Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time

[Zaelath]

If God did not permit evil, then we'd be robots, unfree to make our own choices. God allows evil out of respect to us. He gives us a choice. All of the chaos of this world can be linked back to individual choices outside of God's preference.

But hey, you guys aren't into the whole God thing anyway.

I got nothing against God, I'm just not into the twisted perversion that is Christianity 2004.

[Adex_Xeda]

I doubt you'll get the gay rights crowd to concede to a civil union under a name other than marriage.

The real thing they want is acceptance. They want people to say "What you're doing is ok." A civil union implies only tolerance but not approval.

[Tenuvil]

But hey, you guys aren't into the whole God thing anyway.

There you go with your patented black-or-white simplistic view of the world again.

Just because many of us think fundamentalist "born-again" Christians have their heads up their asses doesn't mean we're Godless heathens you twat. Or is this something they told you in Bible study class?

[Thess]

I doubt you'll get the gay rights crowd to concede to a civil union under a name other than marriage.

The real thing they want is acceptance. They want people to say "What you're doing is ok." A civil union implies only tolerance but not approval.

I am so happy I know Adex to give me insight into gay peoples minds

[Atokal]

So Aaeamdar the guy who places No value on human life whether it is a man enjoying outdoor recreation or a fetus is offering opinions here?

I value human life. I just don't use a pretense that I value it over all other things when presenting my arguments. I leave that sort of dishonesty to "moral" people.

Haha I leave opinions such as yours to the morally bankrupt.

[Lohrno]

They simply claim that the kid isn't a human, thus avoiding the moral gravity of their act.

Are you claiming that a 2 month old fetus has conscious thought and is able to understand it and it's own environment? How about a fertilized egg that has divided 10 generations?

-=Lohrno

[Lohrno]

I doubt you'll get the gay rights crowd to concede to a civil union under a name other than marriage.

The real thing they want is acceptance. They want people to say "What you're doing is ok." A civil union implies only tolerance but not approval.

Government should not approve or dissapprove of any action that does not cause harm to society. That's what liberty and justice for all is about.

-=Lohrno

[Lalanae]

No Adex, I would not agree with you. The definition to "open-minded" is 1. having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.
2. unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial.

Only a simpleton would think open-mindedness means accepting anarchy.

[Adex_Xeda]

Alright,

If I was gay, and wanted full benefits for my partner. I would most certainly not try to attach a traditional marriage label to my union. All it would do is limit the way others see my relationship. It would put artificial contraints on my relationship.

The only benefit I see for seeking such a title as marriage on top of the legal rights afforded to me by a civil union, is the concept of marriage provides a level of celebration and acceptance of my union.

Thus, I want societal acceptance for the lifestyle that I'm compelled to live.

Thess, in what ways do you disagree with this?

[Adex_Xeda]

No Adex, I would not agree with you. The definition to "open-minded" is 1. having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.
2. unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial.

Only a simpleton would think open-mindedness means accepting anarchy.

heh, I proposed a sliding scale, not an absolute. You tolerate many things. I do too. Your tolerance is set at a different mark on the sliding scale than me.

I assume you tolerate things that do not negatively affect others. That's where I hold my mark as well. We depart when we start defining what is harmful for society. When people say "You don't have enough tolerance," they are making an indirect statement disputing where one's sliding scale mark is.

[Lynks]

Once again, I'd like to point out that marriage is not a Christian thing so stop acting like you own the word.

[Adex_Xeda]

The traditional definition of marriage owns itself and exists outside my endorsement.

If the legal benefits traditional associated with marriage were to be provided via a civil union, the only reason to pursue the idea of gay marriage would be to force societal acceptance of the such unions.

But hey I'm human, I could be missing something, what else do you see as a motivation for pursuing this tradionally oppositional definition as a label?

[Sueven]

The duty of tolerance obligates equality.

Pose the opposite question to yourself: If the word 'marriage' is really just a label with no pragmatic effects, who cares if it's applied to homosexual unions?

[Zaelath]

The traditional definition of marriage owns itself and exists outside my endorsement.

If the legal benefits traditional associated with marriage were to be provided via a civil union, the only reason to pursue the idea of gay marriage would be to force societal acceptance of the such unions.

But hey I'm human, I could be missing something, what else do you see as a motivation for pursuing this tradionally oppositional definition as a label?

