|
I've avoided this thread, but after joining the Facebook group, "we will stand by chick fil a" I've come to several conclusions:
1) a majority of the Christians firmly believe that homosexual relations are the sin, as in the act, not the being.
2) they stand for a traditional marriage because of their belief in the bible
3) they believe their rights are being taken away (removal of God in school pledge, etc)
4) they believe that they are not doing anything wrong because they aren't inhibiting any rights. According to them, any male can Marry another female.
I disagree with them, but I know it's an endless circle. The only proposition that they've accepted is allowing gays to have civil unions with the same exact rights as hetero couples, but to leave holy matrimony out of the equation.
|
On July 31 2012 05:41 ranshaked wrote:
I've avoided this thread, but after joining the Facebook group, "we will stand by chick fil a" I've come to several conclusions:
1) a majority of the Christians firmly believe that homosexual relations are the sin, as in the act, not the being.
2) they stand for a traditional marriage because of their belief in the bible
3) they believe their rights are being taken away (removal of God in school pledge, etc)
4) they believe that they are not doing anything wrong because they aren't inhibiting any rights. According to them, any male can Marry another female.
I disagree with them, but I know it's an endless circle. The only proposition that they've accepted is allowing gays to have civil unions with the same exact rights as hetero couples, but to leave holy matrimony out of the equation.
That just sounds defeatist. It's not an endless circle, people who aren't insane will eventually accept that trampling on the rights of other people is bad. The law, not beholden to any one particular religion slant, will likewise eventually agree that oppressing people is pretty bad and will stop doing it.
|
On July 31 2012 05:01 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:25 m4inbrain wrote:No, its actually pretty easy, but you just cant read facts. Let me quote some stuff for you. "A Eurobarometer survey published on December 2006 showed that 21% of Estonians surveyed support same-sex marriage and 14% recognise same-sex couple's right to adopt (EU-wide average 44% and 33%). A poll conducted in June 2009 showed that 32% of Estonians believe that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. Support was 40% among young people, but only 6% among older people." Are you getting the problem? You see (i guess you know, but for some reason you neglect that fact - guess it would negate your "argument" asap, thats why you dismiss it), there are alot of est..s (what are they called oO) which lived under the soviet union. As you clearly can see, 6% from "older people", 40% amongst youngsters - guess what. It kinda explaines itself if you think about the fact that under stalin you could go 5 years into forced work in the mines if you touch a dick with the wrong intend. Now remember the fact that the average age in estland is ~40, and then remember when the soviet union went away. .. again, it speaks for itself, of course they dont support gays, most of the citizens of estland are used to punish people for being gay. Great. Arguing over internet....once again i am getting this lesson..... My last post here: 1) You know how much 40% is? As its not majority? 40% support gay marriages---->60% does not. 2)You are trying to show it like the only poor undecated religious fantics are against gay marriages. Thats not the case. Even if somehow all poor and below university degree and relgious people disappered from face of the earth, the majority of what left would still be against gay marriages. I myself know a lot of well situeted, not religious people with higher degree who are against it. As i was saying from the begining the issue is much more complex than that. Ps. For the record: i am all for granting homesexual couples all sorts of different legal rights and priviliages.
You actually didnt read what i wrote, right? Dont just say "arguing over the internet blabla", you came up with facts that in fact were completely nonsense (and i proved you wrong left and right). So if you cant accept that your so called "arguments" were proven wrong, its okay. But dont blame the "arguing over the internet" for that, but just yourself for not having good arguments. You said poland, a country where 95% are practizising (maybe spelled wrong, dont care) catholic church. Stupid argument. You said "take estland then, theyre atheists", disregarding the fact that 70% of the ppl actually had to suffer under a soviet regime, which was prone to not just hate, but hunt homosexuals. Let the current generation of 40y and older die, lets talk again then. 40% of the youth (despite the fact that parents of course give their beliefs and merits to the next generation. Of course 40% is not a majority, but if you remember who the parents of these children are (the 40% as well as the 60%), its a huge number that will grow with the next generation.
