Does opposing gay marriage make you an asshole?

[monkey0506]

Once all gods can exist, none of them can.

Once all people can exist, none of them can.

Once all animals can exist, none of them can.

Once carbon-based lifeforms can exist, no other forms of life can exist.

Once answered, no question can exist.

Again, same logic is same.

Both the religious and the irreligious alike often fall into the very easy trap of thinking that the existence of a deity is binary, and the existence of a deity presupposes the existence of your deity.

It's a good thing no religion has ever supposed in the existence of more than one god. I mean, seriously.

But then you have the more iffy scriptures, such as the one calling all homosexuals abominations that must be killed. Probably something to set the early jews apart from other cults, or something to ensure procreation and no wasted energy on something that didn't result in babies.

Yes, ignoring fact is important to your case.

And that echoed throughout history, causing the gay marriage problem. There is no logical reason that homosexuals should have lesser rights than straight people. With our new perspective that all scripture is equally theologically valid, can you find a reason? The answer is no.

With our new perspective that marriage began historically as a religious convention, is there a reason to consider marriage a civil right? The answer is no.

Even if a god existed that really hated gay people's happiness for some reason...But don't base your capacity for allowing other people to be happy on it. If they're murdering someone, yeah, put a stop to that, that is making someone miserable. But something as prosaic as two guys or two girls getting hitched? You ain't got a say in that. Stop forcing other people to be miserable.

Firstly, gay marriage has nothing to do with happiness. It has to do with the benefits offered by the government to married couples. Nothing more. So, opposition to homosexual marriage is not an issue of happiness.

As for the "happiness" of marriage, modern society actually dictates that marriage is an antiquated idea which actually has a statistically higher chance of leading to divorce and the misery of both parties than if they had simply not gotten married in the first place. I appreciate your open ignorance of modern society.

So if you oppose gay marriage, you are not only an asshole, but a complete idiot with no sense of cosmic scale.

I oppose gay marriage in space just as much as I oppose it on Earth. My cosmic scale is just fine, thanks.

If [a god exists who is interacting with our physical plane], there should be evidence, yet there is none, or we would all be believers.

Remind me again how all proposed evidences are given equal consideration, and accepted unanimously after thorough, objective examination. No, really. Remind me.

I did not start out rejecting "immaterial planes". I thought it entirely possible that for instance that some people might be able to do stuff others can't. In no way did I categorically deny that possibility. Turns out though, that all these people are frauds. I'm simply going where the evidence leads.

So because frauds exist, it isn't possible "that some people might be able to do stuff others can't"? This particular point of your argument goes beyond just daft. The existence of extra-physical planes could be categorically proven under laboratory conditions (and indeed has). The problem is that it supersedes people's understanding of the world on the same level as the existence of extraterrestrial life (which is also true, and supported by religion). People fear the unknown, and if they honestly believed that something beyond their control was interacting with the physical world, mass panic would ensue. Instead, they rationalize it away by saying that they can't see, touch, taste, feel, or hear it themselves, so anyone claiming that it could exist must be insane. Thus they are able to go about their lives without detriment. However, the instant that an immaterial plane of existence becomes accepted, the proposed existence of the spiritual realm becomes plausible at the very least. It's not wrong to believe that things are plausible until otherwise disproven.

Since you are a creationist, you think that there actually is evidence for god out there. I get it. No point in discussing that, and the irony is: creationists are the close-minded ones who refuse to accept that nature can and does "create" what it did.

I definitely like the bit where nothing collided with nothing, and when that happened, the bits of nothing exploded, and matter fell out of it.

Tracy Harris from the Atheist Experience has a pretty nice analogy, and I might have mentioned it already: if somebody tells you they have a cat, and you go to their house and find no fur, no litter box, no cat food bowls, no scratching tree, no cat food, no scratched furniture, no veterinary documents and no photos of the cat, are you close-minded if you don't believe that there is a cat?

Yes. An open-minded person wouldn't be so ready to dismiss the existence of something just because you said there is no evidence (while ignoring the plethora of other evidences which were readily laying around, waiting to be found).

monkey_05_06, you stated that there was evidence (and you're right to assume that fairy tales, no matter how culturally relevant, are not considered valid evidence).  You have yet to provide it.

[Eric]

Once all people can exist, none of them can.

Once all animals can exist, none of them can.

Once carbon-based lifeforms can exist, no other forms of life can exist.

Once answered, no question can exist.

Again, same logic is same.

My mind just boggles at the use of the word logic here. I've tried to type four or five responses, but I'm dumbfounded.

[dactylopus]

With our new perspective that all scripture is equally theologically valid, can you find a reason? The answer is no.

With our new perspective that marriage began historically as a religious convention, is there a reason to consider marriage a civil right? The answer is no.

