Adventure Game Studio

If it's relevant to anyone's support, Doug Tennapel is kind of a shit (http://gaygamer.net/2011/05/on_ratfist_doug_tennapel_and_w.html). Not quite Orson Scott Card levels of gross, but worth pointing out.

(Mod Note: This topic was split from here (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=48340.0))

Quote from: Trapezoid on Sat 01/06/2013 17:06:48
If it's relevant to anyone's support, Doug Tennapel is kind of a shit (http://gaygamer.net/2011/05/on_ratfist_doug_tennapel_and_w.html). Not quite Orson Scott Card levels of gross, but worth pointing out.

(http://media.tumblr.com/6e0c6c0f60e3f02b55f361f2edc307ce/tumblr_inline_mmrus1zdnw1qz4rgp.gif)
Good thing I haven't backed it yet.

Oh wow, that's disappointing.

I have an idea, let's start a huge discussion about whether one can separate the artist from the art or not (j/k)
I guess I'll still play it, but I won't pay for it, hah!

Quote from: Khris on Sun 02/06/2013 09:39:45
I guess I'll still play it, but I won't pay for it, hah!

The moral high ground.  :grin:

Quote from: Trapezoid on Sat 01/06/2013 17:06:48
If it's relevant to anyone's support, Doug Tennapel is kind of a shit (http://gaygamer.net/2011/05/on_ratfist_doug_tennapel_and_w.html). Not quite Orson Scott Card levels of gross, but worth pointing out.

It shouldn't be relevant. It's not like Armikrog's going to be a propaganda tube for TenNapel's anti-gay-marriage/polygamy ideology, is it? Besides, the exchange in question doesn't strike me as particularly offensive. It's the internet, people, we've heard worse. It's incoherent, at best, on both sides - with 21st desperately trying to take offense ("Lastly, i'm at least thankful you're not equating gays to pedophiles or zoophiles. That's more respectful than some.") Yes, it's a hot topic these days, and a lot of people will have an opinion, and some don't keep it to themselves. So, naturally, some people will be offended. But this isn't presidential elections. We're not helping TNP become head of the State, so that he could implement his policies. It's a Kickstarter campaign for an absurdist claymation game. Likewise, Armikrog's KS campaign isn't very likely to attract massive flocks of anti-gay-marriage activists.

Also, if each and every opinionated, foul-mouthed asshole in the world made something as fun as Neverhood the world would be a better place. More fun, definitely. I might support Armikrog, and I'm definitely buying FEZ. I'm not worried about some of my spare change going to these two. I'm waaaaay more concerned where 30% of my gross salary goes every single month.

Quote from: Trapezoid on Sat 01/06/2013 17:06:48
If it's relevant to anyone's support, Doug Tennapel is kind of a shit (http://gaygamer.net/2011/05/on_ratfist_doug_tennapel_and_w.html).

Can anyone describe what did he do in short?

I don't want to go through the whole conversation in the blog's comments section.

TL:DR - He's against state-approved gay marriage, not quite against polygamy (though that one might be TNP pulling the OP's leg/trolling for the giggles) and thinks USA rocks ;)

My summary might be a little sarcastic, but I don't really see how any of this pertains to the game's KS campaign. Quite interestingly, the blogger himself doesn't call for boycott of TNP's work, either -- and some commenters are making some great points there.

Quote from: Fitz on Sun 02/06/2013 17:48:01
TL:DR - He's against state-approved gay marriage, not quite against polygamy (though that one might be TNP pulling the OP's leg/trolling for the giggles) and thinks USA rocks ;)

And that's considered... extreme? Doesn't even involve doing any direct harm to another person.

No offense anyone, but so far I assumed that more than a half of individuals in this community are more controversial and strange in real life than Tennapel (as presented in Fitz's summary).

I won't struggle to find out if every author or creator of works I enjoy or plan to obtain is likeable, but if I do find out s/he's an asshole, I refuse to support it. It simply doesn't feel right to know that I'm financially backing someone that reactionary.

Orson Scott Card is a good example - like many others here, I loved Ender's game. But now I just can't feel any enthusiasm. Plus I fear the movie is going to suck anyway. 

So no, I personally can't easily separate the art from the artist.

PS:
Ascovel, I suggest you do read it before deciding if he's better or worse than half of this community, it's not a very long text.

Wow, Earthworm Jim looks sooo weird in this game... ;)

As for the debate - you don't have to be strange to have views like Tennapel. Homophobic, probably, but strange... Nah. Hitler was a vegetarian who didn't drink but I wouldn't consider him a better person than the pie eating homeless drunk on my local high street.

Just sayin ;)

Quote from: Andail on Sun 02/06/2013 18:01:46
PS:
Ascovel, I suggest you do read it before deciding if he's better or worse than half of this community, it's not a very long text.

Can't access the original page. "Page not found". Gaygamer's quotes I find an insufficient point of reference.

And to be clear - in no way I was deciding who's better. I'm against judging so easily. I'm against judging Tennapel's whole character and harmfulness based just on the info that he's prejudiced against some groups. I think taking a stand (even homophobic one) in a political conversation over the Internet has little to do with what a person is really made of when it counts. If Tennapel acted deliberately to harm someone then it would be a different matter.

Like Ascovel, I have a hard time figuring out what he said that was so offensive. (From a quick Google search, all blogs seem to be repeating the same not-particularly-shocking quotes.) I don't agree with his opinion, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was rooted in some level of bigotry... and OK, his analogy is not great... but what I've seen is nowhere close to Orson Scott Card-level douchebaggery. Boycotting on this basis seems to me like, say, boycotting an artist for being Catholic.

I know nothing about this guy except what I've read in this thread, but it seems to me the negativity toward him far outweighs the severity of his crime. So someone disagrees with gay marriage? We're living in a time when gay marriage supporters are at their most vocal and anyone who has an alternative opinion is instantly shut down and made into a figure of disgust. But does that necessarily mean he's an asshole? Or does it mean he's a bit of a misinformed guy with conservative parents who went to the wrong church as a kid?

As for the game, it looks great. I hope it does well, but I won't be backing, for financial reasons.

Well, I've always said that homophobophobia isn't much better than homophobia: anyone who is somewhat critical of the LGBT movement is automatically labeled as a homophobe and jerkass.

To tell you the truth, his (negative) opinion on Toonstruck is much more offensive to me  :wink:

Seriously? This guy is against equality for all people, plain and simple. What does that have to do with "homophobophobia" or the LGBT movement?
To me, speaking out publicly against gay marriage is on the same level as being against black people marrying white people.
There is simply nothing you can say in support of banning gay marriage that isn't bigoted or wrong. It's that easy.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 02/06/2013 20:51:02
Seriously? This guy is against equality for all people, plain and simple.

1. People aren't actually all equal, and treating different people differently isn't always unfair.
2. Conservatives argue that gay people already have the same marriage rights as straight people. The law doesn't discriminate, it just defines what a marriage is.

QuoteTo me, speaking out publicly against gay marriage is on the same level as being against black people marrying white people.
There is simply nothing you can say in support of banning gay marriage that isn't bigoted or wrong. It's that easy.

That makes sense if you start from certain assumptions, but people who disagree aren't coming from those assumptions. Their reasoning is something more like:

The concept of marriage between two people of the same sex is a modern invention, not found in any culture anywhere in the world or in history. "Traditional marriage," (everywhere, always) is a union between a man and a woman. That's still what a real marriage is, just like it's always been. You can't simply make up something else and call it a marriage, any more than you could adopt your dog as your child (not because you can't love your dog, but because no matter how much you do, it's still not your child, just like your same-sex partner is not your spouse, no matter how much you love him/her). A "gay marriage" isn't a real marriage, and society is doing everyone a disservice by pretending it is.

In other words, they don't see refusing to accept gay marriage as any kind of bigotry or unfair discrimination. They see it as defending the truth against politically motivated lies spread by deluded people. (Kind of how we see defending evolution against intelligent design, where opponents argue that "both sides should get equal treatment or else you're discriminating against our beliefs.")

And it's true that same-sex marriage seen as the equivalent of opposite-sex marriage is a modern invention. (While there have been a variety of forms of same-sex unions historically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions), they've apparently never had the same legal or social status as male-female marriages.) Whether the union of people of opposite sex is an essential characteristic of marriage or an historically contingent one is a debatable, political question, not an absolute truth.

Since I'm an atheist and relativist, I have no problem with the idea that we as a society can decide that a marriage is any damn thing we please, and that extending the definition to cover same-sex marriages is only fair to all the gay couples in committed relationships that already include all the things I think are important in a marriage. But I can understand that someone who thinks that marriage is a rite handed down by God, and that by His definition it's a for a man and a woman, wouldn't be so ready to redefine it.

That doesn't necessarily make them bigots, although no doubt many of them are in fact homophobes.

(Personally, I would prefer that the state got out of the business of defining marriage, and just offered civil unions to everyone. Then it would be up to each church what unions they would accept.)

I'm of course aware of all that, I should have been more precise though. I was expecting a response like that and debating whether I should add to my post but was too lazy to do so when I wrote it.

Yes, not all people are equal, but all people should be treated as equal. That's why I wrote "equality for all people" (badly phrased?), not "all people are equal".

When it comes to marriage, I was actually referring to the bond between two otherwise unrelated people sanctioned by the government that grants them and their relationship certain privileges, for instance the permission to visit their spouse at a hospital bed, or the ability to inherit their stuff in case they die.
I don't really care what people call it, but it is colloquially referred to as marriage, so that's the word I used.
From what I read about this issue, same-sex couples care about being able to acquire the same rights as married couples, not necessarily about being able to call themselves married.

In other words, if the conservatives who are against gay marriage only care about their holy word and have no problem with gay couples getting "civil unioned", and the state granting them the same rights as married people, that's fine.

However, my personal impression is that this isn't what's happening. Instead, conservatives claim that children are worse off growing up with two mommies or two daddies, despite studies showing that isn't true, and try to use the idea of traditional marriage to keep same-sex couples from entering any kind of union which would grant them additional rights. They also claim that allowing two men or two women to marry, bond, unite, whatever, demeans the concept of family.
This isn't about the word, it's entirely about equal rights, and conservatives trying to basically prevent them. Which makes them bigoted assholes.

To me, his answers seemed to be a bit of flimsy faux-logic masking a more deeply-rooted internal reasoning (he's religious), which he must know would come across as very ugly in the public eye. So he's smart enough not to go blathering about how God Hates Fags, but too prideful not to spout off some smug reasoning that just happens to support his emotional objection to gay marriage. Anti-gay-marriage arguments have been deconstructed so many times over, I no longer see them as anything other than obfuscation, and making a lame restroom analogy is bottom-of-the-barrel obfuscation. Tell us how you really feel, Doug.

That said, whether this is relevant to you as a consumer of his art seems to be up in the air. I don't think anyone can actually control their ability to separate art from artist, and it probably varies wildly depending on the art and artist.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 02/06/2013 23:49:57
In other words, if the conservatives who are against gay marriage only care about their holy word and have no problem with gay couples getting "civil unioned", and the state granting them the same rights as married people, that's fine.