Then someone said "take eastern asia then", and even that was an arrow to his own knee, because they actually were gay-friendly - up to the point we showed up and brought our beliefs and religion with us. If you cant spot the common cause here, i really cant help you.
I actually never brought up education, i said i want to have more educated opinions on the matter (and no, calling out poland as a proof to religion not being related to homophobia is not educated).
But well, then tell me, why are they against gay marriage, your well situated, highly educated friends with no religious background?
|
I get that gay people dont want to accept a civil union with equal status as an alternative as even though tax breaks etc would still be there, the worry would be it isnt seen in the same light as Marriage. Ok
Here's a thought:
What does marriage mean to Non-religious people? A civil union between two people.
What does marriage mean to Religious people? A sacred union under god.
Hows about ALL atheists, gay/straight/whatever get civil partnerships? I for one have no desire what-so-ever to be "married" i would MUCH prefer a civil partnership, but being straight leaves me with marriage, and we leave "Marriage" to the people who hold it as a sacred joining?
Its all in a name, and that name means SUBSTANTIALLY more to one group of people (The religious people) so why not just let them have it and everyone else stop fighting for something they dont actually want anyway?
|
On July 31 2012 06:44 Mogget wrote:
I get that gay people dont want to accept a civil union with equal status as an alternative as even though tax breaks etc would still be there, the worry would be it isnt seen in the same light as Marriage. Ok
Here's a thought:
What does marriage mean to Non-religious people? A civil union between two people.
What does marriage mean to Religious people? A sacred union under god.
Hows about ALL atheists, gay/straight/whatever get civil partnerships? I for one have no desire what-so-ever to be "married" i would MUCH prefer a civil partnership, but being straight leaves me with marriage, and we leave "Marriage" to the people who hold it as a sacred joining?
Its all in a name, and that name means SUBSTANTIALLY more to one group of people (The religious people) so why not just let them have it and everyone else stop fighting for something they dont actually want anyway?
I had a confirmation. Yet, i do not believe in god. What am i?
|
It's high time ancient texts written by "prophets" (maniacs) cease to dictate modern policy, that's why.
It's been pretty well established that not all religions are against marriage. Those few religions who can't accept homosexuality are the ones that need to change, or just live with it basically.
|
On July 31 2012 06:49 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 06:44 Mogget wrote:
I get that gay people dont want to accept a civil union with equal status as an alternative as even though tax breaks etc would still be there, the worry would be it isnt seen in the same light as Marriage. Ok
Here's a thought:
What does marriage mean to Non-religious people? A civil union between two people.
What does marriage mean to Religious people? A sacred union under god.
Hows about ALL atheists, gay/straight/whatever get civil partnerships? I for one have no desire what-so-ever to be "married" i would MUCH prefer a civil partnership, but being straight leaves me with marriage, and we leave "Marriage" to the people who hold it as a sacred joining?
Its all in a name, and that name means SUBSTANTIALLY more to one group of people (The religious people) so why not just let them have it and everyone else stop fighting for something they dont actually want anyway? I had a confirmation. Yet, i do not believe in god. What am i?
An atheist? How is that even a question?
|
On July 31 2012 06:52 Reason wrote:
It's high time ancient texts written by "prophets" (then) cease to dictate modern policy, that's why.
AH! the voice of reason, and logical argument, so glad oyu could join us and not just de-rail the thread with bias! :D
Haha, nice ninja edit 
|
On July 31 2012 06:53 Mogget wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 06:52 Reason wrote:
It's high time ancient texts written by "prophets" (then) cease to dictate modern policy, that's why. AH! the voice of reason, and logical argument, so glad oyu could join us and not just de-rail the thread with bias! :D
I think what I wrote it pretty reasonable and logical, and religion is unreasonable and illogical. That doesn't need to be proven in this thread, you asked a question and I answered it.
Why don't we just give up marriage to homosexual hating theists and make up our own partnership?
Because fuck them, basically. It's not right, it's not fair and they don't deserve such a massive gesture of respect because all they are doing is being about as disrespectful to homosexuals with their own "reason, logical argument.....bias".
