Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 6801/7006
(25-Oct-2011 at 10:42)


Quote:
Petty and trivial to you, but not to the ones affected.
Yes, some people do make mountains out of molehills. That does not mean that a molehill actually *is* a mountain.


Quote:
Different is not the same; but it does not equate to equal either.
Yes it does. 1kg has a completely different label to 2.2lb, but they are exactly equal. Spanish is completely different to German. Are you going to tell me one is inferior to the other?


Quote:
I find that my arguments fail me when you argue that rights and benefits that are automatically attached to traditional marriage, are the same as rights that gays have to go to lawyers to get, if they can even gain these rights, which in many cases they can't.
"...if they are not equal, then there is a genuine grievance and they should be made equal." Did you miss that bit?


Quote:
The arguments against gays being married has nothing to do with break up, attachment or anything else but the sexual orientation of the couple.
It has if you are going to go with the "Civil Union is inferior because we say so" argument.


Quote:
No. It is a GAY brand. That makes it unequal.
It is automatically inferior because it is gays? Okay... whatever you say...

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#81  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3814/3863
(25-Oct-2011 at 19:26)


What angers me most is that the religious feel they have a duty to impose the "laws" of their particular flavour of delusion upon the rest of society. Secular society makes up its own stupid laws without the religious self-affirming their own beliefs by making others follow their stupid rules too.

Marriage is simply a word to describe the contract that a couple make when promising to spend their lives together. The pomp and celebration around it make it an enjoyable, happy occasion, but at the bottom of it - that's what its about.

Religion has it's place in a wedding between two devout persons - they understandably want to make their promise not only to their partner, but to an alleged "higher power" - be that Allah, Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Harms no-one else if they want to do that.

Religion doesn't have a place as an authority on who, what and where when it comes to marriage. The state has the authority, and the need, to prevent children, immediate family members and such do not marry - for obvious reasons. The state has no need, and arguably no authority, to prevent two people over the age of consent, who arn't related, from entering into that contract that we call "Marriage".

A gay couple marrying no further devalues a straight couple marrying any more than another straight couple marrying does. What devalues marriage is people breaking their vows - straight or gay. Maybe it's understandable in this day and age where "til death us do part" could end up being 80 years or more. Just a hundred years ago, reaching 50 years together was almost unheard of. But I would argue that those who preach about the sanctity of marriage are either nitpicking at non-issues while avoiding the great white elephant that is the shocking divorce rates, or are simply using it as another tool for their incomprehensible campaign of hatred. I think it's the latter in most cases.

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!
#82  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1425/1637
(26-Oct-2011 at 00:23)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon: View Post
The state has the authority, and the need, to prevent children, immediate family members and such do not marry - for obvious reasons.
Aha!

Let me play the devil's advocate (as per usual):

If a woman and woman can get married, why not a sister and a sister? A woman and a dog? A woman and a 14 year old boy?

You are just being a big fat bigot, VoR. In your own words, why do you feel that you have a duty to impose the "laws" of their particular flavour of delusion upon the rest of society?
#83  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6802/7006
(26-Oct-2011 at 04:12)


Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung:
You are just being a big fat bigot, VoR. In your own words, why do you feel that you have a duty to impose the "laws" of their particular flavour of delusion upon the rest of society?
Where did I say anybody had to do what religion says?


Originally Posted by Azure Dragon:
Marriage is simply a word to describe the contract that a couple make when promising to spend their lives together.
Marriage is simply a word to describe the contract between a man and a woman, because language is an intrinsically social act, and society says "man and woman".

Same sex unions are a different concept and need a different word to describe them. Apples and oranges and all that. Hijacking 'marriage' and trying to force it on society at large is just pointless activism, and a deliberate attempt to be provocative.


Quote:
A gay couple marrying no further devalues a straight couple marrying any more than another straight couple marrying does.
It is not gay couples marrying, it is the alteration of marriage from man + woman to anything + anything else. That is not a 'devaluing ' - your word, chosen for it's emotive connotations - so much as making it meaningless.


Quote:
What devalues marriage is people breaking their vows - straight or gay.
This is a US-centic argument. High divorce rates may be spreading to Western Europe but Eastern European, Middle Eastern, and Asian divorce rates are still low. Even if US/UK/Western Europe divorce rates are climbing, how does this justify gay activists trying to hijack 'marriage'?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#84  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1426/1637
(26-Oct-2011 at 05:03)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Where did I say anybody had to do what religion says?
WHOOPS!