The word marriage is used in many contexts, but it is clearly a synonym of union. Your "traditional definition" is simply one definition, of many, that you choose to cling to in support of your stance and argument. The assertion that it is the only, or only correct, definition is falacious.

Regardless, I don't see why anyone would bother as long as gays can get the same legal rights, and I would never support violating a congregation's right to be superstitous bigots with poor long term memories by "forcing" them to hold a marriage ceremony for gay people.

[Adex_Xeda]

The duty of tolerance obligates equality.

Pose the opposite question to yourself: If the word 'marriage' is really just a label with no pragmatic effects, who cares if it's applied to homosexual unions?

I can't agree that marriage is just a label. It carries a specific meaning to the large majority of our society.


But you know we cal play verbal ping pong all day long with this stuff. I as a voter will support equal access to our laws for gay couples. I will not support the application of the word marriage to such unions for religious and traditional reasons. I tolerate, but don't celebrate two gay folk getting together. As long as the gay movement doesn't legislate it as marriage in an attempt to force acceptance on me, I won't vote against them.

Middle ground stands ready for the taking, with both sides' liberty maintained.

[Brotha]

I doubt you'll get the gay rights crowd to concede to a civil union under a name other than marriage.

The real thing they want is acceptance. They want people to say "What you're doing is ok." A civil union implies only tolerance but not approval.

You nailed it Adex. This is clearly just as much about trying to establish moral equivalence between homosexual relationships and heterosexual ones as it is about gaining certain legal rights.

[Lynks]

I tolerate, but don't celebrate two gay folk getting together.

And you don't have to celebrate it. Let me ask you this, lets say the jews said 2 gay people can get married, would you still oppress it and their religion because you think Christianity is above every other religion or would it be alright now?

[Tinkin Tankem]

With all this talk about being open minded doesn't it seem like a bit of a double standard? The common vibe that I'm getting is to the tune of; Adex, you need to be more open minded until you see things from my view and accept what I accept. Yet at the same point the people pushing the idea of being open minded are not too open to others opinion's. I think you're confusing open minded with liberal.

As a general question on society. When did people get the idea that ones personal opinions shouldn't count? Is this not how we deem things to be ethical, the general acceptance given by society? Or maybe everyone else in the masses thinks and makes their actions on things outside of opinions and beliefs... I'd have to go back and re-read this thread which I'm not going to although I'm sure someone else will. With that in mind I don't think that Adex or myself have really tried to push any our beliefs onto anyone to be theirs too. I think the point that we are trying to push, or atleast myself is that as much as some of these issues hold a personal spot for others. They hold something of value to us too, not necessarily from the same light either. So for you to say that I or anyone else should just tolerate it or be more open, adversly tolerating it, would that not be the lack of toleration for my views?

[Nick]

From personal exp,

I think something everyone is missing is that people who actually have abortions do not necessarily think they are GREAT IDEAS OF FUN but rather feel they have no other choice.

They may be young, uneducated, too career driven, raped; who knows, the point is that the concept of having a child is scary and they dont want it.

It is a necessary evil, for people who do not just necessarily want to be parents from the age of 16 or whatever and it is not confined to the poor or stupid who actually have these. Accidents happen, even with protection, and even you insanely intelligent people cannot tell me you have never once worried about this concept after say...a condom splits?

It is a fucking scary situation to be in, and sometimes people will kill to save their own lives.

The only people who don't see that it is a necessary evil at this stage in history are either religious/naive/retarded.

And abstinance is not a realistic fucking option either, whoever thought of that one obviously needs a fucking bullet in the head.

[Lohrno]

With all this talk about being open minded doesn't it seem like a bit of a double standard? The common vibe that I'm getting is to the tune of; Adex, you need to be more open minded until you see things from my view and accept what I accept. Yet at the same point the people pushing the idea of being open minded are not too open to others opinion's. I think you're confusing open minded with liberal.

There is no double standard, hate all you want, just remember that America was founded on freedom, and acceptance of all peoples. Legislating discrimination of any kind goes against what the founding fathers had in mind for this country. Hence, legislating discrimination is unamerican.

As a general question on society. When did people get the idea that ones personal opinions shouldn't count?