That's what this is all about.
They don't own marriage but these people should be allowed to own their own lives, anyone who disagrees be damned!
Wiki quote:
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred.[1][2][3][4] In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."[5]
Religion isn't a good enough excuse to be a homophobe. This behavior is not acceptable and the law and society is finally beginning to express that.
That's why, Mogget. Sorry I rarely write a post all at once. It would be a backwards step to give any kind of victory or respect to people who endorse this viewpoint, regardless of their biased, unreasonable and irrational reasons for doing so.
|
On July 31 2012 06:52 Reason wrote:
It's been pretty well established that not all religions are against marriage. Those few religions who can't accept homosexuality are the ones that need to change, or just live with it basically.
You're still missing the point, why should one group who have nothing but contingent and nostalgic value on it being called marriage take priority over a group who objectively value marriage and what it stands for?
Why not embrace secular society and say, you know what, i dont WANT to be joined in holy matrimony, i JUST want to be recognized by the state in a civil partnership.
Once again, the only difference is the name, and the name on has significant value to one of the two groups :S
|
On July 31 2012 06:56 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 06:53 Mogget wrote:On July 31 2012 06:52 Reason wrote:
It's high time ancient texts written by "prophets" (then) cease to dictate modern policy, that's why. AH! the voice of reason, and logical argument, so glad oyu could join us and not just de-rail the thread with bias! :D I think what I wrote it pretty reasonable and logical, and religion is unreasonable and illogical. That doesn't need to be proven in this thread, you asked a question and I answered it. Why don't we just give up marriage to homosexual hating theists and make up our own partnership? Because fuck them, basically. It's not right, it's not fair and they don't deserve such a massive gesture of respect because all they are doing is being about as disrespectful to homosexuals with their own "reason, logical argument.....bias". That's what this is all about. They don't own marriage but these people should be allowed to own their own lives, anyone who disagrees be damned! Wiki quote: Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred.[1][2][3][4] In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."[5] Religion isn't a good enough excuse to be a homophobe. This behavior is not acceptable and the law and society is finally beginning to express that.
It is only reasonable and logical if you assume your own infallibility which you seem to be doing, and unless you have somehow found a way to metaphysically assert that there is certainly no god then i'd say that makes you rather silly and bigoted.
Religious people do not hate gay people, and do not have negative attitudes to them, some do, yes, so do some atheists, what's your point?
|
I'm not missing any point I just hadn't finished my post.
Sometimes things come to mind after I make a post because things that are so god damn (no pun intended) obvious to me are apparently verging on the unfathomable to a large number of people.
My point? Yeah I guess I haven't made my point clear yet... I must be speaking a special version of English that nobody but myself understands.
I mean just look at your post ffs what the hell is your point?
You want to give "marriage" to "religious" people.
Why?
They object to gay marriage.
I say no.
Why?
Nobody has the right to object to gay marriage, religious reasons or otherwise.
Your response = ij0dgjaijf[08fjs'dfj's9djdfjsd9djd9fjsd9jsdpfjsijdfmsdfmsodjfisjsdsjfsdf#
|
On July 31 2012 07:07 Reason wrote:
I'm not missing any point I just hadn't finished my post.
Sometimes things come to mind after I make a post because things that are so god damn (no pun intended) obvious to me are apparently verging on the unfathomable to a large number of people.
My point? Yeah I guess I haven't made my point clear yet... I must be speaking a special version of English that nobody but myself understands.
I mean just look at your post ffs
I appologise if i was unclear, allow me to specify, i meant what was your point of that wikipedia quote, would you like to draw from it to form an argument? are you implying that description fits all religious people which it most certainly does not?
Why did you include that?
EDIT: and might i add, if you do not wish me to comment before you have "finished your post" perhaps thinking clearly about each post instead of editing each one 3-4 times would be a good way to stop me "jumping the gun" so to speak
|
I included it because anybody who says anything against gay marriage, whether they like it or not, or because they feel it's justified because of their religion, or not, is
PRACTICING HOMOPHOBIA !
