"I was under the impression that Fox News was a secular network." Then you haven't been watching it.

So the devil is keeping Jesus' truth from being presented. Jesus can't overcome the devil, or doesn't care to. Interesting point of view.

"Likewise, there is no getting away from the fact that as long as you practice a strong faith you will be ridiculed. Sadly, that's just the way it is." Well, AngelaBatey, you and the other 75% of the US that call yourselves Christians will just have to find a way to console yourselves over this persecution by us mean 12% atheists!

"86'd" does NOT mean killed; "86'd" is US American slang meaning to refuse service, to eject, to ban, to get rid of. It is – or used to be – common restaurant slang for being out of a menu item. It is not common slang for killing, although obviously that would be a legitimate use.

Even if we conceded the existence of your god, why would we assume that you speak for him, and not yourself?

What you mean, of course, is that you *hope* these purely straight, alpha males will beat the living daylights out of these men. Nice. On the other hand, I find it interesting that you are fantasizing about how these gay soldiers will be "parading" themselves. Little ambivalent there, maybe? No, surely not a man's man like you!

Oh, and Raw, as regards my bigotry: I am absolutely bigoted in favor of individual freedom and against ignorance. I support your right to oppose gay marriage on a personal level, but no one has the right to deny others what they themselves enjoy because they view the other person as somehow inferior.

Raw, "...marriage has nothing to do with procreating." Exactly right. AS I said, refusing siblings the right to marry is pointless because they're going to have sex anyway, and procreation may well result. Obviously marriage is irrelevant. "So, your argument is invalid." Actually, you just failed to understand it. "...there are many people with genetic defects that are easily passed...more

Raw,

"...marriage has nothing to do with procreating."

Exactly right. AS I said, refusing siblings the right to marry is pointless because they're going to have sex anyway, and procreation may well result. Obviously marriage is irrelevant.

"So, your argument is invalid."

Actually, you just failed to understand it.

"...there are many people with genetic defects that are easily passed down to their children who are allowed to marry and procreate."

Yes! Exactly why being anti-sibling marriage makes no sense. We are not a logical people, many of our laws are based on beliefs that go back to a pre-scientific age. Obviously, if we allow people with serious, inheritable genetic defects to procreate, siblings are no worse. You're just not going to see much of it.

And since gays don't procreate we don't even have *that* feeble excuse, so there is no ethical or scientific reason to prohibit gay marriage.

And I'm even slightly interested in anyone's opposition based on their so-called religious beliefs; your religious beliefs may prohibit *you* from marrying someone of the same gender, but that's all. It's not the business of the state to support religious bigotry.less

therawtruth asks, "Vile, would you deny siblings the right to marry?" I'll field that one. No mentally competent adult should be denied the right to marry another. For one thing, the only concern is birth defects – the incidence of which are higher between close relatives – and if siblings are attracted to each other, they're going to have sex anyway. If there is no legal stigma then we ca...more

therawtruth asks, "Vile, would you deny siblings the right to marry?"

I'll field that one. No mentally competent adult should be denied the right to marry another. For one thing, the only concern is birth defects – the incidence of which are higher between close relatives – and if siblings are attracted to each other, they're going to have sex anyway. If there is no legal stigma then we can deal with it realistically, providing birth control and genetic counseling.

Second, and more importantly, if marriage between siblings were decriminalized tomorrow, would *you* marry *yours*? I suspect not; I certainly wouldn't marry mine.

Finally, sibling marriage has nothing whatever to do with gay marriage, except that you – and, in a happy coincidence for you, the supreme being of all creation – find both offensive. So try to stick to the subject from now on.less

Crispentine, go now and look up "non sequitur". What you replied does not follow from what I wrote, especially since the theory of evolution does not take a position on whether humans and dinosaurs co-existed, though paleontologists certainly do.

"Thankfully, defending the sanctity of life nowadays doesn’t require anything like Kreyssig’s courage. But it does require courage." Really? Why? What are the consequences of "defending the sanctity of life"? Someone might say something mean about you? Horrors! I have to say, some Christians are the biggest crybabies I've ever heard. You poor little things, all you have is over three-qua...more

"Thankfully, defending the sanctity of life nowadays doesn’t require anything like Kreyssig’s courage. But it does require courage."

Really? Why? What are the consequences of "defending the sanctity of life"? Someone might say something mean about you? Horrors!

I have to say, some Christians are the biggest crybabies I've ever heard. You poor little things, all you have is over three-quarters of the US population, more than half the Congress and four out of five members of the Supreme Court in your group.

Early Christians would no doubt be feeling very bad for all of you if they were still around. "What?! People say bad things about you? Sometimes to your face?!! Even put up billboards suggesting people can be good without God? And you sometimes have to *go to court* to defend your beliefs? Wow! All we had to deal with was lions and torture. How *do* you bear up?"less

It sounds to me as if the wording of the study was flawed due to assumptions made by the researchers. It might be enlightening to many to go to www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Julie_Exline/anger-at-god-is-good-for-_b_803683_72791751.html and see what Julie herself says about it, and some responses to that.

TexasJohn, the question was "What *proof* do you have of this supposed Judgement Day?" What is meant by that is not "Why do you believe it?" but rather "Why should *I* believe it?" Obviously nothing in the bible is going to be considered evidence by an atheist.