Freudian slip or whatnot. It was directed at Azure Dragon, evidently.
#85  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2789/2825
(26-Oct-2011 at 07:18)


Quote:
What angers me most is that the religious feel they have a duty to impose the "laws" of their particular flavour of delusion upon the rest of society
Then religion as whole annoys you. Because that's the essence of Abrhaimic religions. Believing completely and utterly in a what they see as an universal truth. You can't be truly religious and not want to impose your ideas on socieyt. It goes hand in hand. I suppose you can it's the old " the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

But getting back on topic this does bring the question of whether christians have the right to actually do it or if they anger god by trying to force people to follow his laws rather then let them discover the "right" way on their own which I imagine is more worthy




Quote:
It is not gay couples marrying, it is the alteration of marriage from man + woman to anything + anything else. That is not a 'devaluing ' - your word, chosen for it's emotive connotations - so much as making it meaningless.
Why? Has freedom been made meaningless in the USA once it was extended to blacks? I get that you have this weird dictionary fetish but no normal person really gives a shit about defitnion to the degree that they would deny a whole group of people a completely harmless right that has no negative impact on others whatsover

Quote:
If a woman and woman can get married, why not a sister and a sister? A woman and a dog? A woman and a 14 year old boy?
Well you can break it down in two categories I suppose. legal and sexual

When it comes to possible romantic connections it's a gamble with family membes since there is tha high possibility of abuse due to the power position and lack of choice in a family

A dog is not sentinent nor does it have legals rights. However if we meet aliens who are of similar intelligence as us I would be pro alien mariage

Same reason we don't allow them to vote. If you decide to make 14 year old legal adults sure go ahead and give them marriage as well

Legally I am pretty sure family members already have some legal benefits just from virtue of being realted but I am not too well versed in this

Quote:
In your own words, why do you feel that you have a duty to impose the "laws" of their particular flavour of delusion upon the rest of society?
Well I imagine because they don't affect anybody negatively. I would compare it to the different toilets they had in the past. One for whites one for blacks. When they removed this I am sure quite a few bigots were annoyed but apart from this they weren't affected in any real negative way. Same thing with marriage. If it is given to gays it will annoy some bigots but won't relaly affect them negatively hence it's a no brainer.

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views
#86  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6803/7006
(26-Oct-2011 at 14:09)


Quote:
Why?
Exclusivity


Quote:
Has freedom been made meaningless in the USA once it was extended to blacks?
What has freedom got to do with it? There is no comparison, and your analogy is ridiculous.


Quote:
deny a whole group of people a completely harmless right that has no negative impact on others whatsover
There is no right to same-sex marriage, and pretending there is impacts the *majority* who agree that marriage is man + woman.


Quote:
Same thing with marriage. If it is given to gays it will annoy some bigots but won't relaly affect them negatively hence it's a no brainer
Do you live on another planet or what? Decisions are not made on "herp derp... no negative affect.. so itz okay lolz". They are made on what the majority of society wants. Most of society wants marriage to be man + woman, so same-sex couples will just have to think of a new name.

Why are you so adamant to piss off the majority? Equality is one thing, trying to change language for purely political ends is another.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#87  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2790/2825
(26-Oct-2011 at 16:38)


Quote:
What has freedom got to do with it? There is no comparison, and your analogy is ridiculous.
Actually it's pretty much spot on. The USA was a country where rights and laws were different for blacks and whites but with time they were changed. Same thing albeit to a much lesser degree for gays

Quote:
There is no right to same-sex marriage, and pretending there is impacts the *majority* who agree that marriage is man + woman.
That's the point Einstein. There isn't one. That's why people are fighting to get this right

Quote:
Do you live on another planet or what? Decisions are not made on "herp derp... no negative affect.. so itz okay lolz". They are made on what the majority of society wants. Most of society wants marriage to be man + woman, so same-sex couples will just have to think of a new name.
Actually no. They are made based on what is popular at the moment and beneficial to groups with power and political connections.

But that aside I find the notion of giving rights and making hundreds of thousands if not millions of people extremely happy while at the same time having absolutely no negative effect of the rest except pissing you off a sound reason for making this decision.