It's called equality of opportunity, and freedom of speech. You can say "I hate niggers and faggots!" all you want, but it is immoral to legislate that, as well as turning this away from a country of equality and acceptance, and turning it into some kind of hitlerland.

Is this not how we deem things to be ethical, the general acceptance given by society?

Your position is hardly general acceptance by society. That said, if society generally accepts slavery, does that make it right?

With that in mind I don't think that Adex or myself have really tried to push any our beliefs onto anyone to be theirs too.

If you advocate banning gay marriage/civil unions, you would be.

I think the point that we are trying to push, or atleast myself is that as much as some of these issues hold a personal spot for others. They hold something of value to us too, not necessarily from the same light either. So for you to say that I or anyone else should just tolerate it or be more open, adversly tolerating it, would that not be the lack of toleration for my views?

We tolerate your views, we just don't want them put into law as that would be unamerican.

-=Lohrno

[Adex_Xeda]

It's not about hate man.

It's about figuring out a way to respect each other.

[Rekaar.]

And so, in the dar hierarchy of values, what holds the top rung of importance if not life?

I would think you'd be against the war in Iraq. Love the fetus, hate the already born?

The already born have choice. Who is more in need of protection - those with or without a voice?

I think you're confusing open minded with liberal.

bam

[Lohrno]

It's about figuring out a way to respect each other.

Exactly. That's why it's better not to ban it, as it would be disrespectful of those who do not hold your views.

-=Lohrno

[Rekaar.]

I just don't think you get it.

If I believe it's murder, at what point is it a better idea to let it happen in my own backyard than act to prevent the murder of innocents?

[Kriista]

If I believe it's murder, at what point is it a better idea to let it happen in my own backyard than act to prevent the murder of innocents?

And if i believe the sky is green?

or if someone believes your trying to, oh i dont know, lets say pass laws limiting equal rights in an attempt to erradicate a lifestyle, is it ok for them look to pass legislation against YOU?

the point most of you are missing is that laws and the government should be a transparent entity, allowing freedom to all until it enfringes on somebody elses freedom
not to legislate morality and such

if your against gay marraige, your completely entitled to not marry a gay man, thats where your freedom on the stance should end
but you want to disallow homosexuals the right ot marry, there your stepping on someones elses shit

this seems to be a trait inherant to the religious types, if YOU diagree with something, you want to force those views on others, usually, as what were talking about, through legislation

i really cant honestly believe none of you who are for the 'civil union' of homosexuals and 'marraige' of straights dont see the parralels between that and seperate drinking fountains, or schools and such

you dont own marraige, and its not a ploy to 'find acceptance', theres been assfucking for as long as theres been fucking

that and the whole 'if theres no procreation possible, its unnatural' shit dont fly either, tell that to couples who are incapable of having children, or who are operated etc..

[Rekaar.]

The thing you're missing is a reality check. There is no law that follows that idea. Every law is a limitation on someone's freedom, be it speeding or murder. As a part of a society you agree to abide by the law of the land. Luckily for you, your society is a democracy and you have the option of contributing to its flourishing or its demise as you see fit.

[Zaelath]

The thing you're missing is a reality check. There is no law that follows that idea. Every law is a limitation on someone's freedom, be it speeding or murder. As a part of a society you agree to abide by the law of the land. Luckily for you, your society is a democracy and you have the option of contributing to its flourishing or its demise as you see fit.

Do you think up these arguments yourself, or do you suck them directly out of some other neo-fascists cock?

Laws that limit your freedom are there to protect the freedoms of your fellow citizens, and here's the thing, gays and abortions (and how the hell do you idiots get that in one topic?) don't impinge on your freedoms, other than the freedom to be a bible thumping bigot.

And answer me this, within 10 years there will be more children born outside of wedlock than between married people; where exactly is the "majority" opinion in society for marriage being sanctified? I don't doubt that a lot of single mothers voted against gay marriage either, religion truely knows no bounds when it comes to hypocrisy.

[Aaeamdar]

Laws that limit your freedom are there to protect the freedoms of your fellow citizens, and here's the thing, gays and abortions (and how the hell do you idiots get that in one topic?) don't impinge on your freedoms, other than the freedom to be a bible thumping bigot.

They got it in one topic because this thread is about Bush cowtowing to Bible Thumpers and Abortion and Fags are the #1 and 2 (maybe not in that orderr) issues for Team Jesus.

