

"He most certainly was."

no he wasn't. he wasn't my denomination or whatever of atheist, so he wasn't a real atheist

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Stahlin was an atheist. Only secular progressives who try to distance Atheism from the 100 + million slaughtered under Communism deny this. He slaughtered leaders in the Russian Orthodox Church who did not toe the communist line.

USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941)

CentralNYGuy to octavia

What does this Red Herring have to do with the current topic. If for no other reason, then you want to diverge? This is what I was talking about the other day when I said you exhibit characteristics pointing to my suspicions of you being homosexual. This isn't exclusive to them, but it's something they do often.

"I'm not being manipulative or committing a red herring. Something came up in conversation and I wanted to explore it a little more."

You in fact are. and your denial, when confronted with it, is also part of it.

"That's your opinion."

No, that's a fact.

"I haven't seen atheists, gays, or secularists do it any more than other people. "

That's because you're amongst them. Of course, you don't.

"So me saying that it's not true further proves that it's true?"

Not by itself, but in compilation with other things. Yes

"You're setting up a no-win situation and that's very fallacious and dishonest."

I'm not setting up anything. And No, it's not fallacious and dishonest. and if it's fallacious. What rules or laws of logic does it violate?

It just happens to be the makeup of the mind hostile towards the things of God. All the God-given resources at your disposal will be used continually to suppress the knowledge of God, and that is true whether you want that to be or not.

This is because you are a slave to your own sin. Literally, not figuratively. You are a slave to what you think is your own " Free thought " This is why Christians get a big chuckle out of atheists often self-identifying as "Free Thinkers " They're about as far from having their thoughts free of inhibition as can be.

"Once again, you're setting this up so that anything I say is further "proof" that I'm wrong and you're right. "

I'm not setting up anything. This is the nature of the mind hostile towards God.

"If I say yes, I'm admitting it which means it's true "

You didn't say yes. Nor have I ever encountered an atheist or homosexual whoever did. and that's in the 20 years I"ve been doing this.

"If I say no, I'm in denial which means it's true "

Right. You did say no. and I've never encountered an atheist or homosexual who didn't. you think I'm just pulling stuff out of my arse. This is what I have experienced and this is consistent with what the bible says. Contrary to what you may think, the bible is not a book of old fairy tales. It will read your mail every time and it has here.

Sighting scripture, is introducing a red herring. He's done that.

"You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Stahlin was an atheist."

shuddup if you think stalin was an atheist you're a libtard and get dabbed on epic style stalin was not a real atheist. a real atheist is like a real christian or real muslim. so-called real by the person who doesn't want to be associated with stalin, westboro, or isis.

"Only secular progressives who try to distance Atheism from the 100 + million slaughtered under Communism deny this."

all joking aside, it was his character that lead him to commit genocide. people who guilt-trip atheists who engage in debate by bringing up stalin (or any other dictator) can't really debate for their side because they realize that their side isn't incapable of doing the same.

1 of 6. "I already explained. You're saying that no matter what answer I give, it proves you right. That's outright dishonest."

You didn't explain, but tried to excuse it. And that's not what I'm saying. You're reasserting a strawman. A fault in reasoning exists by virtue of a rule or law of logic being violated. Since you've identified no such rule or law - no fault in reasoning exists.

"I'm still waiting for you to prove this claim."

It already has been. Here you're making a claim of faulty reasoning, when that's pointed out, you engage in denial or reassert the fallacy. You can't provide evidence to someone claiming to want it, but repeatedly denying facts and evidence about their own behavior.

"Prove that there is a direct connection between my supposedly inferior mind (because this is a subjective determination) and rejecting your specific God."

It already has been. You engage in repeated denials when faced directly with facts and fallacies you don't want to accept. Also, the term inferior is not subjective. That's an empty and irrational claim sourced by your even more irrational world view.

"'Im not claiming that evidence is the source by which knowledge is acquired."

You in fact are. It's being directly Implied in your statements.

"But if someone makes a claim, they should be able to support their claim with evidence."

Which is an epistemological assumption. A claim can be supported with an argument without necessarily alluding to evidence in the context in which you're using it. To the intellectually honest and rationally competent, that is.

"What is your evidence?"

The evidence is this exchange. What is your evidence that you possess the intellectual honesty and rational competence to evaluate such evidence and that evidence is the sole means by which knowledge on this topic is acquired?