Quote:
Why are you so adamant to piss off the majority? Equality is one thing, trying to change language for purely political ends is another.
Oh you poor little thing. I know you are living in your imaginary world where you think someone else is sharing your opinions but this has never been about your beloved dictionary. Nobody gives a shit about langauge and it's definitions except as a way to support their homophobia. It's pure and simple homophobia and religious fanatism. That's what this has always been about and that's what it will always be

And again by your logic about not pissing off the majority blacks would still be using their seperate toilets. I am personally not a fan goes blindly with what the sheep want but hey if that's your thing by all means follow the herd

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views

Last edited by DHoffryn, 26-Oct-2011 at 16:40.
#88  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6804/7006
(26-Oct-2011 at 16:56)


Quote:
The USA was a country where rights and laws were different for blacks and whites but with time they were changed. Same thing albeit to a much lesser degree for gays
Rights and laws apply equally to straights and gays, which is why your analogy is still ridiculous. Try again...


Quote:
That's the point Einstein. There isn't one. That's why people are fighting to get this right
On what grounds - a sexual preference? If you want a right, you need to show a material inequality and there isn't one. Before you come out with the predictable crap, no - "Waaah! Waaah! I wanna call my civil union a marriage!" is not an inequality.


Quote:
They are made based on what is popular at the moment
...and calling a Civil Union a 'marriage' is not popular at the moment. You lose.


Quote:
Nobody gives a shit about langauge and it's definitions except as a way to support their homophobia.
Because you say so? Is that the best you can do - say everyone (AKA the majority of the world) who doesn't agree with your gay activism is a homophobe?

I should have known better. Yet again you prove that you are not worth having a discussion with.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#89  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2791/2825
(26-Oct-2011 at 17:23)


Quote:
Rights and laws apply equally to straights and gays, which is why your analogy is still ridiculous. Try again...
No need to. Of course it's not a perfect comparsion. That's why it is comparsion. But it's the same thing. Treating a large group of people like second class citiziens

Quote:
On what grounds - a sexual preference? If you want a right, you need to show a material inequality and there isn't one. Before you come out with the predictable crap, no - "Waaah! Waaah! I wanna call my civil union a marriage!" is not an inequality.
Yes it is. I really don't care if you are going to whine about how it's a choice , but the dictionary said blah blah . To me it's pointless inequality with no real reason except for some bigotry


Quote:
Because you say so? Is that the best you can do - say everyone (AKA the majority of the world) who doesn't agree with your gay activism is a homophobe?
Yeah petty much. Don't get me wrong I am homophobe as well but I am not such a bastard that I would deny people the oportunity to get equal righs and hapiness just because I dislike of the idea of two men together

Quote:
I should have known better. Yet again you prove that you are not worth having a discussion with.
Funny that's what I was about to say to you I was hoping that this time you would at least be more original but then I noticed this


Quote:
...and calling a Civil Union a 'marriage' is not popular at the moment. You lose.
and here comes the weasel. Oh my dear sweet cowardly VoR. Already starting with selctive quoting. Nice. I always like to see it when you get desperate. What's next. Let's see you already prepared the " you are not worthy to talk to me" but you are too obssesive for this. You already started with the selective quoting but the thread is too short to start with your really cowardly lies on what other people have said. Oh and there is you old favorite of derailing the topic into a subject where you can argue endlessly until people quit out of sheer annoyance. Hmm you know I should really be a bookie. I can lay some good odds on you. Your diverse and yet still very predictable




And now since the moderator already warned us back the topic. Let's expand on god's will






Now VoR circus aisde back on the topic. I already mentioned a random theory in my other post but here is another one


God is not anymore against gays then he is against rich people since both are barely mentioned in the holy books and can thus be ignored like the thousands of other little details. But homohobia breaks one of the big major rules like love thy neighbour and thus god would be more against homophobes since they break much more major rules then gays. Any takers on this?

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views
#90  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3960/3983
(26-Oct-2011 at 20:37)


Quote:
God is not anymore against gays then he is against rich people since both are barely mentioned in the holy books and can thus be ignored like the thousands of other little details. But homohobia breaks one of the big major rules like love thy neighbour and thus god would be more against homophobes since they break much more major rules then gays. Any takers on this?
I forget the exact quote, but Jesus did say to the effect that with him the old laws were changed and the new law was that all should love one another.

The Christian religion was created at Nicea, after Jesus died, by a council who decided what was and was not a Holy Screed. Various historians have alleged that this Council was the scene of corruption, bribery and even murder as various sects plotted to get their views into the New Testament.

Even with a weighted set of circumstances there is precious little that I have seen in The New Testament that condemns homosexual behavior; in fact within the books of the Old Testament the strictures against divorce, elder abuse, incest, domestic violence, keeping the Sabbath holy, and many other Laws we have failed to uphold in society are far more strident and clear, yet we ignore them as outdated social mores. It seems that the one we are most obsessed with upholding is the one that is least clear.