However, my personal impression is that this isn't what's happening. Instead, conservatives claim that children are worse off growing up with two mommies or two daddies, despite studies showing that isn't true, and try to use the idea of traditional marriage to keep same-sex couples from entering any kind of union which would grant them additional rights. They also claim that allowing two men or two women to marry, bond, unite, whatever, demeans the concept of family.
This isn't about the word, it's entirely about equal rights, and conservatives trying to basically prevent them. Which makes them bigoted assholes.

I don't know about conservatives in general, but Tennapel says: "I don't have a problem with anyone visiting anyone in the hospital... but we both know this isn't about hospital visits." That seems to indicate he's not against additional rights for gay couples, though he's dismissive of their importance. (My impression is that many conservatives are simply not seriously aware of the various and numerous problems faced by committed gay couples who're not allowed to marry.)

I'm not in his mind, I don't know what he truly believes or feels. But denying that anyone could have any rational reasons, within their own particular world view, to oppose same-sex marriage; assuming that even non-bigoted statements are made in bad faith as a front for bigotry; and that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage are therefore assholes who deserve to be boycotted... it's a little bit more extremist than I'm comfortable with.

I'm more concerned with what the Supreme Court thinks about the issue than about what Doug Tennapel thinks, anyway.

I know, it's extreme, but the concept of gay marriage has been around for quite some time, and I haven't heard a rational argument against it so far (sure, that doesn't mean there isn't one, but until somebody comes up with one, I assume there are actually none).
Which means people who oppose it do so for religious or other irrational reasons. They want to deny civil rights to a certain outgroup, thus: assholes.

Show me how they are different from racists in that regard, and I'll gladly change my view. (Saying their religion/word-view demands it obviously doesn't cut it though.)

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 03/06/2013 18:28:33My impression is that many conservatives are simply not seriously aware of the various and numerous problems faced by committed gay couples who're not allowed to marry.

My issue with this would be that he knows enough about it to acknowledge that the situation is a talking point and concern, but chooses not to learn or hear more about these serious problems because then they'd not be so easily dismissible. That's willful ignorance in my estimation.

That restroom analogy was so pitiful it's just embarrassing. But let's ignore the fact that he's obviously a douchebag and a poor debater, and pretend he's got some really good reasons to oppose gay marriage, and... well...

Nope. There are no good arguments against gay marriage. The reasons for opposing it are traditions, religion and prejudices, none of which count as good arguments in a debate. Even if we stretch it further into the sociological field, research clearly shows that gay couples make just as good (or bad) parents and form just as good (or bad) families as non-gay people.

I don't buy that Christian dogmas can be used to justify being against gay-marriage, because Christians don't follow the Bible anyway, so why should they be allowed to pick some parts of it and suddenly get away with being reactionary? It'd be one thing if we had a religion with a neat, concise set of rules that their followers adhered to, consistently. I know, blaming Christians for interpreting the Bible selectively isn't very original, but it never ceases to baffle me. When I meet a Christian who's given away everything they own to the poor (which the Bible dictates) I'll start listening. But they'd better not mix wool and linen. (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-11.htm)

If Christians were never forced to modernize, they'd still refuse female priests, and they'd still like to stone people for the crime of having been raped, and they'd still preach in latin and demand a tenth of your money, lest you'd be damned to hell, or something. Religion must be organic, like the rest of society.

Doug TenNapel has always been an asshole. Read his blog (http://tennapel.wordpress.com/), particularly anything pre-2011 (https://tennapel.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/embracing-religious-tolerance/).

Quote
The concept of marriage between two people of the same sex is a modern invention, not found in any culture anywhere in the world or in history.

This is bullshit. Native Americans have been performing same sex marriages for a long time. Plus ancient Rome and ancient Greece.

The gay marriage thing is something of a moot point at this stage. The tide has well and truly turned and it's just a matter of time at this stage. Even in the theocratic US support for gay marriage is above 50%. I think the fight is more or less won.

Quote from: Khris on Mon 03/06/2013 21:08:34
Which means people who oppose it do so for religious or other irrational reasons. ... (Saying their religion/word-view demands it obviously doesn't cut it though.)

Quote from: Andail on Mon 03/06/2013 21:53:08
Nope. There are no good arguments against gay marriage. The reasons for opposing it are traditions, religion and prejudices, none of which count as good arguments in a debate.

There's a difference between accepting an argument as externally persuasive and acknowledging that it's internally meaningful to a person. Just because it's not a good argument to you doesn't mean it's not a good argument to someone whose assumptions are fundamentally different. To deny that it's rational for religious people to base theirs views on questions like this on their religious beliefs is pretty much just another way of saying "Christians are stupid and their opinions don't count!" (The whole thing about Christians not following every word of the Bible ignores millennia of interpretative and religious tradition.)

As another example, although I'm pro-choice, I can still understand that it's logical for a someone who's a Catholic, for example, and sincerely believes that personhood begins at conception, that a blastocyte has a soul, to consider abortion murder. It makes sense within that system of thinking, and just dismissing it is pretty arrogant and not very constructive.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 03/06/2013 22:32:38

Quote
The concept of marriage between two people of the same sex is a modern invention, not found in any culture anywhere in the world or in history.

This is bullshit. Native Americans have been performing same sex marriages for a long time. Plus ancient Rome and ancient Greece.

So you didn't read one paragraph down or follow the link with further details, then? It seems pretty clear that none of those examples were understood as (or legally recognized as) marriages in their own societies.

What's the point posting stuff about how it goes against the definition of what marriage is and that it isn't actually a marriage as it is is currently defined.. Isn't the whole point of allowing gay marriage that you're CHANGING this definition?
That's kind of the point of the whole thing.

I'd agree with Calin, the tides have turned, it's only a matter of time, a high majority of people want it to happen.
Might as well close this argument before it turns into something messy, I think.

Snarky:
I get what you're saying, but the question is whether we should give a rat's ass about what certain people consider as internally meaningful to them when they want to deny basic civil rights to other people. My assertion that people who are against gay marriage are assholes in based on the premise that people who are against equal rights for everybody are assholes. Does it really matter what their reasons are?

Also, in case this needs to be said: All opinions aren't equally valid. An opinion that's based on unfounded assertions, pseudoscience or other falsehoods, or simply not enough information is less valid and should have less impact. So in a way, "their opinions don't count" isn't even that wrong.

I was going to post without reading this thread, but somehow I got roped into reading the whole thing. Get your hate ready boys, because I am against gay marriage!

Now that I am officially labeled as the most horrible person in the forums, I pretty much have license to say what I was going to say anyway.

Let me start by saying that it is part of my religious beliefs that God does not hate fags, or anyone. God doesn't even hate Satan as far as I'm concerned, so why would he pick on the gay kids? By extension of that, I'm not homophobic either. I have known, interacted with, worked with, and even befriended homosexuals. I don't judge them for partaking in an act which I particularly believe to be sinful (because I am myself a sinner).

Anyone who wants to call me homophobic is free to do so, but as I don't treat them any differently than any other person I couldn't disagree with the label more.

My rationale for disagreeing with gay marriage is one that is only partly founded in my religion. The other part is based on a logical understanding of the government's reasoning for acknowledging "marriage", and thusly having to define what it is.

To me, marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Take God out of the picture and as far as I'm concerned you're no longer even talking about marriage. The reason I specify that it is between a man and a woman ties in with the fact that I believe homosexuality to be a sin -- but that doesn't give anyone but God the right to judge them for it. Anyone who does consider themselves "Christian" who doesn't show the same love and respect to a homosexual as they do to a heterosexual needs to seriously reevaluate their priorities and whether they are truly living what they preach. That still doesn't take away from this particular definition of marriage.

On the other side of my argument, I see a logical benefit to a government arising out of a male-female marital commitment. Obviously, men and women are capable of breeding and creating new citizens, whereas two men or two women are not. Further, the marital commitment (were it kept) would create a more stable home environment for these children to be raised in than if the men simply went about impregnating women and moving on. That in no way indicates that a same-sex couple isn't capable of providing an equally good or even better home environment, but research has shown that a two-parent household typically is better for the development of the children. So the commitment to marriage, paired with production of offspring, poses a unique benefit to the government. Same-sex couples are not able to equally provide this benefit.

The way I see it, many marital perks granted by the government are offered as incentives in exchange for the unique benefit that hetero couples can provide. That is why married couples are given tax incentives, etc. Logically there is no reason for the government to offer these same perks (equally) to same-sex couples (who do not equally offer the same returns).

As for the ability for a partner to be visited in the hospital, be listed as an insurance beneficiary, and so forth, most states (in the USA, which I presume is the main focus of this topic) recognize a status of "domestic partnership" for exactly this purpose. It does not provide the additional incentives offered to married hetero couples, but it grants the same civil rights.

So it seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is not only about equal civil rights, but perhaps they want something more than equality...?

Let the hate reign down! 8-)

Time for a Hitchens quote:

QuoteYou give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say it - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever.

The quality of your arguments is almost "round them up and they will die out"-bad.

1. Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
                    - God (presumably)

Anybody who considers themselves a member of one of the approximately 43,000 different Christians sects and ignores this bible verse is guilty of cherry-picking. At least, the fundamentalists are consistent.

2. The whole "marriage is beneficial to the government, especially in terms of offspring" idea is laughably naive. Only somebody who lives in dream world where everybody finds the perfect partner and starts a family and has three children could argue like that.
- People marry but don't have children
- People don't marry but have children
- Marriages don't last
- Gay couples can raise orphans, providing them with a much better home than an orphanage could ever be
- this: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=106
  (also looks like it's worse in the more religious states...)
- some Christian sects consider the beating of children with belts or rods essential (just for completeness)
Also: http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

All this is essentially irrelevant though; I could use the same "rational" reasoning to deny health care to old people. (I don't though, because being unburdened by religious crap, I can form opinions based on actual human compassion.)

The sad thing is that your post was so predictable. It's the same old tiresome bullshit. No hate though, I only have pity for you.

Not hate, but some interrogations of your argument:

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 03:28:42Take God out of the picture and as far as I'm concerned you're no longer even talking about marriage.

Which God? Does that preclude non-Christians from getting married? Hindus? Muslims? Atheists?

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 03:28:42research has shown that a two-parent household typically is better for the development of the children.

How many parents do you think there are in a household where two gay people have been married?

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 03:28:42So it seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is not only about equal civil rights, but perhaps they want something more than equality...?

Are you implying here that gay people are fighting this fight for tax breaks? Are you married yourself? Because I am, and I'll tell you that on my wedding day, tax breaks were not anywhere near what I was thinking about.

In a few years debates such as this will look pretty daft - you know, reminiscent of women not being able to vote or partake in politics or people of a 'different' colour not being able to even sit down in a bus kind of ridiculous.

Quoteresearch has shown

I'd be interested in seeing that research. Also, I wonder how many divorced or abusive parents took part in the research.

QuoteObviously, men and women are capable of breeding and creating new citizens

The government and everybody else is already complaining about how the world is over-populated so I don't see how that's relevant to the argument unless one were to pick at straws.

Quote from: Eric on Tue 04/06/2013 05:53:19

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 03:28:42Take God out of the picture and as far as I'm concerned you're no longer even talking about marriage.

Which God? Does that preclude non-Christians from getting married? Hindus? Muslims? Atheists?

