Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[Summa]

from MHz's above statements i gather that he is taking or just finished philosophy 101 or finished reading Plato and a Platypus Walked into a Bar

[MetalHeadz]

guess who's trying really hard to sound smart

I appreciate the opinion, you just don't have to try so hard to impress next time

Impress you? Heh, now why would I want to impress the least interesting, least intelligent forum user in this thread whose opinion counts for shit? You're a sheep. You suck off whoever is popular because you're a weaksauce fagchop cuntrag with no character, conviction or principles. You're bland, worthless and boring, just for the record.

[MetalHeadz]

EDIT: by the way you do not want to get into the christianity debate with me mhz.

Nobody who knows me well would ever claim that I would not be eager to debate on the topic of faith, even with somebody of your lowly acumen.

I personally am agnostic, however a bunch of atheist scientists who are clearly smarter than you and me have converted after trying to prove that there is no god,

This is a reductio ad absurdum, i.e. it means or proves nothing. I could just as easily posit the opposite: that the greatest minds of our scientific history, whether it be Darwin or Einstein, were positively moved to challenge the idea of a theistic God having discovered insights into the way our universe and natural world is ordered.

because although it may be possible for this universe to exist without a supernatural being, the odds are so stacked against it that you have almost no way of it possibly happening.

Another non-sequitur. You claim that the 'odds are stacked' in favour of the existence of a 'supernatural being' and yet you present absolutely no evidence for why this should be the case. Some design might I say; some designer.... This is why I part company with you here: to appoint the wonders of our Universe to an intelligent being requires infinitely more explanation than to say that you 'do not know', or are 'unsure'. You have it all ahead of you if you wish to reconcile this with evidence. Remember that this is only with respect to the philosophical question of what happened before the Big Bang. The answer to this question, in fact, does not rammify any religious claims whatsoever, e.g. Jesus made water into wine. Just because some people cannot 'make sense' of the world without belief in 'grand designer' (another notion I vehemently reject) does not logically lend itself to any claims made by religious literalists. To claim that the perfection of our universe suggests of a 'ultimate fine-tuner' is, to a limited extent, logically coherent. But to claim that you know what this God wants of you; to claim that you know him on intimate terms; to claim that you know who he wants you to have sex with; to claim that he can suspend the laws of nature in your favour (miracles), it seems to me, is to claim that you will believe absolutely anything. At best, scepticism about the origins of the universe suggests of a benign deity. The burden of proof, however, is somewhat on you.

I cannot blame 75% of people for believing, nor can I hold their beliefs against them until such a point that it becomes harmful to society. Most of these people are trying to uphold their moral values in what has been taught for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I cant anything that the average christian believes in that is harmful to society overall

I would claim that Christianity is harmful to American socio-economic development and offensive to morality generically.

Religion was our first way of describing the natural world and social ethics. In a land ravaged by tribal barbarianism, religion would have played a crucial role in developing the morals of society and enforcing a divine rule of law. Whilst religion was the first way of prescribing morality and the origins of life (in the infancy of human civilisation), it was also our worst. Science and reason has eroded religious dogmas on every front. Can you think of a question that used to be answered by science that now has a better explanation offered by religion? No. Not only are the scientific claims made in our religious scriptures obselete and backward, but the ethical claims are too. I'm not going to indulge in some raging critique of the Old Testament; or the concept of jihad; or the rights of women; or any other fundamentalist dogma, easily dismissed by a religious apologist. Instead I want to talk about something central to Christianity and Christian morality, the 10 commandments.

1. You shall have no other Gods but me.

This is the first item of a moral code. What kind of moral preaching is this? What greater proof do you need to infer that religion is man made? On a more serious note, such exclusive claims about the legitimacy of the divine has been the cause of conflict the world over, not least in the Middle East.

2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.

Again, I don't know how 'God' is prioritising these maxims, but they don't seem to be in order of ethical necessity. God is apparently scared of us worshipping the wrong guy.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.

Blasphemy, again, not what I would call a moral teaching relative to a 21st century audience.

4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.

God apparently cares about what days you have off. Assuming that the 10 commandments represents God's top wishes, he cares more that you have Sundays off than you molesting and raping children.

5. Respect your father and mother.

I concede that this resonates as a decent moral code, and will for the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean we require religion to believe and practice this, however.