Quote:
No need to. Of course it's not a perfect comparsion. That's why it is comparsion. But it's the same thing. Treating a large group of people like second class citiziens
I have argued this point with VoR before, and he contends that unless it is a genetic reason you are different, then you have no special rights. This should make every blind, deaf, mute, crippled, or handicapped person very happy.

Quote:
If you want a right, you need to show a material inequality and there isn't one.
I have shown and I have linked to the differences between marriage and civil unions.You have argued that difference does not equal inequality. It does show and support bias when rights that come to the married partners automatically need to be dispensed through a court and lawyer for those in a civil union. It does when you can have legal civil union in one part of the country, but your union is not recognized in other parts, or by the central government who is administering your partner pension fund, benefits, health insurance, and survivor rights.

I am talking about the US, also, which among the international community has a liberal view of gays. In many countries gays face prison if discovered, or even death at the hands of the government. The argument of whether it is genetic or choice is a distraction, along with the definition of marriage not being acceptable as it applies to gays.

I think the suggestion that civil union should be the legal definition of all contracts between consenting adults, and leave marriage as the exclusive religious ceremony, is a good one. If we can't change the definition of marriage to encompass all couples on an equal basis, then we should make the term marriage as unacceptable an uttering as any other racial or bigoted term.

Everyone should have the freedom to love who they will, and to be accepted as an equal partner in society.

Quote:
...and calling a Civil Union a 'marriage' is not popular at the moment. You lose.
Most people do not argue against same sex marriage based on a traditional definition of marriage as between man and woman, they argue against same sex union of any kind. This is why the countries that do allow same sex couples anything even approaching marriage rights, are in the vast minority, and why many countries that do allow same sex unions of any type are seen as controversial. Thus the argument of definitions, VoR, are only valid amongst those like you who are linguists and etymologists (hope I remembered the word correct), and while in this context you may have a valid argument, the argument itself has been high jacked by homophobes and bigots.

Quote:
Because you say so? Is that the best you can do - say everyone (AKA the majority of the world) who doesn't agree with your gay activism is a homophobe?
No, before the definition of marriage became a cause celebre, the controversy was over any type of union between homosexual couples, predated bny controversy over the rights of homosexuals, and before that it was the legality to perform certain sex acts that are suitable for some same sex couples.

This is simply a new argument to prevent gays from acquiring equal rights, benefits and social acceptance as straight people. You may not be a bigot but you are definitely not smart enough to understand that your argument over language definition has become the same as that used by bigots and homophobes, who can hardly string a coherent thought together.


“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#91  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3815/3863
(27-Oct-2011 at 00:59)


Gotters,

Laws on incest have their place for the protection of our genes; species that reproduce homogeneously end up with defective genes, and tend to fail in evolution. Look at the various genetic issues that have arisen in pedigree dogs for a good example. Whether it's fair to apply these laws to incestuous homosexual couples is a completely different debate, that I think is mostly hypothetical. I myself have no opinion on the matter; it's not something I've really thought about before.

You're other examples are barely worth acknowledging. The answers are the same as why heterosexual people cannot engage in such things. Save to say, some cultures do marry pubescent girls to boys or men.

VoR, you put the words you think I'm saying, then argue those. I haven't said marriage should be "anything + anything". I've said that its a contract that has extreme emotive meaning for the persons involved. The act of marrying someone is to commit yourself for life to them. Whether this is two men, two women or a man and woman; the exchange of vows and the meaning of them carry equal meaning.

Marriage is the common term used to describe such vows of commitment, and to deny the act of marrying to a gay couple is to suggest that their vows of commitment are not as worthy as a straight couples, simply because they are gay.

It's baseless, insulting and simply prejudiced. Hence the accusation of homophobia - especially when really, by definition, the devaluing of marriage occurs when people break their vows.

When will the vows change to "til death us do part, or until divorce"

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!

Last edited by Azure Dragon, 27-Oct-2011 at 01:05.
#92  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1429/1637
(27-Oct-2011 at 01:15)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
Then religion as whole annoys you. Because that's the essence of Abrhaimic religions. Believing completely and utterly in a what they see as an universal truth. You can't be truly religious and not want to impose your ideas on socieyt. It goes hand in hand.
It shouldn't.