Why would atheists get married? Lol, tax breaks. At least religion validates the otherwise meaningless ceremony. (I'm sure this will be sufficiently inflamatory.)

Quote from: Eric on Tue 04/06/2013 05:53:19

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 03:28:42research has shown that a two-parent household typically is better for the development of the children.

How many parents do you think there are in a household where two gay people have been married?

Perhaps actually reading what I said is in order here. I specifically indicated that I was referencing two parent homes, not strictly hetero parent homes.

Quote from: Eric on Tue 04/06/2013 05:53:19

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 03:28:42So it seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is not only about equal civil rights, but perhaps they want something more than equality...?

Are you implying here that gay people are fighting this fight for tax breaks? Are you married yourself? Because I am, and I'll tell you that on my wedding day, tax breaks were not anywhere near what I was thinking about.

No, I'm not married, but aside from the civil rights offered, the only secular benefit offered by marriage is the tax break. No one is stopping anyone from being in a committed relationship or having a formal commitment ceremony with family and friends.

Gay marriage isn't about love, commitment, civil rights, or equality, and anyone who disagrees isn't viewing the issue with any rationality or objectivity.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 04:48:10Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
                    - God (presumably)

Anybody who considers themselves a member of one of the approximately 43,000 different Christians sects and ignores this bible verse is guilty of cherry-picking. At least, the fundamentalists are consistent.

You would almost have a valid point here, except you don't. It's not ignoring the verse, nor is it cherry-picking. Even a precursory knowledge of biblical texts would reveal that this was one of the many things that was superceded by the higher law established during Christ's ministry. To a Christian the second highest law of all, preceded only by love of God, is the love of everyone: saint and sinner alike. Regardless of race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, sexual preference, skin color, height, weight, shape, size, intelligence, or any other conceivable characteristic, the Christian is commanded to love everyone. Loving someone does not mean supporting them in their sins, but it does mean looking past their sins.

Following a higher law instead of blindly following tradition is not exactly a condemnable offense, IMHO.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 04:48:10The whole "marriage is beneficial to the government, especially in terms of offspring" idea is laughably naive. Only somebody who lives in dream world where everybody finds the perfect partner and starts a family and has three children could argue like that.
- People marry but don't have children
- People don't marry but have children
- Marriages don't last

Historically (especially in the USA and early British American colonies) this was not the case. Relatively speaking, your counter-argument is based on a recent trend. My argument was based on the rationale behind which the tax incentives were offered in the first place. Given that this trend has arisen, I am actually in favor of eliminated tax breaks for all married couples. There is simply no logical reasoning for the government to continue to offer these incentives.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 04:48:10- some Christian sects consider the beating of children with belts or rods essential

Corporal punishment is a historical proven effective method of discipline, and is completely unrelated to the issue of physical abuse. Please don't try and falsely group these things together. Fallacies such as this are what has led to the dramatically decreased emphasis on the actually essential nature of proper discipline (which is not to say that corporal punishment is "the only way" -- rather that there is a stigma of hurting the child in any fashion, even emotionally, which has led to a decline in discipline).

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 04:48:10All this is essentially irrelevant though; I could use the same "rational" reasoning to deny health care to old people. (I don't though, because being unburdened by religious crap, I can form opinions based on actual human compassion.)

Nice way to point out that having religious beliefs prevents me from having any human compassion. I especially appreciate the irony in that my religious beliefs encourage, promote, and effectively make me a more compassionate person. If the issue were one of equality or civil rights then I might almost feel bad for having said I oppose this. Good thing gay marriage isn't about that.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 04:48:10The sad thing is that your post was so predictable. It's the same old tiresome bullshit. No hate though, I only have pity for you.

I won't apologize, feel bad, or be ashamed of my religious beliefs, or the fact that I oppose gay marriage. Neither of these things make me a bad, or even a worse person. If you disagree with me, you are entitled to your own opinion of me, but I am happy with the person I am. I will not be shaken or moved into believing that I must support gay marriage to be a good, decent, or compassionate person.

Quote from: Sunny Penguin on Tue 04/06/2013 07:06:45

Quoteresearch has shown

I'd be interested in seeing that research.

[lmgtfy=http://lmgtfy.com/?q=research]Oh, ffs.[/lmgtfy]

Quote from: Sunny Penguin on Tue 04/06/2013 07:06:45

QuoteObviously, men and women are capable of breeding and creating new citizens

The government and everybody else is already complaining about how the world is over-populated so I don't see how that's relevant to the argument unless one were to pick at straws.

The world is overpopulated? Hah! That would be news to the world...seeing as it isn't. There are more than enough resources, and there is more than enough space to support a population twice what we currently have. Please don't make me laugh.

QuotePlease don't make me laugh.

I thought we were making each other laugh? To laugh is to love. Where is the love?

Actually, you're right. (laugh)

Quote
Why would atheists get married?

While I don't actually agree with marriage and would not get married, this argument sort of rings the same alarm bells to me as "Why don't you just go and kill and rape people if there's no god?".

The reason atheists get married is really exactly the same reason theists get married. Because they want to make some kind of lasting commitment to one another.

(Although in reality I think its more likely that they do it because of societal pressures but there we go.)

Quote
So you didn't read one paragraph down or follow the link with further details, then? It seems pretty clear that none of those examples were understood as (or legally recognized as) marriages in their own societies.

That's true in some cases (most notably the romans) but not true in others. In fact, the only examples given in your source that mentions a lack of legal status are the romans and greeks.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 04/06/2013 08:41:30"Why don't you just go and kill and rape people if there's no god?".

Precisely my point. (nod) (roll) In actuality, I don't think it's impossible for people to be good or moral (etc.) in the absence of religion or faith. My argument is that my beliefs make me more good, moral, etc.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 04/06/2013 08:41:30The reason atheists get married is really exactly the same reason theists get married. Because they want to make some kind of lasting commitment to one another.

For me, marriage isn't just about commitment though. Which brings us back to "What is the definition of marriage?" and my answer that it is a religious ordinance with eternal implications. I'm not trying to discredit the commitment people are making to one another, but to me there's more to marriage than that. (Which I think was my point...?)

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 04/06/2013 08:41:30(Although in reality I think its more likely that they do it because of societal pressures but there we go.)

I absolutely agree with this, and in fact it's the reason I decided to reply to your post Calin. What's interesting (at least to me) is the question it raised in my mind:  Is it possible for a person to make an informed and objective decision in favor of the tradition or trend, or do only those who have been subjectively influenced follow that path?

Edit: As a follow-up:  If they can make their own decision, would it be possible for an outside observer to tell the difference?

People who aren't sure what the fuss is about:

The guy compared two consenting adults, who are in love, wanting to get married... with a man walking into the ladies' toilet and taking a shit.

Again: two loving adults minding their own business, versus a massive social faux pas that's deeply rooted in a serious invasion of privacy, plus a whole truckload of other issues.

The implication is that two homosexual adults getting married is equatable to creating a serious and inappropriate imposition on other people. In a world where gay people have been persecuted for hundreds if not thousands of years, and that misguided notion of imposition has long been a key part of the ridiculous, bigoted arguments people use, that's really offensive.

On top of that, he's claiming his own religion to be superior to others, suggesting that men and women should have defined roles, and suggesting that it's okay to remove people's rights because other people are doing it as well.

And as the cherry on the cake, his entire argument is drenched in an ugly arrogance and the utterly contemptible idea that somehow he, and all his bigoted friends, are being culturally witch-hunted by people who want nothing more than to be afforded the same rights as the other 90 percent of the population.

QuoteWe're living in a time when gay marriage supporters are at their most vocal and anyone who has an alternative opinion is instantly shut down and made into a figure of disgust.

Because the alternative opinion is that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, for which - like Khris says - I have yet to hear a convincing argument in favour thereof. "God says man shouldn't lie with another man" isn't a good enough argument, because those lines of scripture are in direct contradiction with many of the key teachings of Christianity, are archaic even in the timeline of the Bible itself, and anyway, I don't believe that "religion says it's okay" is a good enough argument for anything, especially when every religion I know of is chock full of such contraditions.

Basically, what he's saying is really really offensive on a whole number of levels, and I really hope people can try to understand why this stuff isn't okay.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 09:18:52For me, marriage isn't just about commitment though. Which brings us back to "What is the definition of marriage?" and my answer that it is a religious ordinance with eternal implications. I'm not trying to discredit the commitment people are making to one another, but to me there's more to marriage than that. (Which I think was my point...?)

I think this is kind of key too. You're saying that to you there's more to marriage because of your belief system. But the fact of the matter is that things like the definition and implications of marriage are written into a law that has to be obeyed whether people share your faith or not. If some religious groups don't want to get involved in changes to the definition of marriage within their circles, I have no problem with that, but the current system, in many parts of the world, necessitates people's compliance with religious beliefs and regulations, even if they do not subscribe to them. See what I mean?

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 04/06/2013 08:41:30

Quote
So you didn't read one paragraph down or follow the link with further details, then? It seems pretty clear that none of those examples were understood as (or legally recognized as) marriages in their own societies.

That's true in some cases (most notably the romans) but not true in others. In fact, the only examples given in your source that mentions a lack of legal status are the romans and greeks.

... and the Chinese. There's not enough information to say either way for Ancient Assyria. (Edit: Though looking at their marriage laws in general, they were based around the concept of paying a bride price: brides were essentially purchased, and the price would be refunded if the woman didn't bear children. It's hard to imagine how that could be applied to same-sex marriages; my guess is it wasn't.) As for native American societies, from the description it sounds as if Two-Spirit individuals were accepted as "spiritually" of the other gender (transsexual), or as a third gender. Relationships or marriage with them were therefore not seen as homosexual within their culture. (In other words, they weren't same-sex marriages: There weren't relationships between two Two-Spirits or between non-Two-Spirits of the same sex, or at least this was considered taboo and not sanctioned by society.)

So that's pretty much all the examples, and I stand by my original statement.

Edit: When you get into cross-cultural comparisons, it gets tricky because concepts from different societies don't match one-to-one. I would argue that our notion of same-sex marriage: that two men or two women can get married to each other in exactly the same sense that a man and woman can get married, is based on some pretty specific, modern western notions about what a marriage is, what the status of minorities should be within society, the purpose of and fount of laws and norms, individualism vs. collectivism, etc. The history of social arrangements for homosexual relationships show that it's something many cultures have been able to integrate in ways that were, to a greater or lesser extent, acceptable to society as well as to the individuals involved. We must find a solution that is suitable for our society; with high probability that's going to be extending the concept of marriage to same-sex unions.

Lewis, so we pretty much agree that the issue is the definition of marriage. Even from a historical standpoint marriage has strong ties to religion, so perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to cut the tax incentives from everyone, call it something not pertaining to religion, and offer the same civil rights equally between same-sex and hetero couples...?

Just to clarify: I'm no fan of marriage either, and I also don't plan on getting married eventually. But I can understand why other people want to marry, it's about "taking their relationship to the next level", about public commitment to each other.
What's interesting here is that currently, a hetero atheist couple can marry without problems, while two gay priests who plan to adobt orphans can't.

Monkey:

QuoteGay marriage isn't about love, commitment, civil rights, or equality, and anyone who disagrees isn't viewing the issue with any rationality or objectivity.