The answer is actually yes.  Archaic origins do not invalidate modern usage.  For example, Oneida, the silverware company, began as a sex cult.  We cannot base our opinion of the company entirely on its origins, as it no longer endorses those beliefs.  Similarly, the archaic origins of religion and mythology as 'true facts' does not negate the study of these texts as allegorical fiction.

And of course, the archaic origins of marriage do not dictate our modern view.

Firstly, gay marriage has nothing to do with happiness. It has to do with the benefits offered by the government to married couples. Nothing more. So, opposition to homosexual marriage is not an issue of happiness.

You have a rather limited view.  Is it not conceivable that for some, it is indeed an issue of happiness?  And arguing divorce statistics here is meaningless, since we are talking about happiness relative to the time the commitment is made.

Since you are a creationist, you think that there actually is evidence for god out there. I get it. No point in discussing that, and the irony is: creationists are the close-minded ones who refuse to accept that nature can and does "create" what it did.

I definitely like the bit where nothing collided with nothing, and when that happened, the bits of nothing exploded, and matter fell out of it.

As do I.

Question:  Why do you find it so hard to believe that something can come from nothing, but so easy to believe that a mystical individual created it all with magic?

monkey_05_06, you stated that there was evidence (and you're right to assume that fairy tales, no matter how culturally relevant, are not considered valid evidence).  You have yet to provide it.

[Khris]

monkey:

So because frauds exist, it isn't possible "that some people might be able to do stuff others can't"? This particular point of your argument goes beyond just daft.

I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that whenever we actually test those claims in controlled conditions, the supernatural powers suddenly disappear.
And what actually IS daft is accepting every extraordinary claim as long as it isn't disproven.

Psychics, astrologers, aura-readers and faith healers have had hundreds of years now to show that they actually can do what they say they can.

The time to accept that there people who can see the future, read thoughts or move stuff with their mind is when there is evidence for it.

The same goes for the existence of ghosts, souls, demons, etc.

People fear the unknown, and if they honestly believed that something beyond their control was interacting with the physical world, mass panic would ensue.

So you're saying the over 5 billion religious people don't honestly believe? WTF. Talk about daft.

I definitely like the bit where nothing collided with nothing, and when that happened, the bits of nothing exploded, and matter fell out of it.

Do you know what a strawman is? And I already explained at length why saying "goddidit" instead is  not an explanation, just a huge argument from ignorance.
Also, I was talking about creationism; why do you pick the one thing where scientists don't have a definitive answer? You believe that God poofed distinct kinds of animals into existence a few thousand years ago. Why not talk about that?

And, to re-iterate what dactylopus said:
Where is the evidence for the Mormon god?

[Scavenger]

It's a good thing no religion has ever supposed in the existence of more than one god. I mean, seriously.

Would you prefer it if I edited that line so that it was " and the existence of a deity or deities presupposes the existence of your deity or deities."? Binary as in "Either my god(s) exist, or none do.". Come on, you're a programmer, aren't you? You know about booleans?

I mean, if we're going to argue semantics, I may as well clarify my position. You're just making yourself look like a fool if you pick apart my wording rather than the point I am trying to make. It really weakens your position. Alright, I'll try to be less ambiguous about the ambiguity of the deit(y/ies).

Once all gods can exist, none of them can.

Once all people can exist, none of them can.

Once all animals can exist, none of them can.

Once carbon-based lifeforms can exist, no other forms of life can exist.

Once answered, no question can exist.

Again, same logic is same.

Really, your grasp on the subject is very tenuous. It's not the same logic at all. Maybe I did not explain myself clearly enough.

We can see, objectively, that people exist, lots of different people. As well as animals. We have instruments that can measure their existence.

We do not see the existence of otherworldly beings that exist beyond the physical plane. There's no evidence of any particular one. You may provide me with evidence (if there is any), that there is another plane of existence, but without solid proof of one, all gods, all deities, both imagined and unimagined, have the exact same chance of existing as one another, in as many iterations as there are iterations to have. And since we cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or hear them, we don't know which state they are in. They are Schroedinger's God, existing in every possible form, alive, dead and extant, because we have no solid clues on the form of the gods. As soon as we are able to open the box that contains the god(s), we will know their form. We will know whether that/those god(s) is/are alive or dead or not god(s) at all. But until then, they are inside that metaphysical box, being simultaneously every god(s) possible. And perhaps, when we open the box, it will be empty. Equally likely.

But until the day we open that box and find out what our deific mystery prize is, we must think logically about the scripture that exists. What is the chances that it is correct, as opposed to any other scripture, written or unwritten? Can we really use it, or the lessons it teaches, as a moral foundation if it is in fact, likely false? The Book of Mormon is just as likely to be a true account as the Twilight novels, scripturally. I am not saying that to denigrate the book as false, oh no. But the chances of it being real are just as likely as Twilight. So do we base our entire society around both? Of course not, the probability of the Twilight novels being true accounts are so low as to not even register. We don't shine UV light on pale, dirty looking teenagers to see if they shimmer or anticipate them being made of rock and blood. It doesn't even come to mind to consider those things as part of our decision making process.