Christ (man, God, myth, unicorn) was apolitical, maybe even an anarchist. The Kingdom of Heaven was supposed to transcend politics all on its own.

I suggest that the process of imposing ideas on society is vehemently anti-christian. Ironically, the complete opposite to what the modern christian right represents. I think they need to take a hard look at themselves.

No, it doesn't change the reality of what the christian right is trying to achieve and push in their own perverted vision of society, however, given any frank examination of christian theology, they have no religious basis to impose their ideas on society.

You have it wrong what it means to be 'truly religious'.

Quote:
Well you can break it down in two categories I suppose. legal and sexual

When it comes to possible romantic connections it's a gamble with family membes since there is tha high possibility of abuse due to the power position and lack of choice in a family

A dog is not sentinent nor does it have legals rights. However if we meet aliens who are of similar intelligence as us I would be pro alien mariage

Same reason we don't allow them to vote. If you decide to make 14 year old legal adults sure go ahead and give them marriage as well

Legally I am pretty sure family members already have some legal benefits just from virtue of being realted but I am not too well versed in this
What is more important, legal or sexual, because if sexuality is generally the basis of law then law can be changed to accomodate it.

Yes, I am speaking of moral relativism. You have to ask what the function of law is, then sexuality can make sense. Law depends on the character of the people, not some universal constant of morality.

Quote:
Well I imagine because they don't affect anybody negatively.
Negative effects are a bit ambigious. You didn't really explain the difference between gay marriage and the other illegal scenarios I mentioned.

Why can gay marriage be wrong allowed but animal-person or adult-teen marriage not be? Your point was that it doesn't affect anybody negatively. Fine, this condition can be established on all fronts. Anything else?

If prefer a certain thing sexuality, then some people would want to be given the right to acknowledge it legally. I'm not defending anyone, just showing you the consistency across all non-breeding partnerships. GAY MARRIAGE IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE, from gay marriage, just about anything can be deemed permissable. Unless, you can show how these other illegal partnerships differ more substancially than, 'not affected negatively'.
#93  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1430/1637
(27-Oct-2011 at 01:27)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon: View Post
Laws on incest have their place for the protection of our genes;
That's silly. If law was about protecting genes then the medical profession wouldn't exist legally, because it gives those with poor genes the ability to be unnaturally aided to breed.

Actually, homosexuality would be illegal under any mythical 'protection of genes act', because the gay gene is dangerous from the genetic point of view, as it practicually ensures that genetic code will not be passed on.

Quote:
species that reproduce homogeneously end up with defective genes,
You mean like Japan, or Iceland, or prehistoric man at various points.

Quote:
Look at the various genetic issues that have arisen in pedigree dogs for a good example.
Form = Function.

Domesticated lap dogs have lots of genetic problems.

Hunting and racing dogs are the opposite.

Quote:
I myself have no opinion on the matter; it's not something I've really thought about before.
Of course you wouldn't have. It threatens your notions of gay marriage.

Quote:
You're other examples are barely worth acknowledging. The answers are the same as why heterosexual people cannot engage in such things. Save to say, some cultures do marry pubescent girls to boys or men.
And so the case continues. I can similarly say that gay people are barely worth acknowledging.

...

EDIT - My case is drawing to one conclusion, and that is discrimination can be necessary to preserve any specific values in society, which in this case is the virtues of traditional family life. The Christian point of view can fit nicely into this ideal, but not in the way the modern christian right interprets it. The christian right is about imposed views, while scripture has more to do with personal strength IN THE FACE OF politics. Politics and the involvement in politics is the enemy of christian life.

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 27-Oct-2011 at 01:35.
#94  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1431/1637
(27-Oct-2011 at 02:00)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by filcher: View Post
I forget the exact quote, but Jesus did say to the effect that with him the old laws were changed and the new law was that all should love one another.
Mark 2 (27) Then Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath"

Sums it up nicely.

Quote:
The Christian religion was created at Nicea,
Utterly wrong. It was the establishment of Catholicism/Orthodoxy only, and the corrupt view of dogma which says that if someone declares themselves authority then whatever they say is sanctioned by God. It's actually quite a satanic idea.

Quote:
Various historians have alleged that this Council was the scene of corruption, bribery and even murder as various sects plotted to get their views into the New Testament.
Exactly. Arians, Gnostics and others were not welcome at the Council. It was basically a farce to establish political rule. The bible is not the BE-ALL of Christian thought by any stretch.

