|
On March 02 2013 09:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:23 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:15 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not. By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true. Are you suggesting that the realization that "knowledge is valuable" came upon you like the fetal Jesus did Mary? No, it was a gradual process, both from my own internal maturation process, as well as parents challenging me on what I learned in school and outside of it, making me question and making me learn the most essential skill for any child, critical thinking. But you are going off topic here, suffice it to say it is in our most basic nature to seek knowledge. The manner in which the average person conceives of religious thought or knowledge is very much on topic. And I'm quite glad that you mentioned parents, because that is the essence of what I am hinting at. You've had education, parenting, and reading experience to help lead you to where you are now. Now lets use some of that "critical thinking" and consider how those amongst us without the grace of caring parents, an unbiased history book, or even an environment that encourages healthy skepticism while growing up might come to a different place, and why simply pointing the finger of rationality at them and laughing will probably only further entrench their worldview.
There is no laughter, and only occasional derision.
I don't hate people for being ignorant, I'm ignorant about plenty of stuff. But I do resent willful ignorance, the obtuse refusal to use the amazing wealth of knowledge we have gathered, and have now made available to everyone with internet access. Everyone with some degree of curiosity and imagination can acquire practically any information in the world in five minutes or less.
It seems perverse to me to have an ironclad opinion on a subject you have not even bothered researching on a basic level. I never make a bold statement on a topic without trying to learn whether what I say actually is true or not. Sometimes I fail. But at least I make the attempt to understand. And on this one, I feel pretty confident.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's also pretty unfair to those who are not prejudiced against religious people when you think that any criticism of religion has to come from prejudice.
if someone's not 'believing' in evolution etc is ignorant, and pointing out that ignorance makes the guy seem ignorant. this is not really the same as calling him an ignorant shithead as an insult. it's just an unfortunate fact.
the cultural relativist's "don't insult the culturally less privileged" is a form of hands off privilege. certainly, when you have a young earth creationist who hates fags etc, astrophysics is just another magical fairytale to him, and you probably won't get anywhere with that line of argument. however, this is not to say it's impossible for that guy to learn and know better, it's just a harder task to teach him.
|
On March 02 2013 09:08 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:19 Tachion wrote:On March 02 2013 07:12 danl9rm wrote:On March 01 2013 14:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Huge bigot religious drama shitfest inc Let me try to interpret this. It's not alright when religious people believe that homosexual partners should not be able to marry because they believe it is wrong and therefore voice their opinion. It is alright when people believe that homosexual partners should be able to marry because they believe it is okay and therefore voice their opinion. Is that a fair assessment? Correct me where I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be rude, this is just what it seems like to me and so figure I'm missing something. Why do you think you're missing something? Seems pretty bang on to me. At least when it's in regards to making law and not simply a matter of personal preference. So, religious people voicing their opinion is wrong with regards to law, but irreligious people voicing their opinion, with regards to the law, is ok?
It's not specific to religious people, but to anyone who has beliefs that trample on the civil rights of others. I can believe all I want that blacks and whites should not be able to get married, but trying to propose that into law would be a terrible offense to those whom it would affect. In this case, the purpose of the marriage laws are to protect the fabric of our society, and discrimination against gays simply should not be a part of that, as we've proven time and time again with other discrimination our society has done away with.
|
On March 02 2013 10:01 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:08 danl9rm wrote:On March 02 2013 07:19 Tachion wrote:On March 02 2013 07:12 danl9rm wrote:On March 01 2013 14:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Huge bigot religious drama shitfest inc Let me try to interpret this. It's not alright when religious people believe that homosexual partners should not be able to marry because they believe it is wrong and therefore voice their opinion. It is alright when people believe that homosexual partners should be able to marry because they believe it is okay and therefore voice their opinion. Is that a fair assessment? Correct me where I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be rude, this is just what it seems like to me and so figure I'm missing something. Why do you think you're missing something? Seems pretty bang on to me. At least when it's in regards to making law and not simply a matter of personal preference. So, religious people voicing their opinion is wrong with regards to law, but irreligious people voicing their opinion, with regards to the law, is ok? It's not specific to religious people, but to anyone who has beliefs that trample on the civil rights of others. I can believe all I want that blacks and whites should not be able to get married, but trying to propose that into law would be a terrible offense to those whom it would affect. In this case, the purpose of the marriage laws are to protect the fabric of our society, and discrimination against gays simply should not be a part of that, as we've proven time and time again with other discrimination our society has done away with.