Your comment on bigotry, however, is not quite right. It is sqare on when it comes to gays. All the laws they want are laws to restrict the liberty of gay persons and have no effect on any others. Adex is even trying to promote a "seperate but equal" provision for gays, just like those that hated balcks did when killing them outright because less socially acceptable.

On abortion, that's not really fair. I certainly sympathysize with your take, as bigotry and hatred seems to be on what they most focus, but with abortion there is a human life and liberty interest they are trying to protect. That is, restrictions on abortion are certainly about the subjugation of women, but they are also about the protection of a human life. It is thus possible for an abortion opponent to be looking for laws to subjucate women (a bigot) OR it is possible that an abortion opponent regaognizes the terrible burden placed on women but feels that burden must give way to the protection of human life.

Now I also agree that it is very odd that these people, if so fixated on human life do not actively campaign for changes to laws that would force other people to give up their liberites in the name of the protection of human life (possiblely because such laws would actually effect them?? Hmmm, who knows). But we all pick our fights and there is certainly a non-bigotted line of reasoning that supports greater restrictions on abortion.

[Adex_Xeda]

Adex is even trying to promote a "seperate but equal" provision for gays, just like those that hated balcks did when killing them outright because less socially acceptable.

Absolutely not.

If my idea is implemented, both hetero and homo couples would have the same legal rights and equal access to the law. If carried out specifically as I suggest, you'll even avoid the objections of most religious folk.

[Aruman]

Your comment on bigotry, however, is not quite right. It is sqare on when it comes to gays. All the laws they want are laws to restrict the liberty of gay persons and have no effect on any others.

I don't see how giving them the same rights as married couples is restricting anyone's liberty.

I think Adex is dead on with this:

I doubt you'll get the gay rights crowd to concede to a civil union under a name other than marriage.

The real thing they want is acceptance. They want people to say "What you're doing is ok." A civil union implies only tolerance but not approval.

[Aaeamdar]

How was riding in the rear two cars of a train (where whites were not permitted) restricting the liberty of blacks (or whites). They both got to the same place at the same time. Same with the buses - riding in the back for blacks - no big deal, right? Same with water fountains, bathrooms, hotel rooms, etc. etc. etc. As long as everyone has the same set of acutraments then it is perfectly ok to lable some as white only and some as black only?

Adex,
I know your suggestion is that no one is allowed to have their state-sanctioned civil unions be labled as "mariage." I doubt you are correct that "most religious folk" would find this ok, because in that case the State would not be using a seperate term for gays, thus from the perspective of the State gay unions and straight unions would be equal - and I really doubt that is what Team Jesus is looking for. But, even if right, it is a practicle impossibility (e.g. a very expensive move). I am sorry that you feel Jesus owns the word marriage, but he doesn't and that is the term the States chose to use when they first packaged together a set of legal rights and responisibilities for breeders. I don't think (and I don't think you think either) that is likely to change anytime soon. Suffice it to say that those of us not into that whole God thing don't care one way or the other about the word, nor do we care about your acceptance. We want (and are constitutionally entitled) to equality under the law.

[Aruman]

How was riding in the rear two cars of a train (where whites were not permitted) restricting the liberty of blacks (or whites). They both got to the same place at the same time. Same with the buses - riding in the back for blacks - no big deal, right? Same with water fountains, bathrooms, hotel rooms, etc. etc. etc. As long as everyone has the same set of acutraments then it is perfectly ok to lable some as white only and some as black only?

Sorry, the comparison isn't even close enough to be applicable.

Explain to me how anyones liberties are being infringed upon given the rights, benefits, and entitlements of a civil union and a marriage are the same?

[vn_Tanc]

Sorry, the comparison isn't even close enough to be applicable

Explain why. It seems appropriate to me.

Personally I think the marriage-in-all-but-name is a good compromise (although I couldn't give a monkey's what you call it. There's nothing so special about the word "marriage" IMO) and will satisfy almost everybody. But there's an entrenched hard line of gays who will fight for full equality because of the decades of discrimination they've had to fight. For all it seems a good compromise to me, why should anyone have to compromise? I also think the "OMG NO WAY" brigade are simply suffering from a homophobic overreaction. You could marry 9,000,000 gays and it would affect my own marriage not one whit. If you think marriage is about breeding you're wrong IMO. And I've yet to see one anti-gay-marraige argument that doesn't effectively boil down to "just because, that's why!".