The point being, that scripture in all probability has no power. It is a warning sign saying "DO NOT WEAR LIPSTICK ON THIS HILL: YOU WILL GET STRUCK BY LIGHTNING". Sure, the words exist, but there's nothing in them that guarantees what they're warning about will take place - it may happen, but there's such a small chance as to be useless to us. There's nothing divine about any scripture that is any more likely to happen than any other piece of scripture. I could write some scripture today and it would be just as valid, divinely, as the bible, or the Quran, or the book of Nephi, the myths of Odin and Fenrir, ancient egyptian hieroglyphs, or an ancient death cult prophecy. But they are just words. It is up to us to decide whether or not they are useful or not to us. "Do not murder" is still a good tenet to live by. "Stone gay people to death" is not. "Don't allow gay people equal rights to you" is also not. By using common sense, and not zealotry, we can build a moral system that's a lot better than what any religion tells us. One that has less "stone gay people" and more "be good to everyone". And because it's acknowledged to be written by man and not gods, it can be amended, changed, mistakes admitted. Fallible, but in progress. You know how much of a farce it is when a church submits holy errata to their books. The revelation that black people can in fact be elders, eh?

Firstly, gay marriage has nothing to do with happiness. It has to do with the benefits offered by the government to married couples. Nothing more. So, opposition to homosexual marriage is not an issue of happiness.

As for the "happiness" of marriage, modern society actually dictates that marriage is an antiquated idea which actually has a statistically higher chance of leading to divorce and the misery of both parties than if they had simply not gotten married in the first place. I appreciate your open ignorance of modern society.

The fact that marriage is, or isn't a good thing is beside the point. Once gay people can get married, then we can work on abolishing marriage altogether. Then we can all crush it underneath our collective, and equal, heels. This is more about treating gay people as equals, than whether or not marriage as an institution is a worthy one. There is no reason to deny people rights other people have. Mixed race marriages were illegal once - would you have argued against that with the same logic? Oh, no, let's not let black people marry white people, marriage is a bad thing anyway. Let's keep white people marrying white people, so that black people are spared the misery of marriage.

No. You spread misery by treating certain people like second class citizens by denying them something the majority of people have. Marriage itself may not bring happiness, but the ability to, if they want, marry, does. In the case of interracial marriage, it's that a black person couldn't marry a white person. In the case of gay marriage, it's that a person cannot marry someone of the same gender they are. Because somehow that is "wrong", and "unnatural" and "not what marriage is about". If you were black and told "You cannot marry my daughter and legitimize your relationship, you are a black person.", that would cause misery. If you were gay and told "You cannot marry my son and legitimize your relationship, you are a man.", that would cause misery. All consenting relationships should be equal, and equally able to marry, divorce, whatever.

Really, if you're going to use the argument that marriage itself is bad, abolish marriage for everyone. If that's what you want, then you oppose marriage itself, not gay marriage, and there is no point bringing up an unrelated topic (the opposition of the institution of marriage itself) in a topic based around equal rights in marriage. It's really not an arguement against it at all.


*"Being pretty sure", as opposed to "I believe", since belief is a charged word in this discussion. I am as sure there are aliens as a dice rolled a thousand times will land on all the same number. I do not believe that the dice will definitely land that way, but I can be pretty sure it is not impossible. But until I see it, my opinion on the matter is a solid "maybe". I wouldn't be preparing for an alien invasion or anything. I mean, come on, is it that hard to say "Yeah, I don't discount the possibility", without saying "I specifically believe in this"? TK, demons, souls, gods, all of that stuff could exist. But as with any wild bet, you shouldn't base your life around it. The chances of it being real are far too small for it to affect you in any meaningful way. Athiesm, when it's entire philosophy is "there is no god", falls prey to people who say "There might be a god!". There might well be. It's not likely your god, though.

[Calin Leafshade]

Once all gods can exist, none of them can.

Once all people can exist, none of them can.

Once all animals can exist, none of them can.

Once carbon-based lifeforms can exist, no other forms of life can exist.

Once answered, no question can exist.

Again, same logic is same.

This made me laugh at loud.

[Monsieur OUXX]

Opposing gay marriage doesn't make you an asshole.

It makes you someone who doesn't understand the concept of freedom. You cannot deny to others the freedom you allow yourself. Especially if you base that refusal on some genetic peculiarities, like being left-handed, ambidextrous, or gay.

Not understanding freedom and democracy is just sad, in 2013.