So are you actually saying the gays are only in this fight for the tax breaks?

Jesus said he's not here to change the law but to fulfill it (whatever that's supposed to mean). He then goes on to change lots of it. Also, the perfect, omniscient creator of the universe makes rules, then later changes his mind?

QuoteRelatively speaking, your counter-argument is based on a recent trend.

Sure, why would I base my arguments and opinions on how things used to be as opposed to how they are? If we're eliminating tax breaks, could we also eliminate tax breaks for churches while we're at it?

QuoteMy argument is that my beliefs make me more good, moral, etc.

This is common among believers, and wrong. It can easily be shown to be wrong by asking religious people whether they would kill their kid if they thought their god demanded it. Some will say "yes", which makes them immoral. Others will hesitate, which shows that they have an innate moral sense that doesn't come from their God (or more precisely: their holy book).
Those that say "yes" could argue that it's moral because God demands it, and can by definition not be immoral. The problem is that this argument invalidates the concept of them being "more moral" than other groups. If this were the standard, every group would be the most moral.

Regarding the definition of marriage:
Marriage was around long before Christianity. They are the ones who co-opted it and changed it's meaning. Unless the USA becomes a theocracy, the law should disregard what certain sects think about certain concepts.

Also:
Please provide links to research that has shown that children fare worse in "homo households".

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 12:04:44Also, the perfect, omniscient creator of the universe makes rules, then later changes his mind?

Wait, what incorrect person ever said that God was Jesus?

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 12:04:44

QuoteRelatively speaking, your counter-argument is based on a recent trend.

Sure, why would I base my arguments and opinions on how things used to be as opposed to how they are? If we're eliminating tax breaks, could we also eliminate tax breaks for churches while we're at it?

Sure. Let's do it. My church has no debt and is one of the most charitable organizations in the world. With an unpaid ministry.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 12:04:44

QuoteMy argument is that my beliefs make me more good, moral, etc.

This is common among believers, and wrong.

No it isn't. I wasn't stating a matter of someone else's opinion. I was stating a matter of fact based on the observations I have made from and about my own life. I wasn't speaking generically. I was speaking very specifically.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 12:04:44It can easily be shown to be wrong by asking religious people whether they would kill their kid if they thought their god demanded it. Some will say "yes", which makes them immoral. Others will hesitate, which shows that they have an innate moral sense that doesn't come from their God (or more precisely: their holy book).
Those that say "yes" could argue that it's moral because God demands it, and can by definition not be immoral. The problem is that this argument invalidates the concept of them being "more moral" than other groups. If this were the standard, every group would be the most moral.

Morality is so loosely defined as to destroy any hope of providing a catch-all definition that doesn't simply amount to what is socially acceptable at any given point in human history. What makes any particular group more or less moral? In the end it all comes down to judging another group based on your own moral compass, which is highly influenced by your environment. Good thing people are held accountable for their knowledge, not just some unspoken law.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 12:04:44Regarding the definition of marriage:
Marriage was around long before Christianity. They are the ones who co-opted it and changed it's meaning. Unless the USA becomes a theocracy, the law should disregard what certain sects think about certain concepts.

I didn't say that marriage was a "Christian" invention. I simply stated that the formal institution of marriage has almost always been tied together with religion, and is therefore a religious institution.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 12:04:44Also:
Please provide links to research that has shown that children fare worse in "homo households".

I'm highly interested to see what person said this, because for the third time, I never did.

If it were up to me, which it isn't (yet), I would remove the legal standing from marriage entirely. It's just none of the government's business who you call your spouse.

There would need to be a legal framework for inheritance and the like but that would be done separately and however the two people involved wanted.

On marriage being a religious institution: Originally perhaps, not anymore since it's enshrined in secular law which all people must obey regardless of religion.

Short answer to the tread title, YES.

Proving that there is no historical case where homosexuals are treated equally merely proves that this discrimination has been going on for millennia.  We are at a unique point in human history where we can correct the mistakes of the past.

I am an atheist, and one day I hope to get married.  To me, marriage has always been a formal and legal commitment made out of love between two sapient individuals.  This commitment also offers advantages to the spouse.  Such advantages should not be dependent on the spouse being of an opposing gender.  I think some people have too strict a definition of marriage, and need to relax. 

I support same-sex marriage, and see those in opposition as villainous.

And I do have a hard time separating the art from the artist (in most cases).

As usual, I agree with the pinko-lefties.

But while I don't think it's right to separate art and artist, I think it's perfectly possible to be a great artist and even a pretty good person while engaging in acts which later generations will find abhorrent. Shakespeare and Dostoevsky have anti-Semitism in their work. Bertholt Brecht was a dreadful sexist. I'm sure there were plenty of slave owners who were delightful dinner guests.

It's worth remembering that we probably hold beliefs which are equally mistaken. Hate the sin, love the sinner, or something like that.

BUT if you're looking for an adventure game Kickstarter by someone who's pro-gay marriage:

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a radical Christian here, and pretend there's a situation where I'd refuse someone a certain freedom that everyone else has, even though it's proven not to be harmful or detrimental to society, just because it goes against my personal preferences.

I can't do it. There are rights and types of freedom I don't want to give people, because they are bad, and make it worse for others. I do think that we should deny adults to have sex with minors, because I believe it's generally harmful, which is also consensus amongst psychologists and sociologists.

I'm not saying freedom in itself is unproblematic - freedom to carry guns, for instance, means less freedom to others (to feel safe) - but if we have a freedom that doesn't intrude on others' rights, why not let them have it? Even if it happens to go against the definition of marriage as it's written in your scripture, why not change it? What's the worst that can happen?

It's not like you haven't re-interpreted Bible passages to fit your worldviews before, so why can't a totally irrelevant and backward little paragraph be overlooked? You clearly did away with the part where you should give everything you own to the poor (which would, incidentally, be a really good rule) so why not give this one a revision?

Consensus among people who research these things is that LGBT parenting isn't worse than any other kind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting. Hence, there's no real reason to work against it, just feelings.

Monkey, I noticed you didn't address concerns over this following quote from you:

"Gay marriage isn't about love, commitment, civil rights, or equality, and anyone who disagrees isn't viewing the issue with any rationality or objectivity."

I'd be really eager to hear your clarification on this, because that's quite an incredible statement to make without backing it up.

Also, the Mormon church openly discriminated against blacks until 1978. Just a friendly reminder.

Quote from: dactylopus on Tue 04/06/2013 13:19:42
Short answer to the tread title, YES.

Proving that there is no historical case where homosexuals are treated equally merely proves that this discrimination has been going on for millennia.  We are at a unique point in human history where we can correct the mistakes of the past.

It's actually not necessarily a question of discrimination: For example, in at least some parts of ancient Greek society, male homosexual love was considered superior to heterosexual love (because men were higher status than women, and two lovers could connect more deeply as equals or mentor/protege). But traditionally marriage has been a matter of asymmetrical exchanges between two families, with customs like the bride leaving her own family and changing in social status from maiden to wife/mother, no longer the responsibility of her parents, but of her husband. In many cultures, including our own past, that's what a marriage was (hence "matrimony": roughly "motherhood"). A marriage between two men (without a wife), or between two women (without a husband) just would not compute in those societies; it'd be as meaningless as saying you're marrying yourself.

So the Greeks didn't institute "gay marriage," but they made up other customs and relationship types (some of them pretty questionable, from our point of view) to formalize homosexual relationships. As argued above, what worked (?) for the Greeks wouldn't necessarily work for us, though.

Quote from: dactylopus on Tue 04/06/2013 13:19:42
To me, marriage has always been a formal and legal commitment made out of love between two sapient individuals.  This commitment also offers advantages to the spouse.  Such advantages should not be dependent on the spouse being of an opposing gender.  I think some people have too strict a definition of marriage, and need to relax.

Actually, yours is a pretty strict definition, since it has by no means always been the norm that marriages are entered into out of love, or chosen by the couple themselves. Not to mention the rather frequent custom of polygamy, where one man (usually) can separately marry several women.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 03:28:42
To me, marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Take God out of the picture and as far as I'm concerned you're no longer even talking about marriage. The reason I specify that it is between a man and a woman ties in with the fact that I believe homosexuality to be a sin -- but that doesn't give anyone but God the right to judge them for it. Anyone who does consider themselves "Christian" who doesn't show the same love and respect to a homosexual as they do to a heterosexual needs to seriously reevaluate their priorities and whether they are truly living what they preach. That still doesn't take away from this particular definition of marriage.

But even if we accept that the religious dimension is fundamental, why should your particular religious beliefs determine the law? There are plenty of other Christians (and members of other religions) who don't see homosexuality as a sin, so for them there's no inherent problem blessing a same-sex marriage, or seeing God as a partner in it.

Quote from: Lewis on Tue 04/06/2013 09:21:04
And as the cherry on the cake, his entire argument is drenched in an ugly arrogance and the utterly contemptible idea that somehow he, and all his bigoted friends, are being culturally witch-hunted by people who want nothing more than to be afforded the same rights as the other 90 percent of the population.

Given the response (here and elsewhere on the internet), not an entirely unreasonable claim.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 12:43:27

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 12:04:44Also, the perfect, omniscient creator of the universe makes rules, then later changes his mind?

Wait, what incorrect person ever said that God was Jesus?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [...] The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. [...] No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:1-18)

Quotethe one and only Son

What??? So we're not all God's children???

Mind. Blown.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 12:43:27Morality is so loosely defined as to destroy any hope of providing a catch-all definition that doesn't simply amount to what is socially acceptable at any given point in human history. What makes any particular group more or less moral? In the end it all comes down to judging another group based on your own moral compass, which is highly influenced by your environment. Good thing people are held accountable for their knowledge, not just some unspoken law.

Religious groups always divide the world's population in two groups, themselves and others. They consider their god(s) as the ultimate arbitrator(s) of what constitutes right and wrong.
Secular morality is based on what's best for all humans.

Consider the following thought experiment: at arbitrary intervals, for instance ranging from a week to two years, everybody changes place with a random person on the planet. Basically, I go to bed as a white male living in Germany, and the next morning I wake up as an Afghan women. I submit that if that were actually the case, discrimination and inequality of any kind would simply cease to exist. Because at any point, an abuser could wake up as an abused.
Whenever I consider moral questions, this is what I base my opinion on. Religious people don't.

Quote from: Snarky

Quote from: dactylopus on Tue 04/06/2013 13:19:42
To me, marriage has always been a formal and legal commitment made out of love between two sapient individuals.  This commitment also offers advantages to the spouse.  Such advantages should not be dependent on the spouse being of an opposing gender.  I think some people have too strict a definition of marriage, and need to relax.

Actually, yours is a pretty strict definition, since it has by no means always been the norm that marriages are entered into out of love, or chosen by the couple themselves. Not to mention the rather frequent custom of polygamy, where one man (usually) can separately marry several women.

You know, you're absolutely right.  I do have a fairly strict definition that includes love, monogamy, and humanity.  I'll also admit it is a modern definition, for I am a modern man.