Quote:
Even with a weighted set of circumstances there is precious little that I have seen in The New Testament that condemns homosexual behavior; in fact within the books of the Old Testament the strictures against divorce, elder abuse, incest, domestic violence, keeping the Sabbath holy, and many other Laws we have failed to uphold in society are far more strident and clear, yet we ignore them as outdated social mores. It seems that the one we are most obsessed with upholding is the one that is least clear.
The New Testament was about being mature enough to not have to be instructed by line by line laws on how to live. If people need such instruction, which they may very well do, then maybe they should be looking into the Old Testament a bit more.
#95  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2792/2825
(27-Oct-2011 at 04:17)


Quote:
It shouldn't.

Christ (man, God, myth, unicorn) was apolitical, maybe even an anarchist. The Kingdom of Heaven was supposed to transcend politics all on its own.

I suggest that the process of imposing ideas on society is vehemently anti-christian. Ironically, the complete opposite to what the modern christian right represents. I think they need to take a hard look at themselves.

No, it doesn't change the reality of what the christian right is trying to achieve and push in their own perverted vision of society, however, given any frank examination of christian theology, they have no religious basis to impose their ideas on society.

You have it wrong what it means to be 'truly religious'.
And back on the topic we are. Nice

That was one of my previous points. Even if god dislikes gays I imagine that people forcing others to be converted to god's will rather then letting them discover it on their own would make god quite angry since it prevents true faith and you are essentially breaking a bigger law to enforce a smaller one. Like a vigilante burning down a house because the occupant stole pens from the bank

Quote:
What is more important, legal or sexual, because if sexuality is generally the basis of law then law can be changed to accomodate it.

Yes, I am speaking of moral relativism. You have to ask what the function of law is, then sexuality can make sense. Law depends on the character of the people, not some universal constant of morality.
Well that's an easy one. The source of marraige and monogamy is based on two things. Health and inheritance rights. In the past the Elders or Wiseman of the tribe couldn't exactly use rational arguments so they resorted to religion to enforce a system in which any outbreak of STD should be contained rather then ravage the whole village (as it would if everybody was having sex with everybody). And even more importantly it solved all inheritance issue since everybody knew who their father was and what they should recieve which kept the peace. This is where the obssesion with woman being virgins also comes from and a lot of sexism comes from as well. They would be undamaged goods so to say the man would know that any child would be his

Quote:
Negative effects are a bit ambigious. You didn't really explain the difference between gay marriage and the other illegal scenarios I mentioned.

Why can gay marriage be wrong allowed but animal-person or adult-teen marriage not be? Your point was that it doesn't affect anybody negatively. Fine, this condition can be established on all fronts. Anything else?
Actually I did. Look again

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views
#96  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6806/7006
(27-Oct-2011 at 04:26)


Originally Posted by filcher:
The Christian religion was created at Nicea, after Jesus died, by a council who decided what was and was not a Holy Screed. Various historians have alleged that this Council was the scene of corruption, bribery and even murder as various sects plotted to get their views into the New Testament.
No it wasn't. "The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops..." Christians were around since... well... Christ, long before all those Christians got together at Nicea.

You are also wrong about Nicea deciding the Biblical Canon. It is a common misconception, but wrong never the less. The OT canon was settled centiries before Nicea, and the Catholic NT canon was settled at the 1546 Council of Trent. There where prior debates and meetings (The Ecumenical Councils and Synod of Laodicea being the most notable) but based on Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment, the OT was pretty much in its present form by the early third century, before the First Council of Nicea.

Regardless of all that, dicussing gay marriage as a religios issue is pointless.


Quote:
I have argued this point with VoR before, and he contends that unless it is a genetic reason you are different, then you have no special rights.
Yet after all that you still don't get it. Have you noticed how the "...blind, deaf, mute, crippled, or handicapped..." are neither demanding, nor recieveing, special rights created just for them? What you and DHoffryn utterly fail to grasp is that special rights are not created for special interest minority groups.


Quote:
I have shown and I have linked to the differences between marriage and civil unions.You have argued that difference does not equal inequality.
You have shown some trivial, petty little differences of detail. You have not shown any material difference.


Quote:
I think the suggestion that civil union should be the legal definition of all contracts between consenting adults, and leave marriage as the exclusive religious ceremony, is a good one.
Marriage is a human right. Not a Christian right.


Quote:
Everyone should have the freedom to love who they will, and to be accepted as an equal partner in society.
Nobody is stopping gays loving whoever they want, and Civil Unions make them equal partners in society.