I've tried to make comprehensive posts before but people like you completely ignore their content so I'm trying to keep it minimal here and as the last few posts illustrate you can't even handle that.
|
On topic:
Obviously banning a company based on its religious/philosophical beliefs is wrong. Doesn't matter if you disagree with them or think they're outdated or whatever, the same arguments have been used throughout history to justify the oppression of every imaginable religious minority, atheists high on the list.
Off topic:
I realize no thread on such issues is complete without a few Christians posting abou frustration with some members of their religion, so here goes. The Bible says not a word about gay marriage, or really homosexuality as we know it today. Leviticus opposes sacred prostitution, and Romans opposes pedastry, but long-term consensual relationships between homosexual adults are not mentioned in the slightest. Likewise, abortion is completely unmentioned in the biblical text. Jesus' rule of ethics, "Treat others as you want to be treated," given as a summary of "the law and the prophets" is the absolute metric of Christian ethics and is why I support gay marriage. I am a student studying to be a pastor, so I have studied these texts in great detail and in their original language. Furthermore, I am not alone: while anti-gay attitudes are held by the majority of Christians, educated Christians (pastors and theologians) tend to be stridently liberal on these issues. There is a reason why the comfortable majority of pastors are Democrats.
|
On July 31 2012 07:07 Reason wrote:
I'm not missing any point I just hadn't finished my post.
Sometimes things come to mind after I make a post because things that are so god damn (no pun intended) obvious to me are apparently verging on the unfathomable to a large number of people.
My point? Yeah I guess I haven't made my point clear yet... I must be speaking a special version of English that nobody but myself understands.
I mean just look at your post ffs what the hell is your point?
You want to give "marriage" to "religious" people.
Why?
They object to gay marriage.
I say no.
Why?
Nobody has the right to object to gay marriage, religious reasons or otherwise.
Your response = ij0dgjaijf[08fjs'dfj's9djdfjsd9djd9fjsd9jsdpfjsijdfmsdfmsodjfisjsdsjfsdf#
Hmm, it seems you are still missing my point, lets have a dialouge, (let me know if you want to change the answers i give you)
Me: Hi there Reason!
Reason: Hey Mogget!
Me: I say, Reason, are you an atheist?
Reason: Why yes Mogget, yes I am.
Me: By JOVE, im an agnostic myself, but i guess that puts us in the same ball park!
Reason: SMASHING!
Me: Does that mean per chance, that you, like myself, believe in Ascribed value?
Reason: Whatever is that?
Me: Well my friend, it is the view that as there is no "intrinsic" value in the world, and that things are valued, based on the value that conscious agents (in our case namely people) place on things. So I value toothpaste, becuase it keeps my teeth clean, and not because its somehow "valuable" in some strange, objective sense!
Reason: Well my chum, that seems like a very difficult position to fault!
Me: Why yes it is, my quick witted friend! Its great!
Reason: Oh? Why is that?
Me: Because it means for me, things like "marriage" are only "contingently" valuable.
Reason: Whatever do you mean by that?
Me: Well my friend, it means that for all i care, marriage could be called flooplesop, or could encompass any number of things, and i wouldnt mind, as the only thing i place value on, is the joining of one person, and another person they love!
Reason: Well, that sounds great! Surely everyone thinks that then?
Me: Well my friend, im afraid not, you see, there are still some people who believe in OBJECTIVE value.
Reason: My word! Who?
Me: Well, people who believe in an external, eternal, all powerful all knowing deity who ascribes value that overrides ours, to them, what this deity deems valuable or not, is simply what is or is not valuable.
Reason: But how does that effect marriage?
Me: Good question my friend, you see, for some of these people, the deity they believe exists thinks that the union of a man and woman is a sacred and special thing! and that this union must be known as marriage! They cannot say, allow it to encompass other things, or call it something else. Because for them, it is not JUST the union of two people who love each other that is valuable, but the entire institution of marriage is valuable!
Reason: I see, but I dont believe in a deity, so why should that bother me?