That's how I personally define marriage.  But to me, that's all it is, a definition of what marriage means to me.  You'll notice I went beyond and described how marriage includes more than my 'personal' definition, in terms of legal implications and more.  It's important for all of us to understand that we all have our own opinion of what marriage means to us, and that means that everyone else has an opinion, too.  The only people that should be affected by your view of marriage are you and those you aim to marry.  It should not be possible for any one 'personal' definition to dictate policy on a secular, legal level.  This is a case of civil rights.

I'll admit, I do have trouble relating to the idea of polygyny and polyandry, but can understand some of the reasons that it was / is a historical or cultural necessity.  I do not know how I would be reacting if polygamous marriage was the hot topic that homosexual marriage is today, because of the different ways in which I view the issues.  I like to believe that I would support polygamous marriage.  That would not change my 'personal' definition of marriage, because that only applies to myself and anyone I hope to make my wife.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 07:39:04
Why would atheists get married? Lol, tax breaks. At least religion validates the otherwise meaningless ceremony. (I'm sure this will be sufficiently inflamatory.)

Sufficiently inflammatory for what? Are you trying to pick a fight, or debate your points? I don't understand the need-to-be-inflammatory tone of your response (or your aggressive use of LMGTFY elsewhere -- the responsibility to provide sources is on the debater who uses them). You don't have to live up to the title of the thread just because it's there.

I'm an atheist. I got married because I love my wife and wanted to formally and publicly commit to her in a way that resonates with cultural norms for my part of the world. My use of a wedding ring is an appropriation of a pagan symbol. Guess what? It's not pagan anymore. Culture is malleable. And again, when I got down on one knee and proposed, I didn't say, "Sweetheart, let's get together so that I can use your income to fund my IRA."

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 07:39:04Perhaps actually reading what I said is in order here. I specifically indicated that I was referencing two parent homes, not strictly hetero parent homes.

I did actually read what you said, which is why I was confused. So why bother citing this research? Unless you were implying that somehow homes where two parents are gay is inferior, this research doesn't support your argument. Thus my request for a clarification.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 07:39:04No, I'm not married, but aside from the civil rights offered, the only secular benefit offered by marriage is the tax break. No one is stopping anyone from being in a committed relationship or having a formal commitment ceremony with family and friends.

Gay marriage isn't about love, commitment, civil rights, or equality, and anyone who disagrees isn't viewing the issue with any rationality or objectivity.

Again, you're myopically denying an entire cultural context to marriage here, even if we limit it to just the western world, and even if we limit it to contemporary times.

Quote from: Eric on Mon 03/06/2013 21:44:35

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 03/06/2013 18:28:33My impression is that many conservatives are simply not seriously aware of the various and numerous problems faced by committed gay couples who're not allowed to marry.

My issue with this would be that he knows enough about it to acknowledge that the situation is a talking point and concern, but chooses not to learn or hear more about these serious problems because then they'd not be so easily dismissible. That's willful ignorance in my estimation.

I don't know. How many of us really educate ourselves about both sides of every issue we have an opinion on? It's not something that smacks you in the face, either. If you don't go out looking for it, or hang out with people who'll tell you, you're not likely to read about it on the news or just figure it out on your own. For me, it was only when a coworker really broke down all the implications for her and her partner that I really got it. (Beforehand, I was on the side of "marriage, civil unions, whatever; it doesn't really matter.")

To demonstrate:

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 07:39:04No, I'm not married, but aside from the civil rights offered, the only secular benefit offered by marriage is the tax break.

That's simply not true. There are all kinds of legal implications, from adoption and child custody, to spousal privilege (in court), to making medical decisions, to immigration status. There are major differences in what happens in case of divorce (child support and alimony), for example. Lots of the stuff a civil union couple might have access to in principle is a lot more hassle and paperwork, as well (in part because domestic partnerships/civil unions vary from state to state and country to country, while marriage laws are much more consistent or harmonized).

And yes, there are tax implications, as well as lots of federal+state grants, benefits and family support, e.g. for military personnel.

But it's not just the differences specifically enshrined in law. There's also a matter of differential treatment by private organizations and companies. Like whether your employer allows you to add your partner to your health insurance. If you can get days off work to deal with a medical emergency or death in your partner's family (or even for your partner him-/herself), or for the lesbian equivalent of "paternity leave" (though that's a rare perk in the US anyway). As long as homosexual couples only have access to a separate status like civil unions, it's easy to discriminate against them.

These aren't just unromantic details, they cut to the very core of the intimacy and partnership of a marriage, to the notion of providing for your family, of being "one unit."

Quote from: Eric on Tue 04/06/2013 15:22:46

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 07:39:04
Why would atheists get married? Lol, tax breaks. At least religion validates the otherwise meaningless ceremony.

I'm an atheist. I got married because I love my wife and wanted to formally and publicly commit to her in a way that resonates with cultural norms for my part of the world. My use of a wedding ring is an appropriation of a pagan symbol. Guess what? It's not pagan anymore. Culture is malleable. And again, when I got down on one knee and proposed, I didn't say, "Sweetheart, let's get together so that I can use your income to fund my IRA."

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 07:39:04No, I'm not married, but aside from the civil rights offered, the only secular benefit offered by marriage is the tax break. No one is stopping anyone from being in a committed relationship or having a formal commitment ceremony with family and friends.

Gay marriage isn't about love, commitment, civil rights, or equality, and anyone who disagrees isn't viewing the issue with any rationality or objectivity.

Again, you're myopically denying an entire cultural context to marriage here, even if we limit it to just the western world, and even if we limit it to contemporary times.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 04/06/2013 15:33:56

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 07:39:04No, I'm not married, but aside from the civil rights offered, the only secular benefit offered by marriage is the tax break.

That's simply not true. There are all kinds of legal implications, from adoption and child custody, to spousal privilege (in court), to making medical decisions, to immigration status. There are major differences in what happens in case of divorce (child support and alimony), for example. Lots of the stuff a civil union couple might have access to in principle is a lot more hassle and paperwork, as well (in part because domestic partnerships/civil unions vary from state to state and country to country, while marriage laws are much more consistent or harmonized).

And yes, there are tax implications, as well as lots of federal+state grants, benefits and family support, e.g. for military personnel.

But it's not just the differences specifically enshrined in law. There's also a matter of differential treatment by private organizations and companies. Like whether your employer allows you to add your partner to your health insurance. If you can get days off work to deal with a medical emergency or death in your partner's family (or even for your partner him-/herself), or for the lesbian equivalent of "paternity leave" (though that's a rare perk in the US anyway). As long as homosexual couples only have access to a separate status like civil unions, it's easy to discriminate against them.

These aren't just unromantic details, they cut to the very core of the intimacy and partnership of a marriage, to the notion of providing for your family, of being "one unit."

I believe that these are the essence of the debate here.

People must acknowledge that in modern western culture, people get married for many reasons, including a simple love and desire to commit to one another.  It has actually been this way for at least a few generations in most of the west to my knowledge, so it's not some recent fad.
They must also acknowledge all of the legal and cultural ramifications of marriage.  Some people say just get rid of these legal tidbits, falsely thinking they are the crux of the issue.  I disagree, because all of these things are equally important in the debate.  It's not about arguing against one point or the other.
One day, I hope to marry someone in the name of love and commitment.  I would want my partner to receive all of the related legal and social benefits regardless of their gender.

And I would want everyone else to have that right.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 04/06/2013 15:33:56How many of us really educate ourselves about both sides of every issue we have an opinion on? It's not something that smacks you in the face, either. If you don't go out looking for it, or hang out with people who'll tell you, you're not likely to read about it on the news or just figure it out on your own.

To some extent, I'll say 'Fair enough.' However, if I care about something deeply enough to argue with strangers on the internet, I want to know most sides of it, and I'm willing to listen when new information is brought to the table. I understand that I might be in the minority when it comes to engaging in internet battle, though.

However, fair enough because...

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 04/06/2013 15:33:56These aren't just unromantic details, they cut to the very core of the intimacy and partnership of a marriage, to the notion of providing for your family, of being "one unit."

Many of these situations you've listed are affordances of marriage with which I'm passingly familiar, but would likely take for granted until I encountered the need for them. And I've never really thought about these legal situations in the context you've accurately described above. Thanks for the perspective.

Let me tell you what's happening in my country, I think talking about the "bit more extremer" behaviour of such thoughts is.
Right now organization called "For family", which is unofficially supported by the branch of catholic church in my country, have gathered enough signatures to call for a referendum. What would be the issue of this referendum? To change the constitution (not a law, but to change the founding principles on which our country is founded) and define "marriage" as a "bond between man and a woman". So they actually want change something in the constitution, which would actually clash with more than few other things in that same constitution (all people being equal and should be treated equally no matter what).

I don't know if these people are scared of "homos" destroying their marriage (which is just stupid and has nothing to do with people wanting same sex marriages) or just, again, stupid enough to be influenced by backwardness of their upbringing and again church doctrines...which btw clearly has in it's core for all people being equal and God loving ALL his children.
It is just sad how some people feel endangered from someone who wants to be treated the same and yet feel the need to put their opinions and beliefs above other people.
ALL OF THIS is without mentioning the fact there are far more problems that need taking care of and far more causes that should have priority EVEN if you are against gay marriage. Economy, education, jobs, environment, homelessness, poverty, crime, corruption, government...and the biggest reaction you get from is when the question of gay marriage is raised? That is so wrong,.

Whether you think it's only for tax breaks or health insurance, why would you deny that to someone and why would you think heterosexuals don't do that already? Same thing with adopting babies, people who would rather see a child being without anybody to care for them, molest them or abuse them for child support, than to let a homosexual take care of them and at the same time not understand that some heterosexual people already are doing  horrible things to kids...that's f-ed up and cruel.

You know, reading this thread reminds me of that old saying about the similarities between arguing on the internet and racing in the Special Olympics:

Whoever wins, gay marriage will still be a social norm in years to come and anyone who opposed it will be viewed as stupid throughout history.

Good point.

I know I'm not going to convince anybody. I'm doing this for two reasons: a) lurkers who read all the arguments on both sides can form better opinions, and b) I collect bad arguments (it's a hobby)

Nowadays gay people have all the rights straight people do, and same-sex marriage is a "new" right no one previously had (neither straights nor gays). To grant it, we must admit not only the equality of people, but the equality of sexualities themselves (i.e. not only homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals, but homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality). Because, if we see homosexuality as an abnormality (like many conservatives and a small percent of medics do), a gay marriage would be almost the same as making six-fingered gloves for polydactyls (while at the same time no one in their right mind would approve discrimination/hate crimes against polydactyl people).

There is also the much more controversial question of church marriage for gay couples (it's a very touchy subject for many religious people, and I cannot blame them for it).

I'd also like to raise a more general question like "Does opposing LGBT movement/tolerance campaigns make you an asshole?". Because, for instance, even if you say things like "Dumbledore is not gay to me, because Rowling never said so in the books, and I don't see his character like that", you can still be stigmatized as a bigoted jerk.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 07:39:04Why would atheists get married? Lol, tax breaks. At least religion validates the otherwise meaningless ceremony. (I'm sure this will be sufficiently inflamatory.)

I stopped right here.