[Atokal]

How was riding in the rear two cars of a train (where whites were not permitted) restricting the liberty of blacks (or whites). They both got to the same place at the same time. Same with the buses - riding in the back for blacks - no big deal, right? Same with water fountains, bathrooms, hotel rooms, etc. etc. etc. As long as everyone has the same set of acutraments then it is perfectly ok to lable some as white only and some as black only?

Adex,
I know your suggestion is that no one is allowed to have their state-sanctioned civil unions be labled as "mariage." I doubt you are correct that "most religious folk" would find this ok, because in that case the State would not be using a seperate term for gays, thus from the perspective of the State gay unions and straight unions would be equal - and I really doubt that is what Team Jesus is looking for. But, even if right, it is a practicle impossibility (e.g. a very expensive move). I am sorry that you feel Jesus owns the word marriage, but he doesn't and that is the term the States chose to use when they first packaged together a set of legal rights and responisibilities for breeders. I don't think (and I don't think you think either) that is likely to change anytime soon. Suffice it to say that those of us not into that whole God thing don't care one way or the other about the word, nor do we care about your acceptance. We want (and are constitutionally entitled) to equality under the law.

For fuck sakes it is all about you fags pouting over a word. So don't preach down to the Jesus Freaks that all you really want is the same rights. What you want is to undermine the meaning of family and marriage as it has been described for centuries. If in fact all you wanted was the same rights you would be content with the compromise that Adex is prescribing.

Why would you want a "breeder/Jesus freak" word to describe your particular brand of love anyhow?

[Lynks]

If its just a word, why won't you agree to let them marry then? Fucking bigot/hypocrite.

[vn_Tanc]

For fuck sakes it is all about you fags pouting over a word. So don't preach down to the Jesus Freaks that all you really want is the same rights. What you want is to undermine the meaning of family and marriage as it has been described for centuries.

Wow, nice outpouring of hate there, dickhead. And a perfect, honest depiction of the "anti-" side of the argument at last.

[Apostate]

Debate over the term marriage is largely irrelevant. 8 of the 11 state constitutional amendments (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah) that passed carried language that precluded the existance of civil unions as well as marriage. You can't argue that there is a majority willing to 'tolerate but not celebrate' marriage-in-all-but-name when a majority obviously voted in such a way to avoid tolerating just that. If you feel that way and would vote in such a way, you are very much in the minority:

Arkansas 75-25
Georgia 76-24
Kentucky 75-25
Michigan 59-41
Mississippi 86-14
Montana 67-33
North Dakota 73-27
Ohio 62-38
Oklahoma 76-24
Oregon 57-43
Utah 66-34

[Marbus]

That totally depends on where they live... look at the states this passed in??? None of which are known for their openmindedness nor intelligence. The list of states pretty much reads like the bottom of the list Nationwide in Education or those few states where the Klan and racism is alive and well... I wouldn't say those listed are an accurate representation of the Nation in general.

I am in the minority because I live in Arkansas, but should there be a Nationwide vote I'm sure it would turn our differently...

Marb

[Sueven]

Oregon, Ohio and Michigan are not particularly extremist states.

Also, this last election kind of proved that we can't just dismiss these states out of hand.

[Marbus]

I agree in part but I would say that majority of those states are pretty conservative. I didn't mean though that it can just be dismissed, it's at least 40-50% of the population, I just don't think it's 70%.

Marb

[Adex_Xeda]

Are there stuborn people in this country that don't want to compromise enough to respect the other guy? Yep. I see it on both sides.

Anyone can bitch about the problem, the challenge is suggesting a workable solution.

[Apostate]

I wouldn't say those listed are an accurate representation of the Nation in general.

I am in the minority because I live in Arkansas, but should there be a Nationwide vote I'm sure it would turn our differently...

Marb

I doubt it would.

All those margins are significantly higher than the percentages Bush carried the states by. Meaning a large amount of democrats in urban areas voted in favor of the initiatives as well, unless people seriously think conservatives voted -against- Bush while at the same time voting in favor of the amendment. That doesn't point to a grass roots, anti-gay sentiment at the polls alone... it's an indication that moderate beliefs like that on this board are a minority, and that anyone thinking the majority of America is tolerant of homosexuality is building a false consensus. The numbers simply do not support the notion that the bulk of America is tolerant.