Quote:
they argue against same sex union of any kind.
I don't care what 'they' argue. I am not speaking for anyone but myself.


Quote:
Thus the argument of definitions, VoR, are only valid amongst those like you who are linguists and etymologists (hope I remembered the word correct), and while in this context you may have a valid argument, the argument itself has been high jacked by homophobes and bigots.
It is not an argument of definitions. It is an argument of sociolinguistics. In its simplest form, minorities don't get to dictate to the majority what words mean. In case you missed it, the 'socio' part refers to society, which is everybody. Not just linguists.


Quote:
This is simply a new argument to prevent gays from acquiring equal rights, benefits and social acceptance as straight people.
I wish you would read what I say instead of inventing something I didn't and then arguing with yourself. For the *third* time, "...if they are not equal, then there is a genuine grievance and they should be made equal."

Civil unions are *equal* - try to grasp the idea that equal does not mean identical - where they exist, and where they don't they should because they have a genuine grievance.

"We want to change the meaning of marriage and that nasty majority of society won't let us" is not a genuine grievance, has nothing to do with rights, and has nothing to do with equality. It is just political activism.


Originally Posted by Azure Dragon:
VoR, you put the words you think I'm saying, then argue those. I haven't said marriage should be "anything + anything".
Then which combination are you excluding?


Quote:
The act of marrying someone is to commit yourself for life to them. Whether this is two men, two women or a man and woman; the exchange of vows and the meaning of them carry equal meaning.
Red herring argument. Marriage does not equal commitment. Couple can be commited without marrying and married without commiting. Nobody is preventing same-sex couples from commiting for life.


Quote:
to deny the act of marrying to a gay couple is to suggest that their vows of commitment are not as worthy as a straight couples, simply because they are gay.
That is what the gay activists keep telling everybody, yes. A self-serving argument: "We say it is not the same, therefore it is not the same." Perhaps they should stop telling the world they are not as good. It is just a variation on playing the victim.


Quote:
the devaluing of marriage occurs when people break their vows.
Then same-sex couples would be well advised to stay together and prove Civil Union to be better than marriage.


Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung:
Actually, homosexuality would be illegal under any mythical 'protection of genes act', because the gay gene is dangerous from the genetic point of view, as it practicually ensures that genetic code will not be passed on.
There is no gay gene, nor can there be. Only physical characteristics are passed on by genes. Not preferences, points of view, or the like.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#97  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1435/1637
(27-Oct-2011 at 06:37)
Re: Is god against homophobes

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Regardless of all that, dicussing gay marriage as a religios issue is pointless.
Why? To a religious person, all issues are religious.

Quote:
There is no gay gene, nor can there be. Only physical characteristics are passed on by genes. Not preferences, points of view, or the like.
So first you were an expert an particle physics who knew more than Kaku...

Now you are an expert on genetics who knows more than Dawkins.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
#98  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6807/7006
(27-Oct-2011 at 08:23)


Quote:
Why? To a religious person, all issues are religious.
So what? That doesn't stop them being pointless or ridiculous.


Quote:
So first you were an expert an particle physics who knew more than Kaku...
Don't bitch at me because you are so wrapped up in your quantum mysticism that don't even listen to what the guy is saying...


Quote:
Now you are an expert on genetics who knows more than Dawkins.
... and then do the same again, missing the bit at 6:11 where Dawkins says "there is no such thing as the gay gene"

You really should stop trying to educate yourself by watching YouTube. Some gay guy asking Dawkins to explain current, unproven, hypotheses about how this imaginary gay gene could be passed is no more "Ooooh! Ooooh! Dawkins sez there is a gay gene!" than somebody asking me to talk about God signifying that I believe in God.

You don't need to be an expert in genetics to know that there is no gay gene, you just need to understand the absolute basics. It is a fundamental principle of genetics that *only physical traits can be inherited*. Ever heard of the Human Genome Project? That mapped the entire human genome and guess what: no gay gene was found.

I understand that gay activists would really, really, like there to be a gay gene, because then they could say that homosexuality is innate and, just like being black or being female, they just can't help it. Then they could position their demands for marriage to be altered to accommodate same-sex unions as a noble civil rights-issue.