You don't understand humans.


edit: Oh jeez, there's another page.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone thinking I am a good or decent person. If they thought that then they would expect it of me. If everyone thinks I'm homophobic (which I'm not) just because I have logical reasons for not supporting gay marriage (although I have never taken any proactive course in the negative), then (as I said with my first post) I'm granted free license to do, say, think, feel whatever I want. It would seem that only by standing in opposition am I able to preserve my identity. Otherwise I'd just be another dead body on the bandwagon.

Instead of all this bickering it would seem much simpler to just say that it is me who needs to change my definition of what "marriage" means, not everyone else. To that argument I'd actually be inclined at this point to partly agree...

Regarding the tax incentives associated with marriage, I still think they should be abolished altogether.

Alongside every other tax incentive.

If a government is run like a business then its prime directive will always and only be to make money. This is exactly the reason why the United States of America is on the decline that it is, and will in the near future (relatively speaking) collapse under the dead weight of its citizens who have become so reliant on it for a handout that they've forgotten how to do anything for themselves. The American dream is dead, and that has nothing to do with this topic, but I may as well say it anyway because it's true.

In the grand scheme of things, it really makes no difference whatsoever if gay marriage is every officially recognized in the US.

Speaking of religion, isn't it funny the way that atheists always group the entire world into two groups (themselves and the religious nuts)? Whereas a person with a reasonable education about the nature of God would group them into one category, "children of God". Funny thing that.

Speaking of bandwagons:
You were thrown on the Mormon bandwagon as a child, and now you're brain is stuck on it. The only defining category of Atheism is unbelief in god claims. Other than that, atheists have lots of diverse opinions on all kinds of issues. Your moral compass has a big ass Mormon magnet right next to it though. Like I said, in Iraq you'd be Muslim Michael, probably with a completely different stance on gays, while I'd still be humanist Chris. Consistency.

People who lose their faith usually also get rid of the accompanying bigoted opinions, not because there's societal pressure to do so, but because they evaluate their stances for the first time without the influence of a belief system riddled with primitive superstition, prejudice and most importantly: propaganda.

As an atheist, I group the world into people who are interested about the actual nature of the universe and those who aren't. But, also being a humanist, that doesn't mean one of them is getting more rights or preferential treatment.

According to your church I'm bound for the Telestial Kingdom, whereas you're going to one of the upper two levels. Tell me again how that's not "us and them".

Also, are you actually not drinking coffee?

Tell me more about how it is impossible to make informed decisions if any choice was presented as being preferential during childhood.

monkey_05_06 - I think you should watch this video and after you've watched it, many, many times, come back and throw your bologny around:




What the hell ever. It's a good song!  8-)

Monkey, me and my girlfriend are atheists, but we want to marry one another. It's not a religious union to us, but a symbolic and cultural one with deep emotional importance, and we would do it even if it had no legal effects.

Do you think we're lying?

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 22:34:09
Speaking of religion, isn't it funny the way that atheists always group the entire world into two groups (themselves and the religious nuts)?

And religious people aren't divisive?  Most atheists (and agnostics) that I know just don't care unless someone brings up the subject of religion; usually relating to how it ties in with politics and/or something anti-science.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 04/06/2013 23:10:08
You were thrown on the Mormon bandwagon as a child, and now your brain is stuck on it. The only defining category of Atheism is unbelief in god claims. Other than that, atheists have lots of diverse opinions on all kinds of issues. Your moral compass has a big ass Mormon magnet right next to it though.

The perfect quote! It was exactly what I had wanted to say while reading this thread; but not as poetically as you have - well done.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 09:18:52
My argument is that my beliefs make me more good, moral, etc.

Wtf? So you actually believe that your religion makes you a good and moral person but if you would ever ditch it you'd suddenly become less so? Why can't you just accept that you're a good person regardless of your religious beliefs.

One thing that I do need to work on is my personal opinion that people who strongly believe in a religion are less intelligent than those who don't, because of their beliefs. I'll admit to the problem, but it's too hard to let go. I see you Monkey, and I say to myself "He's such an intelligent and logical young man, why is he so blindly holding onto this religion of his, maybe he's not as smart as I thought he was?". But when I see a severely less intelligent person, one who walks around breathing from their mouth, I do not question why they have blind faith in the man-made religions - because this person is clearly dumb. Like I said, it's something I need to work on.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Wed 05/06/2013 02:57:54

One thing that I do need to work on is my personal opinion that people who strongly believe in a religion are less intelligent than those who don't, because of their beliefs. I'll admit to the problem, but it's too hard to let go. I see you Monkey, and I say to myself "He's such an intelligent and logical young man, why is he so blindly holding onto this religion of his, maybe he's not as smart as I thought he was?". But when I see a severely less intelligent person, one who walks around breathing from their mouth, I do not question why they have blind faith in the man-made religions - because this person is clearly dumb. Like I said, it's something I need to work on.

I'd say that both believers and atheists sometimes show signs of the so-called "blind faith" since neither of them have evidence for their point of view (cmon, you cannot conduct a scientific experiment that would prove the (non)existence of God or life after death). For instance, Richard Dawkins' agressive anti-religious attitude doesn't look much better than religious fanatism. Therefore an agnostic position seems to be the most rational one.

I just want to say that I think debating the existence of a God as a whole, or where we end up when we die, is really just futile, and I've got no problems accepting that religious people believe in what they believe in (and I really dislike the kind of militant atheist type who just can't accept that people believe in stuff).

But this is different, because this is about having opinions about how others should live their lives, and moreover what they shouldn't be allowed to do. That's a step over the line, in my opinion.

Christianity has basically taken a concept that existed before them, made it a religious thing, and created a set of rules (selected from a long list of arbitrary rules, most of which they don't adhere to themselves) that for no reason whatsoever (only because it says so) excludes certain people from exercising this right. It's just absurd.

Things change, this is the freaking age of aquarius, get with the program!

Cyrus:
That's a common way of thinking, it's still not correct though. Dawkins himself says that he isn't convinced that there's no god, it's just that the probability is extremely low. There's an entire chapter devoted to this in the God Delusion, and he rates himself a 6 on a scale from 1 to 7. Another common way of addressing this is stating that atheism isn't about knowledge but belief. Atheism doesn't mean "I know there is no god", it means "I don't know that there is one", or, like I described earlier: "I'm not convinced of any god claims so far."
Somebody who claims that there is no god is a so-called gnostic atheist or strong atheist.
In other words, according to your definitions, I'd be an agnostic leaning towards atheism. Long story short: the view that atheism is just as fanatic as faith is based on a misunderstanding of what atheism is. It usually goes hand in hand with an absurd belief that atheists worship satan, or hate god, etc.

I just want to answer the thread question, Does opposing gay marriage make you an asshole?

Well, yes it does, but it depends on where you're debating it. It is easy to find a place where all the participants will consider your opposing idea the right one.
In 20 years from now it will even sound just homophobic.

It's funny to think that a poor, small country like Portugal can cope so well with all this nonsense. We are Catholics, there's no household over here without a cross or a picture of Christ. We are proud and happy with it, but we are also a very tolerant country regarding sex choices. Many popular and famous people here are known to be gay, and that's including major politicians and everybody knows it, we talk about it, but really just don't care.

Really guys, a gay couple gets married. What's the big deal?

Quote from: Khris on Wed 05/06/2013 10:34:53
Dawkins himself says that he isn't convinced that there's no god, it's just that the probability is extremely low.

Also, Dawkins is a bit rubbish as the poster-child for atheism. There are plenty of atheists with far more intricate and interesting things to say.

Khris is right, though, atheism is less about the rejection of a god, and more about the rejection of faith. Atheists base their world view in tangible, empirical, observable and replicable evidence, rather than personal experiences or assigning spiritual values to unexplained phenomena. That sounds like I'm bashing on religion, which I'm not, but it's the reason why Dawkins doesn't really strike a chord with me: you can't really argue against faith with rationalism, because they don't really exist on the same spectrum.

Cyrus, it kind of links back to what you're saying about your prejudgements of religious people. You're judging them based on your world view. And mine, to be honest. You're right, it is easy to do, just as it is easy for religious people to genuinely believe that atheists aren't living as good a life as they could etc.

What I do struggle to reconcile is religious sceptics. I have met a few in my life, and am fascinated by the apparent contradiction between a love of science and evidence-based research, and a belief in a higher power based on faith alone.

Going back to the original question:

Disclaimer: If I'm factually wrong, disregard this argument!

There are really two kinds of marriage - one does not need to include the other, whilst the other necessarily includes the first. There is state marriage and religious marriage - it is possible to just have a reception without going for the church service. If you go for the church service, you still have to sign a legal binding, but not the other way round.

Therefore, since the state has no possible reason why gay marriage should not be a thing, since gay marriage aligns with the idea that all individuals should be treated equally, opposing state gay marriage does, indeed, make you an asshole, as you are denying equality for no sound state reason.

Whether gay marriage should be a thing or not in the church is the church's imperative. It will be very crushing for certain christian gay couples to not be accepted into the community their religious views are founded around - and I'd say that certain sections of organized religion need a huge re-think (other, smaller sections may not be opposed to religious gay marriage at all).

However, I think it is important to recognize that the church has it's own set of beliefs and, as long as the church does not break state law (that includes plotting to break state law, under state law ^^) the state should have no right to tell the church what they should and shouldn't do. The church is an organization just as much as any other business (that includes the government, if I was being cynical).

As for the other debate that's going on:

We live in a late capitalist, post modernist world. Under post-modernism, a person is defined by a huge variety of different, dislocated 'things'. Some of them can be "christian" (there are so many parts and institutions of Christianity, as, indeed, any religion (and non-religion) , that labeling it as one thing would be ignorant), others are political, others cultural etc etc. The things is, most, if not all of these 'things', is in some way trying to instill you with propaganda. For example, since capitalism is so dominant, at least where I am (Britain), it is hard to notice the capitalist propaganda, and often it is not made consciously, but it's there. Therefore, it is impossible to judge a group of people in anything other than very, very minimal terms.

It is ignorant to say then that Christians are all like this, Atheists like that, Muslims like so on etc etc. We live in a world where people can commit as much to or as little to anything they like, so every person must be thought of on an individual basis. The idea of a bandwagon is a great example - it's usually just led by a vocal minority, whilst the majority has an interest, but is not nearly as committed - although I should judge that on an individual basis :D

Of course, this does not apply to all parts of the world, and there are social and cultural pressures...but that's a debate for another day, and is becoming less applicable in 'western' countries.

In case people decide to section me, I'll do it for you very quickly: Brought up in a Christian (first Anglican, then Catholic) house-hold, now a namby-pamby spiritual fence sitter. :D

Quote from: Andail on Wed 05/06/2013 10:26:42
I just want to say that I think debating the existence of a God as a whole, or where we end up when we die, is really just futile, and I've got no problems accepting that religious people believe in what they believe in (and I really dislike the kind of militant atheist type who just can't accept that people believe in stuff).

It is futile, yes. I strongly doubt an internet forum debate about the existence of God has ever converted one party or the other.  I am however less tolerant than you when it comes to accepting that people believe stuff.  Some people anyway.  Most keep it to themselves and live a decent life. But when religion is used as a basis for arguments about politics and "issues" such as gay marriage, that just shouldn't be a fucking issue in the first place, then I simply despair.  This is 2013AD for crying out loud. People who disagree with gay marriage may or may not be assholes in general, but if they base their opinions on religious doctrine then I just feel sorry that they can't think for themselves.

