That isn't so much interesting as confused. "Homophobia" is a contemporary political epithet used to attack people that don't accept various claims or goals of gay activists or the gay community whereas sin is violating God's law. Biblical morality considers some sexual conduct as sin, such a fornication (sex outside marriage), adultery (sex by married people with someone that they aren't married to), bestiality (sex with animals), and homosexual activity. God offers forgiveness of sin via the sacrifice made by Jesus to those who will accept it in faith, such as discussed here.

Adultery and homosexual activity are both considered serious sins. How did Jesus deal with an accused adulterer?

John 8

So they do treat people like human beings, but they plan to exclude depictions of openly sinful behavior. Redemption and renewal is available to those engaged in sin if they are open to it.

I take it you missed the fact that they claim 100,000 people signed up in the first month? You are a few orders of magnitude off.

Actually I've never heard that, and it sounds like nonsense. Why do you think that is profound in any way?

Lol, the US has the second most coastline after Canada, and much of theirs is locked in ice for a fair part of the year and is far from their population centers making it less useful for power generation.

"People still need it enough that we won't actually drive them away. Usually." What a ringing endorsement of a design philosophy.

Nope. Dark energy is that: we have a large-scale measurement we can't explain, but we have to call it something, and since it might not actually be constant, they didn't want to call it "cosmological constant".

Dark matter explains galactic rotation rates and lensing, and also predicted the CMBR data with some precision: the predictions of dark/familiar matter made from galactic rotation matched the observed ratio in the early universe measured by the CMBR probes.

Lots of black holes were among the MACHOs theories for dark matter, but the CMBR data confirmed the WIMPs theories had it right. We may not no much about these particles, but black holes, brown dwarfs, and so on are right out.

There's no difference between "area where time moves slower" and "gravity well" in general relativity, which shows great robustness as theories go. "Time moves faster" (or a large anti-gravity well) wouldn't cause the lensing we see.

Anyhow, dark matter explains the CMBR data and galaxy rotation rates and lensing, which is pretty good. Any alternative proposal would need to explain all three.

If you haven't read Penrose's book on his cyclic cosmology, you might enjoy it - it reconciles the Big Rip with the Big Crunch (there's no difference if there's no distance scale, and there's no distance scale if all particles are massless). Entertaining if not convincing.

It's impossible to tell the difference between the most crazy hyperbole and sincere SJWs these days. That's what makes the Reddit game "Stormfront or SJW" so much fun! We're beyond Poe's law now to some surreal place through the looking glass.

"We hold these truths to be self evident"

They knew what they were saying. The fact that they had some distastful things in their past, doesn't negate what they set up.

Oh, and the one guy that was perfect, you won't follow either, so unless you are without sin, stop throwing stones.

BTW, Liberals kill babies by the millions, which is much worse that owning a slave IMHO. So can I toss out everything Democrats have supported over the last 40 years?

There is no definition. The court rule that defining marriage is a violation of 14th Amendment. Guess what, polygamists and incestuous marriages are also now legal.

"We hold these truths to be self evident" ...

The responder to my initial post was simply tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Freedom, Liberty are being eroded for group politics; this is evil as the group always has more power than an individual.

Good luck convincing me that groups have more rights than individuals.

Let me know when you accept all versions of "marriage" how anyone defines it, in all 50 states (see plural marriages) We already define marriage and redefining it simply suggests that it isn't really a right.

Gay marriage isn't about sex, or living with someone, kids or anything else they make it out to be, instead it is all about government sanction benefits. I would like to marry my daughter (not for sex, or living with her) so that I can have the same benefits granted to gay people. Until then, you aren't for "marriage equality" you're for redefining marriage as long as it suits your particular version. My version doesn't count.

Very Unstable Herbs!

Iâ(TM)m not blaming âoebankersâ exactly, Iâ(TM)m blaming people who loan money to people who are may or may not pay it back and when they dont get paid back they go running to their central banks or governments and demand they get made whole at the expense of everyone else. Same thing happened in the U.S. in 2009 with the TARP and assorted other bail outs.

Yea the rating agencies really sucked especially leading up to the crash in 2008, but it doesnâ(TM)t relieve lenders of ultimate responsibility for their actions. If the credit ratings are wrong its the responsibility of the lender to figure this out, no one else.

Lenders collect interest on their loans partially to cover the potential risk they wont get paid back, the higher that risk the higher the interest they collect. If they collect high interest rates on risky mortgages and then when someone defaults on them central banks and governments make them whole it creates massive moral hazard.

If the Greeks were a bad risk prior to 2008, which they probably were, the interest rates they had to pay should have been higher and they would have been dissuaded from borrowing or lenders would have been dissuaded from lending to them. Instead the EU created a perverse system where risky borrowers (all of the PIIGS) got relatively cheap money and a lot of it and were incentivized to take as much of it as they could. The EU and the lenders are 100% to blame for this situation for throwing the money at them.

The PIIGS shouldâ(TM)ve never entered an economic union with Germany in the first place, they had no chance of competing with Germany locked in to the same currency. It was a win win for Germany on all fronts.