6. You must not kill.

Ok, this seems reasonable enough on a very basic level: but how relevant and practical a moral code is it? I can see that for a society who lived in an era where a wheel was advanced technology that this would have been a good way to inhibit murder. But should we never kill somebody regardless of the consequences? Is this a sophisticated moral teaching? Is this even a moral teaching? I would say that this was positively immoral. To say that there was no circumstance in which you would kill, even if killing meant saving thousands of other lives, you are at worst immoral and at best amoral. This is the same reason that I believe pacificism to be immoral. Clearly the bible has not accounted for complicated moral issues facing us today.

7. You must not commit adultery.

I can think of worse things for a supreme being to be concerned about.

8. You must not steal.

Not even to pay for food to save your family? Again, ethically questionable.

9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.

What impact does this have on America today?

The belief that a celestial being has opinions about human affairs gives those who believe this, and affiliate themselves to 'him', an undeserved sense of self-righteousness. This is the primary cause of totalitarianism (Hitchens, 2007). The combination of belief in God with the belief that he wants you to act in a certain way necessitates that you be non-negotiable in your approach to ethics. This has caused a great deal of hostility in America, and has polarised secularists and religious fanatics.

The case against abortion, for example, actually has reasonable secular grounds. But it is the way that religious zealots have hijacked this debate that is indicative of religious infallibility. The faith-based opinion that the soul enters the zygote at the point of conception, and the biblical corroboration of this (6. You must not kill.) has given many Christians the impetus to campaign on this issue. Without religion we would be free to engage in public discourse without sensationalist, dogmatic preachments and we would be able to discuss the merits and costs of such issues rationally. The case of the abortion doctor murders is a prime example.

The argument against teaching of evolution in schools is one also instigated by the scientifically ignorant. Anybody with any self-respect will agree that the deletion of Evolution from the school syllabus, or the inclusion of Creationism would be disasterous, UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE. Unwarranted credulity has gone unpunished in your political narrative for too long and it will have serious repercussions on the scientific intelligence of your society if you carry on allowing it to go unquestioned.

As I have demonstrated, Christianity and other religions offer us no relevant insights into science or morality. The religious scriptures were written in a completely different social environment and apply only to that generation. What is good about religion can be easily grasped by atheists: it's not sophisticated whatsoever. Anything which we call 'progress' will be at the detriment of religion including, coincidentally, the gay-rights movement.

[Vykromond]

God couldn't tolerate this kind of affront to his being, so he is putting a stop to it.

Umm, it is sorta the gay disease, considering how it is largely spread throughout the gay community, more so than the straight community...

you forgot nigge rs
god also hates them

[Squeezer]

Disagreeing with gays? Do you mean where I said that wark and I functionally agree? That may have been a little unclear. Wark said that gays should have the same legal rights as straight people - just don't use the word "marriage." I agree, although I could care less what word you call it because words only mean things to stupid people.

I personally could care less what gay people want to do, but I'm a staunch proponent of equal rights under the law.

I guess we mostly agree then.

[Izor]

The burden of proof isnt on me...one state out of 49 has this law for some reason, with a bill to reverse all the faggotry thats already taken place. Theres no reason not to be like the others. Nice try though

[genocidal]

except for the disagreeing with gays part.

Disagreeing with gays? Do you mean where I said that wark and I functionally agree? That may have been a little unclear. Wark said that gays should have the same legal rights as straight people - just don't use the word "marriage." I agree, although I could care less what word you call it because words only mean things to stupid people.

I personally could care less what gay people want to do, but I'm a staunch proponent of equal rights under the law.

[Liquid Blue]

The burden of proof is on you, not on him or anyone else. You make accusations without any form of proof or reasoning other than "lol faggots" and demand others prove you wrong- that's not how it works.

[Izor]

No sooner does this thread start up than I get all the fodder I need. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html

Granted, its a charter school, but fucking christ man would you ever have a field trip to a straight wedding? Makes no sense.

lol at riske. You just dont get the point. When guys are looking at guys in the locker room and another guy notices, the situation has the tendency to 'straighten' itself out. Also, teenage boys being in the locker room with teenage girls is just flat out wrong on so many levels. Would you want to subject your daughter to that kind of treatment? I mean really. I think you need to prove to me what is wrong with boys staying in the boys locker room and girls staying in the girls locker room