As some of you may know I proposed to my girlfriend recently. 

We have decided that we are not getting married though. 

We are getting gay married.

I think this highlights exactly how stupid this entire debate/topic truly is.

When a homosexual eats, (s)he isn't "gay eating", it's just eating.  It's not about "gay marriage"; it's about marriage equality.

Speaking only for the USA (because remember, Americans don't care about the rest of the world) this should NEVER have been an issue here.  As American citizens we are "equal" and entitled to the same "inalienable" rights and the constitution (amendment 14) grants marriage as one of those rights.  That's ALL that needs to be said on this matter.  End of debate.

The opposition comes from people that follow out-dated ideology from the parts of old books they choose to pay attention to (while ignoring the other parts).

When applying common sense and logic to this situation we free thinking humans in 2013 can obviously see that those in opposition to marriage equality are going to look as foolish and ignorant as those who opposed abolishing slavery, or granting women the right to vote.  They are history's poster children for ignorance and bigotry.  We cannot expect these people to see this as they tend to ignore history (or science, logic, etc) and only adhere to an ideology/dogma that was laid down by iron-age (and murderous, bigoted and misogynistic) men that has been translated, re-translated, edited and pruned (to suit their needs) over the last few thousand years.

Marriage equality is a foregone conclusion and all this subject does is highlight just how little we've evolved as a species since we came out of the trees. 

Sad really.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 05/06/2013 15:26:43
As some of you may know I proposed to my girlfriend recently.

I didn't know. Congratulations (assuming she said yes)! I hope your marriage is gay in the other definition of the word.

Quote from: Lewis on Wed 05/06/2013 13:34:46
Dawkins doesn't really strike a chord with me: you can't really argue against faith with rationalism, because they don't really exist on the same spectrum.

This is exactly what Dawkins thinks you can do, he discusses this in The God Delusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria#Criticism (2nd paragraph onwards gives a nice summary).

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 03:28:42
I was going to post without reading this thread, but somehow I got roped into reading the whole thing. Get your hate ready boys, because I am against gay marriage!
.....

Some very good point. And that is why I really do not think one can have a real discussion about the yay/nay on teh gay marriage issue. I have tried and you just go in circles. There is no solid real solid footing to make any hypothesis on. Is the point on marriage to produce new citizens for the government and sustain the current ones, that undoubtedly used to be teh main reason and I am not sure if it is not still. Without showing the point of a marriage, no one can say what laws should restrict it.

And the entire issue is further complicated by the entire group of laws being undated and horribly set up even just for hetrosexuals.

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 02/06/2013 22:21:20
1. People aren't actually all equal, and treating different people differently isn't always unfair.
2. Conservatives argue that gay people already have the same marriage rights as straight people. The law doesn't discriminate, it just defines what a marriage is.

2. Well that is undoubtedly true. Any single woman can marry any single man and vice-versa. It is the definition of homosexual/hetrosexual equality (they are treated identically). You can argue it is sexist and unequal based on gender, but we have loads of laws that take into account the differences of gender.

In my opinion. The entire issue is addressed ass-backwards.
Modern western marriage is basically catholic/christian marriage. And as a private organization they have right to refuse to perform some ritual on whoever they like.
But at the same time, our laws governing it should not be based on Christianity. I would just abolish marriage altogether. And forget all this religious foolishness and go back to how the law used to handle these things, just one more legal contract that can give any number of rights and privileges to another person(s) over you that you want.

The name is China.

Quote from: kconan on Wed 05/06/2013 02:47:09
Most atheists (and agnostics) that I know just don't care unless someone brings up the subject of religion...

To be fair, most of the religious people I know act the same way. It would be a better world if more people were like this. But there are always assholes who just can't abide that not everyone shares their world view. :undecided:

I think that I'm probably entirely at fault for this topic degrading into a religious debate. I say that, because, unless I am mistaken, I am the only person who has said anything in this thread about holding religious faith.

So, sorry if I derailed the topic (although I'm not sorry for how I feel or what I said).

My faith influences my definition of the word marriage - this removes my objectivity about the definition of the word. I am willing to accept this. However, I would just like to reiterate that I hold no ill-will toward homosexuals. I support their efforts (in the way I support most anything about which I'm not just entirely fanatical, by not doing anything to oppose it) in seeking civil rights. I will not say "marriage" because I cannot do so objectively, but in seeking the same civil rights offered to other legally recognized unions they are justified and I will not argue against that.

If this makes me a horrible person, then so be it.

This thread has exploded beyond the point for me to reasonably be able to continue replying to each individual without this thread losing all hope of staying on-topic. That said, I do want to just reply to a couple of items:

Ryan, I don't "think" that I am a less moral person without my faith - I am stating that every time I have stopped actively practicing my faith, my life and my morality has degraded. It is a matter of historical fact that for me, personally, I am a less moral person without my religious faith.

Lastly, I'll reiterate for the fourth time that I never said anything of any nature whatsoever about heterosexual vs. homosexual parents raising children. The only statement I ever made about parents raising children was in reference to two-parent vs. single-parent homes, regardless of the sexual preference (and it is a preference) of the parent(s) involved. (To be fair, I think that this was only the third "reiteration", but the fourth time I've said it...I'm not going back to count.)

Just to be clear, my comment wasn't aimed at you, Monkey. :smiley:

But everything I've ever said in a negative way was ALL directed at Ponch.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Thu 06/06/2013 06:32:55
Lastly, I'll reiterate for the fourth time that I never said anything of any nature whatsoever about heterosexual vs. homosexual parents raising children. The only statement I ever made about parents raising children was in reference to two-parent vs. single-parent homes, regardless of the sexual preference (and it is a preference) of the parent(s) involved.

Why did you say this, then? What was the reason to argue that two-parent homes are better than single-parent homes, in a thread that debates gay marriage?

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Thu 06/06/2013 06:58:22
But everything I've ever said in a negative way was ALL directed at Ponch.

Keep going with that attitude, mister, and I won't be stalking you across the wilds of Canada any more.

I'm now going to introduce the word Thermometer into the debate.

And I am going to coin the term "thermosexual." Has a nice cadence.

Here's an interesting Podcast: http://www.spreaker.com/user/smalleyandhyso/26_the_gay_christian

A gay Catholic is interviewed by a former Christian turned Atheist. Predictably, it doesn't go well for him (hint: major cognitive dissonance).

Quote from: Khris on Thu 06/06/2013 14:33:57
A gay Catholic is interviewed by a former Christian turned Atheist. Predictably, it doesn't go well for him (hint: major cognitive dissonance).

It is weird how much Christians have latched onto the gay part of their holy books. It is one of the less straightforward parts. The bible very clearly denounces all facepainting, for example, but the gay sections, which are no more numerous or damning than the face painting are plagued by translation problems and multiple ways to interpret them. In my opinion the Christian holy books clearly state that things such as face painting or wearing a cotton polyester blend are just as sinful as sodomy, if not far more. Any Christian that followed the teachings of the bible would be in prison for murder within 5 minutes. That being said, that does not mean that all christians who say that homosexuals are sinning just hate them. People are sheep, and Christians have turned homosexuality into a major sin by group belief, it just has nothign to do with God or any of the bibles.

Isn't it weird how someone's religious beliefs often have significant overlap with their personal one.

(Read: They just don't like gays. It's nothing to do with religion)

Sigh. I know it's tempting to take some Bible verses out of context and use it to argue Christians are hypocrites, but really guys, the Bible is not a straightforward instruction manual. It's a sprawling collection of documents that can only be understood in relationship with each other, and in the context of an interpretative framework. In Judaism, the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) is supplemented by the Talmud, with rabbinical interpretations of what it means. Christianity doesn't have a catchy label like that, but there are a lot of theological writings and traditions, going back to the Church Fathers, that have been hugely important in determining how the Bible and the Christian message is understood. Not to mention that the Bible itself discusses how earlier texts within it should be interpreted!

Christians decided very early in their history (in the first generation of apostles: St. Peter and St. Paul and those guys, before Christianity was really a proper religion of its own) that lots of Old Testament rules only applied to those Christians who were Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem). (A significant proportion at that time, soon to be heavily outnumbered by gentile converts.) All that stuff about keeping kosher (including no blended fabrics) just is not relevant. You can disagree with the merits of this position, but it's been a fairly core part of Christianity for just about always, and is in the Bible.

Conversely, sexual impropriety has been a major Christian concern from the beginning. One of the most emphatic instructions in Jesus' teachings is that remarrying after a divorce is to be considered adultery. (That's a much better example of a definite Christian rule that many have decided to ignore, though of course the Catholic church sticks with it.) True, homosexuality is not a particular preoccupation in the Bible and early Christian writings, but when discussed it does seem they disapprove. (Of course, they basically condemn all extramarital sex, fornication, which would have included all gay sex, and some only grudgingly OK'd sex within marriage.)

In any case, to many Christians who consider homosexuality a sin, the reason it's such a major topic is not that it's a worse sin than many others, e.g. adultery, but that so many people deny that it's a sin. Christianity expects people to sin, but it demands repentance.

Point being that yes, it does have something to do with religion; their position is grounded pretty solidly in Christian scripture and tradition.

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 06/06/2013 16:30:43
In any case, to many Christians who consider homosexuality a sin, the reason it's such a major topic is not that it's a worse sin than many others, e.g. adultery, but that so many people deny that it's a sin. Christianity expects people to sin, but it demands repentance.

But it is no more denied as a sin than any other thing. Like making interest on your money, or eating a bacon burger (mixing different animals in a single meal), being rich, or sex outside of marriage (or at all).

Quote from: Andail on Thu 06/06/2013 07:07:36

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Thu 06/06/2013 06:32:55Lastly, I'll reiterate for the fourth time that I never said anything of any nature whatsoever about heterosexual vs. homosexual parents raising children. The only statement I ever made about parents raising children was in reference to two-parent vs. single-parent homes, regardless of the sexual preference (and it is a preference) of the parent(s) involved.

Why did you say this, then? What was the reason to argue that two-parent homes are better than single-parent homes, in a thread that debates gay marriage?

I was pairing that with the assertion about married couples introducing new citizens. As Khris pointed out, the collective argument on this part doesn't hold true today. However, it did historically. As it no longer does, this is the reason I stated that the perks that were being granted by the government should be revoked, as their incentive behind offering it has degraded beyond the rational threshold to offer something in return.

Quote from: wisnoskij on Wed 05/06/2013 18:46:18
In my opinion. The entire issue is addressed ass-backwards.
Modern western marriage is basically catholic/christian marriage. And as a private organization they have right to refuse to perform some ritual on whoever they like.
But at the same time, our laws governing it should not be based on Christianity. I would just abolish marriage altogether. And forget all this religious foolishness and go back to how the law used to handle these things, just one more legal contract that can give any number of rights and privileges to another person(s) over you that you want.

I don't think that in practice the law ever "used to handle" marriage as just a legal contract completely separate from any religious ritual or the church's notion of who could marry whom (the history of incest laws in Europe are an interesting subject, as the degree of consanguinity prohibited varied immensely over time, largely in response to economic factors).