Quoted just in case this ends up being missed. Things like this aren't JUST about religious people, or about gays, despite the current context..
|
On March 02 2013 09:47 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:39 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:23 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:15 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not. By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true. Are you suggesting that the realization that "knowledge is valuable" came upon you like the fetal Jesus did Mary? No, it was a gradual process, both from my own internal maturation process, as well as parents challenging me on what I learned in school and outside of it, making me question and making me learn the most essential skill for any child, critical thinking. But you are going off topic here, suffice it to say it is in our most basic nature to seek knowledge. The manner in which the average person conceives of religious thought or knowledge is very much on topic. And I'm quite glad that you mentioned parents, because that is the essence of what I am hinting at. You've had education, parenting, and reading experience to help lead you to where you are now. Now lets use some of that "critical thinking" and consider how those amongst us without the grace of caring parents, an unbiased history book, or even an environment that encourages healthy skepticism while growing up might come to a different place, and why simply pointing the finger of rationality at them and laughing will probably only further entrench their worldview. There is no laughter, and only occasional derision. I don't hate people for being ignorant, I'm ignorant about plenty of stuff. But I do resent willful ignorance, the obtuse refusal to use the amazing wealth of knowledge we have gathered, and have now made available to everyone with internet access. Everyone with some degree of curiosity and imagination can acquire practically any information in the world in five minutes or less. It seems perverse to me to have an ironclad opinion on a subject you have not even bothered researching on a basic level. I never make a bold statement on a topic without trying to learn whether what I say actually is true or not. Sometimes I fail. But at least I make the attempt to understand. And on this one, I feel pretty confident.
You are right to point out the utility in the access to information provided by the internet; more is indeed at an individuals fingertips in terms of knowledge than ever before. The problem deals not in access but in mediation; the internet cannot tell a user what to type into that search window, nor can it disabuse a user from whatever place they argue from. In fact, I think such access without mediation has only fed into the paradigm of misplaced skepticism and obtuse ideology. I do not think it coincidental that Of Pandas and People, considered by most to be the source of the term "intelligent design" in popular use, was only published in 1989, almost directly alongside the procession of the internet as we know it. My point is that I think you are discounting your upbringing and place of origin a bit too much when you consider healthy critical skepticism so ubiquitous; I think that there are places here in the United States that, had you been given the chance to visit them, would most certainly change your mind in regards to just how different people and their upbringings can be.
On March 02 2013 09:50 oneofthem wrote:
it's also pretty unfair to those who are not prejudiced against religious people when you think that any criticism of religion has to come from prejudice.
if someone's not 'believing' in evolution etc is ignorant, and pointing out that ignorance makes the guy seem ignorant. this is not really the same as calling him an ignorant shithead as an insult. it's just an unfortunate fact.
the cultural relativist's "don't insult the culturally less privileged" is a form of hands off privilege. certainly, when you have a young earth creationist who hates fags etc, astrophysics is just another magical fairytale to him, and you probably won't get anywhere with that line of argument. however, this is not to say it's impossible for that guy to learn and know better, it's just a harder task to teach him.