You've consistently demonstrated you possess neither of the above alluded to attributes necessary in evaluating data. This is precisely why juries in high profile court cases are rigorously screened for bias and prejudicial attitudes. You've given evidence of both here.

2 of 6.
"Since no one has shown any reliable, verifiable, testable way to study or even confirm the existence of the supernatural (if it exists) "

Huge problems here. That "no one" has shown the type of evidence you're alluding to is not only irrational and untrue, but irrelevant even if true. To state this is a positive/negative claim which would literally require you to hold all data and knowledge of human experience in the universe. I am not just confident, but certain you don't possess such knowledge.

"then the natural world is all I'm able to observe and study. "

If you assume one epistemic source - which you do - the natural world will be all you're able to study. And even that "study" will be limited. You're openly admitting to embracing an epistemic source which assumes no supernatural and then lamenting the fact that it doesn't provide knowledge for it.

"If you have a way to confirm or observe the supernatural, I know of many people who would be very interested in hearing it, myself included."

You and your atheist peers do not hold a history to give credibility to this claim.

"Do you have it?"

Do you have evidence you possess the rational competence and intellectual honesty to evaluate it in the wake of an exchange where it's becoming more self-evident with each reply that you don't? Or do you just plan on demanding evidence you have zero intention of evaluating in an intellectually honest manner? Can you also provide me with the objective criteria you would use to recognize evidence for a supernatural God?

"Why do you think I'm bound by determinism and nihilism?"

Because this is where your naturalistic world view places you by implication. If God does not exist, you're solely determined by genetic forces and random systems in the universe beyond your control. Most Atheists will even acknowledge that there's no such thing as " free will " Placing them firmly in control of random, processes determining the course of their lives.

"Sin is a useless concept to bring up since I don't agree that it exists, and you haven't confirmed that it does."

Denial of a reality you can't fully account for because you lack an epistemic source to determine it doesn't make it cease to exist.

3 of 6. "My ability to understand and know about the world around me has limits, as it does for all humans."

It does have limits, but your limits regarding God are by virtue of your own atheist dogmas and assumptions, not because the knowledge isn't available.

"It depends on how the word "free" is being used in this context."

Yes, I know, that's precisely my point. Atheist use it to mean free of moral inhibitions.

"And I'm still waiting for evidence for that claim."

You'll be waiting a long time. You have has of yet to demonstrate intellectual honesty and rational competence in evaluating data. When the evidence for that is pointed out, you deny that as well.

"You're absolutely right."

Ok, well this is precisely what atheists mean when they use the term "free" . So you've conceded this part of the argument. By the way. Most political anarchists are atheists.

"No, because atheists don't run around doing whatever they want whenever they want."

That's only because they're bound by civil law. They sure do this morally speaking if it doesn't violate the law, and they're trying to change the laws to overcome that as well.

"Atheists like myself follow the rules and laws of society (not perfectly of course)."

That's because you have no choice or you'd be put in jail. That really does little to nothing to counter-argue my point.

"I'm asking for it to be demonstrated so that I can see evidence for your claim."

When evidence is provided, you deny it. Also, The way the facts I've alluded to are determined is not solely limited to by your repeated, epistemological assumptions. When this is pointed out, you ignore it and reassert the assumption. Repeating a fallacy over will not cause it to cease being a fallacy.

4 of 6 "Assumptions such as what?"

I already explained this. The fact that you ask the question over is evidence you don't really want an answer. Your naturalistic assumptions.

"Asking for evidence when someone makes a claim?"

Correct, because you're asking right in the middle of a conversation providing the evidence, then denying it and assuming a sole epistemic means by which it comes. When this is pointed out - you wash and repeat the same things over. This is an echo-chamber fallacy.

"Except that being manipulative isn't behavior typically characteristic of gays or atheists, at least not that anyone has demonstrated to me."

It in fact is. However, since you're the demographic being described - you're denying it.

"Yes, you need to."

Yes, I need to in that I have to validate my claim - I don't in that, it does not have to come by your epistemological assumptions - which you make continually. You can't ask for knowledge and then demand that it come by epistemic sources that already rule it out.

"If I make a claim, I need to provide evidence. "

Not necessarily via naturalism, but since that is all you have, this is what you as an atheist are stuck with. This is what I meant above when I pointed out the dogmatic tenets of Atheism.

"If you make a claim, you need to provide evidence."