Me: Well i would suggest, that seeing as you and I have no reason to value the institution of "marriage" at all, and we are looking for something a bit different to what "marriage" currently encompasses. Instead of destroying something that a large group of people deem to be intrinsically valuable, perhaps we could simply create a new institution, that embodies everything we want it to, and put it under a different name? That way, people who believe in deities get to keep what is sacred to them, and we get exactly what we wanted in the first place!
Reason: AHH i seeee,but what about the fact that god doesnt exist?
Me: Well, that would somewhat effect things wouldnt it!
Reason: What do you mean "would"?
Me: Well my learned friend, unfortunatly, it is impossible to verify gods existance OR lack thereof unless you count religious texts as evidence, which is why I am an agnostic, and not a theist, OR an atheist, as both sides make unfounded strong claims for no reason.
Reason: My, that sure was a lot to think about, allow me to think about all that for a second and i'll reply to you with a post on teamliquid
Me: I certainly look forward to it my friend!
|
On July 31 2012 07:15 Reason wrote:
I included it because anybody who says anything against gay marriage, whether they like it or not, or because they feel it's justified because of their religion, or not, is
PRACTICING HOMOPHOBIA !
I've tried to make comprehensive posts before but people like you completely ignore their content so I'm trying to keep it minimal here and as the last few posts illustrate you can't even handle that.
If I am married, and my friend is single and says to me "I am a bachelor" and i respond with "i want to be a bachelor to" and he then tells me im not. Is he descriminating against me becuase i am married? Or am i just not a bachelor?
If a religious person takes the definition of "Marriage" to be "the union of a man and woman" Are they homophobic for saying homosexual people cannot marry? or are they simply saying, given the definition of marrige, they litterally CANT marry?
|
I as an atheist couldn't give a rats ass about marriage and the "promise to god". But what about gay christians? These's quite a few and they would like to be married to under what they percieve as an all loving god... Should we give marriage to those who only allow hetero weddings or should everyone be able to marry?
|
On July 31 2012 06:44 Mogget wrote:
I get that gay people dont want to accept a civil union with equal status as an alternative as even though tax breaks etc would still be there, the worry would be it isnt seen in the same light as Marriage. Ok
Here's a thought:
What does marriage mean to Non-religious people? A civil union between two people.
What does marriage mean to Religious people? A sacred union under god.
Hows about ALL atheists, gay/straight/whatever get civil partnerships? I for one have no desire what-so-ever to be "married" i would MUCH prefer a civil partnership, but being straight leaves me with marriage, and we leave "Marriage" to the people who hold it as a sacred joining?
Its all in a name, and that name means SUBSTANTIALLY more to one group of people (The religious people) so why not just let them have it and everyone else stop fighting for something they dont actually want anyway?
Ok. Wacky idea, I know, but follow me here.
Alright.
So.
We have a gay man.
And we have his life partner. Another gay man.
And guess what?
They're religious.
And because of this, they want to get married.
Crazy, I know.
|
On July 31 2012 07:47 Mogget wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 07:15 Reason wrote:
I included it because anybody who says anything against gay marriage, whether they like it or not, or because they feel it's justified because of their religion, or not, is
PRACTICING HOMOPHOBIA !
I've tried to make comprehensive posts before but people like you completely ignore their content so I'm trying to keep it minimal here and as the last few posts illustrate you can't even handle that. If I am married, and my friend is single and says to me "I am a bachelor" and i respond with "i want to be a bachelor to" and he then tells me im not. Is he descriminating against me becuase i am married? Or am i just not a bachelor? If a religious person takes the definition of "Marriage" to be "the union of a man and woman" Are they homophobic for saying homosexual people cannot marry? or are they simply saying, given the definition of marrige, they litterally CANT marry?
The difference is that the married man isn't a bachelor by the universal meaning that this word has in the English language.
Anti-gay marriage individuals base their opinion on completely irrational religious beliefs that are trying to hijack and define what marriage is, despite the fact that marriage is not a religious institution.
It would be more akin to a group of people trying to force others to accept the definition of "bachelor" including an age limit and a minimum amount of average sexual activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