I apologize if I gave you the impression that I was arguing against criticism of religion in all forms, I swear I am very much about criticizing every institution, the Church included. And I am most certainly not a cultural relativist; I firmly believe that every Creationist and bigot who relies on flimsy ideology to justify their ignorance deserves their fair share of ridicule. What concerns me is how easy it is to allow the obvious and loud images of the clearly stupid agglomerate into definitive understandings of groups of people like "Christians" or "religious" people, without enough attention paid to the relatively quiet masses of likely doubt-ridden but good and tolerant believers who consider themselves religious for a host of non-doctrinal reasons. If a productive societal discourse is to take place between the religious and the non, both sides need to figure out how to be more persuasive rather than pointed. Which basically means we agree.
|
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem?
|
On March 02 2013 11:41 farvacola wrote:
You are right to point out the utility in the access to information provided by the internet; more is indeed at an individuals fingertips in terms of knowledge than ever before. The problem deals not in access but in mediation; the internet cannot tell a user what to type into that search window, nor can it disabuse a user from whatever place they argue from. In fact, I think such access without mediation has only fed into the paradigm of misplaced skepticism and obtuse ideology. I do not think it coincidental that Of Pandas and People, considered by most to be the source of the term "intelligent design" in popular use, was only published in 1989, almost directly alongside the procession of the internet as we know it. My point is that I think you are discounting your upbringing and place of origin a bit too much when you consider healthy critical skepticism so ubiquitous; I think that there are places here in the United States that, had you been given the chance to visit them, would most certainly change your mind in regards to just how different people and their upbringings can be.
This may come as a surprise, but I actually have visited places like those you describe. I've been to creationist museums and listened to preachers ranting about how homosexuality is a device of satan, used to corrupt mankind in the eyes of god. It's one of the reasons I feel so strongly about this, I've seen how blind faith can ruin otherwise good, caring people and seduce them into the admittedly highly alluring world of us and them. I see homophobia as a direct result of this insular echo chamber.
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think any person mentally stable enough to form a coherent sentence is so lost that he or she could not be moved if enough proof was presented.
And it makes a move like the president's even more important, for better or worse he's basically taken it upon himself to drag the reductionists and angry social conservatives kicking and screaming into the twenty first century. Not a task I envy him, but one I admire him for shouldering.
|
How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people.
On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem?
Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try...
If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
|
On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem?
Lol! Close this thread now! It is really actually this simple! LOL good job sir!
|
Oh god, I'm getting out of here...
|
On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
Because...
if you are against guns...
and even if you don't own a gun...
others with guns can still shoot you!
|
On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
While I see where your coming from I really hope your not serious. The issue is not as simple as that for many people I agree.
.
You comparison is awful, guns in households increase likelihood of accidental death or a suicide, and they can be used to harm other individuals. This is not to say that there is not a good use for guns, but come on...
Lgbtq groups being suppressed by our society causes suicides, quite a bit, gay teens have a very alarming suicide rate and sometimes though not as often at all, violent crimes against them for their sexuality. More acceptance within our laws will set an example that it's ok., I'm not just talking about marriage equality here, I'm talking people not being accepted by their parents and communities and friends. People losing their jobs or careers over sexual orientation.
If you could stick with, it's more complicated than that, maybe I'm being too technical.
Props to Obama I hope real chsnge comes from this, and not just gay marriage, that is only a small part of the change needed to bring equality to the united states.
|
Sweden4353 Posts
On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
So true! They are really similar, like if someone with issues can get a gun then shoots someone with it... other people get hurt! And if some faggots marry it's all unnatural and shit so god will smite us with lightning bolts.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
You've touched upon something more interesting there than you know. Being against "gay marriage" or "guns" is a pretty ambiguous statement. More exact statements could be I am against "two men marrying each other" and "being shot by a person using a gun".
One of those things involves and affects you, the other doesn't.
|
Well hell,
it's
about
time.