EDIT: by the way you do not want to get into the christianity debate with me mhz. I personally am agnostic, however a bunch of atheist scientists who are clearly smarter than you and me have converted after trying to prove that there is no god, because although it may be possible for this universe to exist without a supernatural being, the odds are so stacked against it that you have almost no way of it possibly happening. I cannot blame 75% of people for believing, nor can I hold their beliefs against them until such a point that it becomes harmful to society. Most of these people are trying to uphold their moral values in what has been taught for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I cant anything that the average christian believes in that is harmful to society overall

[Liquid Blue]

I think the latter question you posed about 'gay' or 'gay friendly' highschools is absurd. This is very unsophisticated, brutish political correctness/social engineering. I'm assuming that the notion on which this is based is that the implementation of such institutions will make gay children feel comfortable and confident in themselves and their sexuality in their everyday-school life. In actuality, however, the act of describing a school by the way it treats minorities draws unnecessary attention to the differences of the students, both semantically and practically. Moreover, and by explicitly defining such differences, such institutions will gain unwanted and damaging publicity, especially in consideration of the dogmatism and bigotry of the Christian right in America. And there in lies the problem.

For as long as America has 75% of the population believing that an omniscient being authored a book which dictates who you can and cannot have sex with, it is unlikely to see progression towards the social acceptance and political acknowledgement of homosexuals. But this kind of thoughtless consciousness raising is not the answer.

guess who's trying really hard to sound smart

I appreciate the opinion, you just don't have to try so hard to impress next time

[kthx]

For as long as America has 75% of the population believing that an omniscient being authored a book which dictates who you can and cannot have sex with, it is unlikely to see progression towards the social acceptance and political acknowledgement of homosexuals. But this kind of thoughtless consciousness raising is not the answer.

Yeah the problem is that America still has a moral compass passed down from a set of rules that makes a society a better place.... not that gay people a very very small minority wants to take away the majorities rights.

And yes squeezer, I would take offense to a church actually holding a homosexual wedding ceremony.

[MetalHeadz]

I think the latter question you posed about 'gay' or 'gay friendly' highschools is absurd. This is very unsophisticated, brutish political correctness/social engineering. I'm assuming that the notion on which this is based is that the implementation of such institutions will make gay children feel comfortable and confident in themselves and their sexuality in their everyday-school life. In actuality, however, the act of describing a school by the way it treats minorities draws unnecessary attention to the differences of the students, both semantically and practically. Moreover, and by explicitly defining such differences, such institutions will gain unwanted and damaging publicity, especially in consideration of the dogmatism and bigotry of the Christian right in America. And there in lies the problem.

For as long as America has 75% of the population believing that an omniscient being authored a book which dictates who you can and cannot have sex with, it is unlikely to see progression towards the social acceptance and political acknowledgement of homosexuals. But this kind of thoughtless consciousness raising is not the answer.

[riske]

But the problem is once you give this guy the right to be in a womens locker room, isnt that taking away the girls rights for privacy if i had a daughter i would be upset that this kid would be allowed in the same changing room as her.

this is why youre an idiot, you blindly discriminate and obviously dont think things through.

ALL you think about is the guys being in girls locker rooms. If you REALLY cared about privacy, you would be fighting for cubicles or something similar so NOONE could look at your daughter. You do realize there are lesbians right? They could be checking her out too? But no, instead you worry about guys being in the girls lockerroom, instead of people who are sexually attracted to the people of that specific lockerroom, being in there with them.

and on that note, you dont even mention butch lesbians being in mens locker rooms etc. Again, just blind discrimination. You are clearly brainwashed/stupid, otherwise you would have mentioned all the other things besides gay males specifically.

[Squeezer]

Dude listen: what I (and Epi) posted was not arguing with your stance at all. I am showing you why your stance doesn't matter because that's not what the debate is about. The debate is about tax breaks for gay marriages, or no tax breaks. The semantics argument is a red herring used to fool people like you into bringing emotions into their viewpoint on the debate. Oddly enough, you and I functionally agree on this matter.

So exactly why the fuck are you posting articles about British retards who take jobs that conflict with their religious beliefs?

and this. except for the disagreeing with gays part.

[Squeezer]

So be it, the whole argument from Christians about gay marriage is the "marriage" portion of it, if it was a gay union sanctioned by the state and not the church, that has every government ruling from a marriage in it but leaving out god it wouldn't be a problem. This isn't gays wanting rights, its gays attacking the church because the church is by the writings of god against gayness.

say a church is accepting of gays and allows homosexual couples to wed there. Would you be against that? In your eyes would that be a union not recognized in the eyes of God? I'm genuinely curious.

edit: great pardise is here. fantastic argument on the way.