In Oregon, a pretty moderate state where gay-rights groups thought they had the best shot, actually outspent pro-amendment forces significantly, and still lost by a double digit margin.

[Lynks]

Adex, what if the Jews said they would marry gay people, would you then accept it as marriage?

[Atokal]

For fuck sakes it is all about you fags pouting over a word. So don't preach down to the Jesus Freaks that all you really want is the same rights. What you want is to undermine the meaning of family and marriage as it has been described for centuries.

Wow, nice outpouring of hate there, dickhead. And a perfect, honest depiction of the "anti-" side of the argument at last.

ROFLMFAO....
Proved a point many have shared on this board for a long time. It is all well and good to label Christians as "Bigotted, Jesus Freaks, Jesus Crispies et al" and you make no comment. However I throw out the one term that is taboo and you get morally outraged? Kindly fuck off.

Now as to the other side of the argument... it is only a word.

Well now lets call all the people who desert or go AWOL courageous or heroes, after all they are just words.

Just a word hrmm lets change the definition of democracy to communism because your type lost the US election. (I realize you are not a citizen so shaddap)

Lets call all people that are "liberal" enlightened and tolerant.

The english language and all the words in it have meaning. Yes some words get bastardized over time and new meanings are added and that is all that changing the definition of marriage would do is bastardize the word.

I admire you and your incredible intelligence. You are someone I respect greatly. Further I wish I could meet you in person and get a picture of just you and me. I would love it if you would allow me to call you on Sundays and tell everyone you are my friend.

The above paragraph is written in the new language you are subscribing to.

[Lynks]

Aren't you the one that pretty much brought up the "its just a word so let it go" issue?

Your argument pretty much says that gay marriages won't be equal to others that get married and you think that is perfectly acceptable. Sad.

[Atokal]

Aren't you the one that pretty much brought up the "its just a word so let it go" issue?

Your argument pretty much says that gay marriages won't be equal to others that get married and you think that is perfectly acceptable. Sad.

Just exactly where did I say that gay unions would not be equal to marriages?

Aaeamdar's complete argument "which I agree with" is that he and his partner cannot enjoy the same "rights" under the law that all "breeders" enjoy. I totally support his and all gay peoples rights to equality under the law as it pertains to benefits etc.

What I don't agree with is changing the definition of marriage to assauge their feelings of being different. THEY ARE FUCKING different. Most of them revel in their uniqueness. Fesuni for one. So be different, create a word that has meaning to your own particular relationship. It is called compromise.

[Nick]

Has anyone else noticed that Atokal has posted like 1300 times and has yet to make a reasonable statement with any degree of intelligence?

Also, Apostate (teh asshat)

[Lynks]

You open the door to discrimination if you give it another name, as long as there are bigots.

"It says here you checked civil union, I'm sorry but we only allow married people here."

Thats an extreme but it still can/will happen. Also, adding another option would create a big bill when dealing with changing forms and such.

And another thing, Christians don't own the word marriage.

[Lohrno]

For fuck sakes it is all about you fags pouting over a word. So don't preach down to the Jesus Freaks that all you really want is the same rights. What you want is to undermine the meaning of family and marriage as it has been described for centuries. If in fact all you wanted was the same rights you would be content with the compromise that Adex is prescribing.

Yeah, you know, all the gay people get together in one room, and say "How can we best undermine marriage?" Because they don't really want to get married, they just want to piss off all the Christians.

Honestly, what Adex said is fine, and is in fact what I had in mind. Since you all seem to think that Marriage has a religious meaning, it should be abolished from government documents (separation of church and state), and Civil Unions alone should be instituted. If you get it from a priest, you can call it Marriage, but the government will not.

-=Lohrno

[Adex_Xeda]

Adex, what if the Jews said they would marry gay people, would you then accept it as marriage?

My philosophy and moral code are independant of the jewish faith.

If you are asking "What if your moral code was not agreed upon by a majority of other religions?" I'd answer that I don't base my moral code on religous consensus, but rather from common sense, what I read from the bible, and from what God reveals in response to my prayers.