But it isn't. There is no gay gene in humans. None has been found and no credible scientist has ever said there is. The gay gene exists only on TV shows and out-of-context, un-provenanced You Tube clips. Homosexuality is a minority behaviour, nothing more, and as such does not qualify to be granted any special rights.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#99  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3961/3983
(27-Oct-2011 at 23:46)


Quote:
Yet after all that you still don't get it. Have you noticed how the "...blind, deaf, mute, crippled, or handicapped..." are neither demanding, nor recieveing, special rights created just for them? What you and DHoffryn utterly fail to grasp is that special rights are not created for special interest minority groups.
In Canada minority groups do have rights.

You are arguing that gays should not have special rights despite research that shows prejudice and bias within society for their sexual orientation. Why should they not have the right to be gay openly and not be bullied, or abused, or targeted by job loss, economic hardship and even prison or death under some laws? Of course your belief appears to be, based on other threads, they have a choice in sexual orientation, that gays can be cured of their sickness, and they can live quite nicely as a hetrosexual even if gay. Is this correct?

I asked in another thread, why should there be freedom of religion, but not freedom to love a person of your own sex?

Quote:
Christians were around since... well... Christ, long before all those Christians got together at Nicea.
Gotter got it far better than you. Nicea established the basis of the Christian religion, the divinity of Christ, and produced the tenets of canonical law. Before Nicea the religion was fragmented by groups that held diverse views on the relationship of God the father, and Jesus, the son. At Nicea the Trinity was established, and the modern day concept of the catholic church was also established. You are right that it had little to do with the Gospels.

Quote:
You have shown some trivial, petty little differences of detail. You have not shown any material difference.
How much do lawyers charge an hour. A gay couple has to use lawyers to gain benefits that are granted automatically to a straight couple. How much does a gay spouse stand to lose finding for visitation rights at a hospital (not recognized) or pension benefits not paid by federal governments, or by it being known of his sexual orientation and losing his job, position in society, or even going to jail.

Trivial is arguing the definition of a word, not prejudice that one's your life.

Quote:
Marriage is a human right. Not a Christian right.
Obviously it is only a right for a certain segment of the populace, those that desire to marry opposite sex partners. Much like the argument that law is unbiased because a rich man will also go to jail for stealing a loaf of bread.

If the definition cannot be changed, then make the legal definition of a social contract a civil union, same as the gays, and avoid this fuss. Marriage can be the sole perjorative of religious institutions and extremists. This should satisfy the gays, religious institutions and those that argue definitions, as there is no negativity in a civil union. Let the word marriage become a symbol of prejudice and bias.

Quote:
Nobody is stopping gays loving whoever they want, and Civil Unions make them equal partners in society.
Yes, because only activists are reporting incidents of bullying, discrimination, and loss of rights. Many countries do stop gays loving who they want, or try to. In some instances this can lead to jail sentences or death. The US and many western countries are more liberal when gays are discussed, but The thread is discussing international religious views of homosexuality.

Quote:
I don't care what 'they' argue. I am not speaking for anyone but myself.
You are arguing what they argue, so it is mutual.

Quote:
"...if they are not equal, then there is a genuine grievance and they should be made equal."
I have repeatedly shown where they are not equal and you say it is a petty difference.

No, to those involved it is not petty, and it is a difference that does detract from their equality. It is both a material difference in that it costs them money to address, if they can address it at all, and it is a social difference in that it makes the gay couple seek out what they the straight couple gains automatically. This is also based on Western nations that are more progressive in thought, many countries do not allow any rights to the gay person, or couple, and some actually rescind their rights.

Quote:
"We want to change the meaning of marriage and that nasty majority of society won't let us" is not a genuine grievance, has nothing to do with rights, and has nothing to do with equality. It is just political activism.
I agree that changing the definition of marriage is likely the wrong approach, so, I would support the changing of marriage on benefit packages and government documents, to civil unions, thus making this the legal defining of all couples. Thus to collect benefits of being a couple, you would have to be civil union not married on the forms. This would ensure true equality and end the arguments on all sides. If one disagrees with this, they can forfeit the right to federal funds, go to a lawyer to gain visitation rights, etc

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#100  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why did God kill my unborn children ? Grashnak Religious Discussions 91 05-Aug-2006 21:28
Everyone needs JESUS! JESUS loves you! JESUS died for you! Rose21swf Religious Discussions 10 24-Feb-2005 00:07
A Buddhists view on christianity Skraz Religious Discussions 42 08-Sep-2004 12:13
The logic of God Gus Mackay Religious Discussions 31 23-Aug-2004 08:11
Do you believe in God? Hurleyy Religious Discussions 849 23-Jul-2003 19:11


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 15:43.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.