When you call homosexuality unnatural, ungodly, and immoral, you are incriminating homosexuals with the fictitious crime of being hellbound. That is hateful. It doesn't matter if you didn't invent the religion that teaches this. If you follow it, you consent to be judged on your belief. I do disagree with the school board's decision to fire her and with their promotion of homosexuality. That's not the school's place to promote certain lifestyles over others.

A popular quotes goes like this, "Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religion is doing what you're told regardless of what is right."

Prager also says that good and evil cannot exist without God. I've struggled to defend a moral code where there is God, where good and evil is dependent upon what some being says, as opposed to what seems to most benefit our lives by allowing us to live freely and independently as possible without harming others. I'll admit that morality is a tougher subject to deal with because it's not quantitative like math and science are. However, that does not necessarily mean they're not objective, even if there is no God. In fact, to say something is right or wrong by citing a fictitious being's opinion and calling it a day is to completely ignore debating it.

He cites a Wikipedia article that has a list of merely 42 scientists who disagree with the consensus of climate change and many of them do no come to a coherent disagreement on the issue, widely disagreeing upon the aspects of climate change. It also ignores the fact that Wikipedia treats climate change as a credible scientific theory, to the equivalent of evolution. There are many evangelicals who do believe prayer can change someone's sexuality. This is pretty evident given the amount of ex-gay ministries there are. He completely ignores the fact that evangelicals believe in a young Earth by supplementing it with his belief that the Earth is actually older, as if that erases the prominent belief of Young Earth creationism.

Dennis Prager is the one who's irrational. His essential claim in this article is that to claim others anti-intellectual is in itself irrational, just like he thinks calling someone a bigot is also bigoted, as if to suggest you are what you make out others to be, regardless of the actual substance of the issues. He claims that skepticism of climate change is scientific. Although I do consider myself a skeptic of climate change, it is because of ignorance on the issue. However, if indeed climate change has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, then to claim otherwise while possessing an extensive deal of scientific knowledge is anti-science.

Dennis Prager is the one who's irrational. His essential claim in this article is that to claim others anti-intellectual is in itself irrational, just like he thinks calling someone a bigot is also bigoted, as if to suggest you are what you make out others to be, regardless of the actual substance of the issues. He claims that skepticism of climate change is scientific. Although I do consider myself a skeptic of climate change, it is because of ignorance on the issue. However, if indeed climate change has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, then to claim otherwise while possessing an extensive deal of scientific knowledge is anti-science.

What's the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia? Consent. What's the difference between heterosexuality and pedophilia? Consent. What's the only difference that, as far as the law is concerned, ought to matter? Consent. What's the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality? Procreation, which is not a duty. Why is it then that conservatives are so adamant about denying homosexuals rights by equating homosexuality with pedophilia when, by their logic, anyone could do the same with heterosexuality? Barber, you seem to what to lump many people all into one basket, as though to equate homosexuals, feminists, and secular humanists, anyone who disagrees with your standard of Christianity, on par with pedophiles. Shame.

Secondly, I would like to say that advocacy of same-sex marriage does not threaten traditional marriage. I am pro-gay (in the legal sense, although in the aesthetic sense, I find it tasteless), pro-marriage, and pro-family. I believe in expanding marriage and family to include responsible individuals of all ethically appropriate orientations. These arguments designed to compare a same-sex marriage to the equivalent of a marriage between a human and a nonhuman animal is just another use of the slippery slope. Clearly, individuals that are allowed to give their consent without any coercion should be allowed to unite in what the state may as well call a marriage. I don't see any rational argument against that, so please enlighten me.

"The research overwhelmingly reveals that it is within the intact family unit composed of a married man and woman that children, men and women are all better off financially, emotionally, educationally and psychological than in any other family structure." What research? Now, I like the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman, but I don't like the idea of that union being the only form of marriage recognized by law, especially when words themselves are arbitrary descriptions of reality. What's the difference between a committed same-sex couple and a committed opposite-sex couple besides their gender? There is none, besides what the law determines. A civil union IS a marriage.