Props to the good americans out there who backed obama leading to awesome moments like this!
|
On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
And other people getting same-sex marriage affects you how, exactly?
|
People just don't have any respect for religions anymore, yet they still want to be part of them just so they can get "married", just accepting the convenient parts of the religion and ignoring all the rest. Your average christian thinks the Bible is a silly boogie story. This is so wrong and I sincerely wish people would just leave marriage to those who actually think it's a spiritual ceremony instead of a nice little tradition with no other meaning than legislative. I respect those people who leave the church when they grow up and realise they don't believe any of it, and roll my eyes to those who belittle the foundations of christianity yet refuse to give up on church, and better yet try to force their values into it and want their voice to be heard in church. Have a little respect to those "unintelligent" people who still believe in God and think marriage is sacred. The bible is pretty clear about marriage being a pact between a man and a woman. Christianity is a religion, in other words it has it's basis in belief instead of rational thinking that would suggest marriage does not look at sexual preference, end of story. A buddhist cannot take part in marriage, is that against equal rights too? I mean that must be the case since whatever bible says marriage is about clearly doesn't matter and after all a buddhist is equal to everyone else.
|
I'm all for homosexuals getting married, but without any financial benefits that are meant to encourage married couples to have children. And religious institutions should not be forced to let homosexuals marry. Those two reservations I think are sensible.
@duckmaster
Marriage is not exclusive to religion... Your level of ignorance is astounding.
|
On March 02 2013 20:21 duckmaster wrote:
People just don't have any respect for religions anymore, yet they still want to be part of them just so they can get "married", just accepting the convenient parts of the religion and ignoring all the rest. Your average christian thinks the Bible is a silly boogie story. This is so wrong and I sincerely wish people would just leave marriage to those who actually think it's a spiritual ceremony instead of a nice little tradition with no other meaning than legislative. I respect those people who leave the church when they grow up and realise they don't believe any of it, and roll my eyes to those who belittle the foundations of christianity yet refuse to give up on church, and better yet try to force their values into it and want their voice to be heard in church. Have a little respect to those "unintelligent" people who still believe in God and think marriage is sacred. The bible is pretty clear about marriage being a pact between a man and a woman. Christianity is a religion, in other words it has it's basis in belief instead of rational thinking that would suggest marriage does not look at sexual preference, end of story. A buddhist cannot take part in marriage, is that against equal rights too? I mean that must be the case since whatever bible says marriage is about clearly doesn't matter and after all a buddhist is equal to everyone else.
Marriage is not the purview of christianity, or any religion. It is a secular, legal contract that was appropriated by religions to gain temporal power.
|
I'll preface this by saying, i do believe gays should be allowed to marry, but i don't believe churches should be forced to go against their beliefs to give gays a marriage "ceremony" in their church. You can't just take away one person's rights in order to give another person rights. And as wrong as their (the religious anti-homosexuality) belief is, you can't make laws forcing a religion to change or make laws forcing people to change their religious beliefs (that's definitely in the constitution). It's not about people being for/against any certain religion, it's about making laws for/against any certain religion.
The only point I really think a lot of you are missing is
The administration said unequivocally in a friend-of-the-court brief filed late on Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where citizens voted to bar it in a 2008 referendum known as Proposition 8.
and The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn California's
This is a dangerous precedent. The problem is, it's setting up the Supreme Court to be the #1 power over all laws of the country, basically throwing out the "checks and balances" that our government is supposed to have. After this, what's to stop the supreme court from doing away with congress? or the president? or elections?
What if Obama(or any other president) asks the supreme court to do away with the law saying a president can only run for presidential election twice? (this is a bad summary..it actually says something about not being in the office of presidency more than 8 years, or if they came into the office during another presidents term [ie when Kennedy was shot] with 2 or more years left in that term, they can only run and gain the office for 1 more term of 4 years) What if they do this, the people actually vote Obama (or any other president) out of office, then he asks the supreme court to overturn that vote?
My point is, if it's something that was voted on, by the citizens, then you can't just throw it out the door arbitrarily like that. It should have to be voted on again, and again, and again, until it passes. We shouldn't just be making laws to force beliefs onto people (either religious or non-religious or whatever they may be). We should be more focused on educating and persuading people that they should vote for something like gay marriage being allowed, not against. And by this i don't mean railing, name-calling, or stuff like that, it should be logical, and respectful, while still being persuasive (by using words to change one's belief) and the massive amount of yelling and name-calling I see from both sides of the argument, is only going to cause further disruption and separation, not cohesiveness and unity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