Not necessarily via naturalism. It would also require intellectual honesty and rational competence to evaluate.

"This is a foundation of argumentation and discussion."

It's a foundation for argument and discussion for the intellectually honest and rationally competent. Which you haven't a history of either.

5 of 6.

"If you make assertions and don't have any evidence for your assertions, your argument is dead on arrival."

Not necessarily. Also, This is an argument from silence fallacy and you've made assertions and assumptions without backing them up repeatedly. There is a double standard here.

"You still haven't demonstrated that I'm even in denial."

Most of this exchange demonstrates it - Which causes you to make further denials.

"It's just another assertion you've made. "

Which is an assertion your own behavior in this exchange - and other's - validates.

"If you make a claim and provide evidence, then I would be more likely to accept your claim if I find the evidence compelling."

You do not have a history that gives credibility to this statement.

"This is a foundation of argumentation and discussion."

It's a foundation for argument and discussion for the intellectually honest and rationally competent. Not those who aren't.

"If you make assertions and don't have any evidence for your assertions, your argument is dead on arrival."

Which is nothing but an empty claim. You also just used argument and evidence interchangeably. These are separate terms with distinctly different meanings. An argument must be sound and valid, but the truth by which premises in an argument are established is not necessarily evidenced via naturalism. This is the constant, repeated, assumption you make.

6 of 6.
" You still haven't demonstrated that I'm even in denial. "

I have repeatedly. and when that's demonstrated you deny that as well.

"It's just another assertion you've made."

This is just more denial.

"If you make a claim and provide evidence, then I would be more likely to accept your claim if I find the evidence compelling. "

You haven't illustrated this to be the case. On the contrary, you've demonstrated the exact opposite.

"I'll back up my claim with evidence. "

You've been repeatedly been asked to back up your claim of faulty reasoning and all you've done is reassert the strawman fallacy committed in your prior response. You also make repeated epistemological assumptions. This claim does not stand to rational scrutiny.

"The Bible makes claims which are mythological in nature, contain no extrabiblical corroboration, and go against everything we know about nature and reality. "

Which is nothing but an empty irrelevant claim - and that irrelevant part is true even if some of your claims like " extrabiblical corroboration " are true. Nor can you qualify or give a full accounting of most of the terms you've used in this assertion.

"Does this prove the events didn't happen? No. But the evidence is overwhelming for myself and many others that the Bible is not without errors. "

If you engage data in a consistently intellectually dishonest matter, only look to confirm your own bais, deny facts and fallacies you don't want to face, and make epistemological assumptions. this will be your end conclusion. However, that says more about you and your atheist peers than it does the bible or it's accounts of historical realities you refuse to concede to.

1 of 2.

"I've had the discussion of God and morality many times with people and am quite fascinated by those who lose all moral compass without a God to look to for support. "

Well, you've bumped into the right guy to unveil that mystery, and I absolutely love these types of conversations. So fire away.

"I don't get it and never will."

Ok, well we've not even scraped the surface and already you're indicating part of the problem. You're committed to willful ignorance. Before you get your panties in a wad over that. I'm just making logical deductions based on your own words. You said " never will" How could you make such a statement unless you were committed to ignorance?

"That is basically saying without God, people would be screwing dogs and children in the streets, slitting throats, drinking blood and murdering people because that is their nature."

Not at all. I feel like I've been through this conversation a thousand times and I'm in the movie groundhogs day. As is typically the case with secular progressives. You're conflating doing what's immoral with justifying what's immoral.

It is not my position that God deniers can't be moral people. It is my position that you wouldn't have an objective standard to know that. See the difference?

You as a God denier or agnostic may very well be more moral than many Christians. However, you have no means to qualify that behavior as moral or not. Anything you call moral would be nothing more than an arbitrary preference or opinion.

"I am probably a Universalist in that I believe there may be something out there beyond us because this world is pretty magical if you just look around."

Ok. So you're an agnostic. That's a start.

"But, I don't need any God, any book, to know the difference between right and wrong and living a moral, just and good life. "

You sure do. Otherwise what you're referencing as " right and wrong " or "moral, just and good life" is nothing more than an arbitrary preference or opinion. You can bring that to the bank.

"I believe people are basically good, not bad."

You can believe that all you want. Without God, you have no way of qualifying it.

"Homosexuality is found throughout nature."

Animals drinking their own urine and eating their own feces are found throughout nature as well. Should we follow their lead in regards to that as well?