Well yeah, that's what I basically meant. "Free pass" = they think they can do whatever. Sorry for the clumsy wording.

I see. Well it's pretty impossible to argue against it unless one wants to seem like an intrusive atheist, but I would guess these rules against homosexuality and sex outside of marriage were a way to make people breed as fast as possible and be in a stable family unit so the ancient society would grow. That's not really what we need right now though, which is why our modern society doesn't abide by these rules anymore. It's still written in the Bible though, which is a free pass for fundamentalists to act like bigots.

Yo garlog, are you just trying to show us the typical fundamentalist Christian mindset by replying with "God works in mysterious ways" or are you actually a believer? Just curious because you seem like a smart person therefore I expected you not to have such a mindset.

Mine too. It hit the feels just right *insert Pacha meme*
But recently I saw Grave of the Fireflies, and after seeing My Neighbor Totoro and Spirited Away I thought Miyazaki's movies were japanese folklore inspired fairy tales, but man, that movie was dark.

I honestly don't know if guest actually finds her gorgeous or they were just saying that because they were trying to be nice, but I think she's not attractive, at least by the modern standards of beauty. We can argue that her determination and will to follow her dream is beautiful in itself, however speaking purely of her external beauty, she is in my opinion (and in today's beauty standards' opinion) not attractive.
Anyway, assuming guest is indeed just being nice, the question is, should we try to be so nice under all circumstances, even though it's not what we actually think? It must be hard for her to live a "normal" life, and she couldn't control what she was born with. We should certainly take that into consideration. However, this is a website where everyone is anonymous and which probably doesn't really affect the life of the people who appear in posts. Therefore, free speech all the way! Ultrabear5000 wasn't raised wrong for voicing their opinion on this matter.
</rant>

The problem is that the books themselves don't get updated. You can't use an old law book as a justification for anything if a book with an updated set of laws exists. But religious books, while serving as mere artifacts for most, do contain passages that could serve as excuses for violence to others.

^This. While most religious people don't follow what's said in thousands of years old books, many use it as justification for violence, xenophobia, sexism, you name it. And we can't argue that it goes against the religion itself because it is in fact written in the holy books. We can argue that society has changed in all these years, but people who use such old books as a shield from constructive criticism hardly listen to that anyway. *scoffs* fundamentalists...

Start eating it along with the box for disgusted effect.

Yeah exactly

I feel bad for laughing but I can't stop

Indeed.