In an ideal world I agree with you, but in practice it would be much more difficult to achieve. There are so many laws that are tied to marriage and would have to be rewritten. And if you're not careful you're going to end up giving corporations the right to get married, and I bet they'd find ways to exploit that loophole. (Maybe I could set up a company, SnarkyCorp., which I could then marry in order to claim all the tax deductions and benefits available to married couples.)

Quote from: wisnoskij on Thu 06/06/2013 16:47:37
But it is no more denied as a sin than any other thing. Like making interest on your money, or eating a bacon burger (mixing different animals in a single meal), being rich, or sex outside of marriage (or at all).

Like blended fabrics, eating bacon burgers falls under Mosaic law that Christians consider to only apply to Jews. Christian thought doesn't traditionally hold that being rich is sinful in itself (as long as it doesn't interfere with piety and humility), but that charity is good, and that the poor have a better chance of being blessed.

And are there a lot of conservative Christians who condemn homosexuality but are pro-extramarital sex?

Charging interest (usury) is a good example, though. The scriptural case against it is probably about as good as that against homosexuality (not watertight, but pretty solid), and Christian tradition held it to be sinful from the earliest days and for some 1500 years, but you don't see a lot of Christians denouncing interest loans on principle these days.

Edit: Reading up on and thinking about the definition of usury made me wonder if it would apply to certain types of e-commerce, like e-books, games or software that you're not technically buying, but just "licensing." Perhaps even to in-app purchases in general. Maybe there could be a campaign against IP overreach based on the idea that it's a sin?

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Thu 06/06/2013 06:32:55Ryan, I don't "think" that I am a less moral person without my faith - I am stating that every time I have stopped actively practicing my faith, my life and my morality has degraded. It is a matter of historical fact that for me, personally, I am a less moral person without my religious faith.

I'm still baffled how this argument is used by people of faith to justify it. You're basically falling for Pascal's wager and don't even realize it.
See, whenever I do something good, I'm doing it because I want to. But what you're saying boils down to "as long as I'm afraid of hell, I'll behave better".
And you still think you have the better morals? (roll)
It also suspiciously sounds like "tbh, I don't really believe all this stuff, but I want to, since my life is going to degrade otherwise, so I'll keep pretending" (I don't use the word "pretending" to be insulting, only because one can't choose whether or not to believe something).

But since you pretty much rowed back on half of what you said earlier, let's leave it at that.

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 06/06/2013 17:08:41There are so many laws that are tied to marriage and would have to be rewritten. And if you're not careful you're going to end up giving corporations the right to get married, and I bet they'd find ways to exploit that loophole. (Maybe I could set up a company, SnarkyCorp., which I could then marry in order to claim all the tax deductions and benefits available to married couples.)

We really have to get around to deciding that corporations are not people, but that's a completely different topic.

I'd like to apologize for being so blunt with my opinion.  Yes, I think opposing gay marriage makes you an asshole, but I also think that calling someone an asshole makes you a bit of an asshole.  So that makes me something of an asshole myself, but let me tell you, there are worse things to be called than asshole.

If you don't want to read the opinion of a Catholic person just skip ahead. I also write the F word on the following sentences.

Spoiler

As a Catholic I find this debate very amusing. Religion haters are amusing, Religion tolerants as well.

[close]

Spoiler

Catholics that choose to be do spend many time thinking about what we are, after all, and sometimes against all odds, following.

[close]

Spoiler

The Vatican position on homosexuality is clear and like so many times before, far from modern societies needs.

[close]

Spoiler

The Vatican primary position on what's really important is the Life of Christ. The most important lesson Jesus taught us was that life is fucking hard to start with. It's no fun to be born poor but it doesn't mean you'll be a nobody for the rest of your life. If you're smart, a fucking army will fear you and if you got the charisma you can have a nation behind you. It also taught us that being a wise guy may get you killed. You can't win them all.

[close]

Spoiler

If this wasn't enough, Jesus traded his life for his father forgiveness of all our sins.

[close]

Spoiler

Think about it, guys. He could have asked for anything because his father is God, after all. But, no. Because he knew what human nature is.

[close]

I know this sounds pretty simplistic but I believe that the more you use fancy and sophisticated terms the more you loose track of what is important.
Being a Catholic is understanding the needs of others. And the only radical behaviour is against the ones that put down people for race, creed, sexual orientation and anything that is their human right to be or choose.

And no, we don't follow the Bible like a set of rules. We respect the Bible and I personally love the Bible. Some texts even feel holy to me. But I can separate things the same way I can read LOTR and extract a message.
Another thing, Catholics are regular guys with the same passions and frustrations of others. We really just want to be happy. Just like gay couples, I guess.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 06/06/2013 19:45:56But what you're saying boils down to "as long as I'm afraid of hell, I'll behave better".
And you still think you have the better morals? (roll)

I don't believe that I said my morals were better than anyone else's. This is a problem - a lot of what is being perceived isn't what is being said, on both sides. I think this is in human nature to do this, but it doesn't exactly help anyone.

I'm not "afraid of Hell". I choose to live how I choose to live, the same as you choose to live how you choose to live. What I am saying is that in my own life I am more likely to make positive moral decisions if I am striving to follow my faith. Seeing as my faith is almost entirely based around being a good moral person, this makes sense. You seem to be very close-minded toward the idea that anyone following religion could be making decisions for themselves instead of just blindly following. This isn't the case for me.

I said that I am more moral when following my faith because when I am living morally, I also choose to go to church, do service for others, work in my church's food pantry, etc. Not because anyone told me to, but because it makes me happy to do that. I enjoy helping others and being a good person, when I'm following my faith. When I'm not, I fall into severe depression, addiction, and become a generally miserable person. If nothing else, my faith gives me a set of guidelines which, by following, I choose to become a better person.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 06/06/2013 19:45:56It also suspiciously sounds like "tbh, I don't really believe all this stuff, but I want to, since my life is going to degrade otherwise, so I'll keep pretending" (I don't use the word "pretending" to be insulting, only because one can't choose whether or not to believe something).

One absolutely can choose what to believe in. Unless you're making the assertion that no one is capable of making decisions for themselves and can only be influenced by the decisions that others around them are making and what they are told to do. I have educated myself about the options, and I have chosen for myself what to believe, based on what makes the most logical sense.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 06/06/2013 19:45:56But since you pretty much rowed back on half of what you said earlier, let's leave it at that.

I didn't revoke any of what I said. Again, this goes back to the interpretation versus what I'm actually saying. I said right from the start that I didn't oppose granting them civil benefits.

Quote from: miguel on Fri 07/06/2013 01:14:32If this wasn't enough, Jesus traded his life for his father forgiveness of all our sins.

This is what gets me every time: this entire thing doesn't make any sense. Even if we granted that God can't simply remove evil (which I don't), why does his son, who is also himself, need to be brutally tortured and killed? Why can't he just forgive? He is God, right? It's not like he's one of the cruel Aztec gods who demand a human sacrifice. Or is he?
To Catholics, this sacrifice is like the greatest thing ever. This is so ingrained into you that you don't even pause for one second to realize who grossly illogical and immoral it is.
Omniscient god creates man, but surprise: man misbehaves. Boom, loving god decides that all innocent babies are destined for eternal torture. Then he creates a loophole for his own rules and sends his son to be tortured. It's just laughably absurd.
Remove god from the equation, and suddenly everything makes perfect sense. Hippie creates cult, commits blasphemy, gets crucified, end of story. Followers blow the entire thing way out of proportion, and centuries later, people die by the millions. Way to go.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 07/06/2013 01:50:05One absolutely can choose what to believe in.

No, you absolutely can't. But I'll clarify, in case we're talking past each other.
By "believe", I mean "accept as true". Either you're convinced, or you aren't. You cannot choose whether you find a claim convincing. Granted, there are people who keep telling themselves something they initially know isn't true, and if they keep at it, they'll believe it eventually ("I'm no addict", etc.).
But when it comes to religious belief of any kind, I didn't choose to not believe. I simply don't, and couldn't, even if I wanted to. It's not a matter of choice. I remain unconvinced.
You can choose how to deal with your (un)belief, but that's something else entirely.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 07/06/2013 02:23:21
1. demand a human sacrifice.
2. You cannot choose whether you find a claim convincing.

The old testament is full of sacrifice and offerings, half of the book is about how to prepare offerings for God. And a not insignificant portion is ritualistic human sacrifice.
There has been some philosophizing about Jesus being a completely new God, come to save mankind from the evil Old Testament God. I think the story makes far more sense taken that way.

2. I disagree.

The story told in the Bible doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.

2. Then you should think more about this. This isn't an opinion, it is fact. Unless of course you're the first person on the planet who has absolute control over their entire thought process. If I told you I could fly like Superman, you'd instinctively disbelieve it. There's no conscious decision involved. You hear it and your very first thought is "yeah, right". But if I then suddenly started flying circles around you, you'd completely abandon your disbelief on the spot. You'd become convinced of my claim long before your jaw would hit the ground. You have no control over whether you believe something. What you can do of course in certain situations is make a concerted effort to suspend belief either way, until you have more facts.
People don't throw away their faith, they lose it.

Humans are hardwired with an evolutionary mechanism to always feel as though we're being watched. It's that very reason when you're alone that you always feel someone is watching you. It's likely the contributing factor as to why humans have instinctively created "God(s)" who all "watch" over them. It's probably also the very reason many people hold onto their religious beliefs because they feel comfortable believing this being watched feeling is someone looking down on them, protecting them.

On a side-note, when I was younger, when I watched the Truman Show, I immediately replaced that "feeling of being watched" with the idea of me being Truman. It made sense to me when I was younger because I ALWAYS had that feeling and never knew why I had it. (I've grown up since then, I promise)

Ryan, you feel like someone is watching you because I'm watching you. Right now. Through the window behind the sofa. I'm covering myself in Famous Dave's Sweet N' Sassy sauce as I type this.

That's what that smell is? Damn! I've been licking my lips with my mouth watering, completely baffled and wondering what that was. But why cover yourself in BBQ sauce? Are you a piece of meat? Do you need me to tenderize you? I'll do it. Where did you go?

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Fri 07/06/2013 04:58:11
Humans are hardwired with an evolutionary mechanism to always feel as though we're being watched.

I think that must just be you...

Wisnoskij, Ryan's right. That feeling is interpreted in different ways. It can go from divine to superstition to magic or even alien events. People call it what they want. But it is a fact. Humans do sense something other than what they see.

Quote...why does his son, who is also himself, need to be brutally tortured and killed?

, by Khris

Well Khris, I am not going to explain it to you because my good friend, I am just a guy that interpreted it my own way. I do not own or know the truth. But, this said, it's pretty simple that Jesus, God's son, died to be remembered forever. He died and people told his story because it meant something to people.
As a physical person he was as weak as me and you, but his ideas and way of life are 2000 year old and still being defended by guys like me.
You can compare God, you can compare Jesus to hippies and remember us about the first born massacre. You can even consider me as a hill billy.
You can, but you can also take it easy, like I do.
You see, I choose to love Jesus and his way because I want to.

Spoiler

And, more serious now, if any of you want to really debate religion, I do know what's written in the bible, I don't google it. I also own several other gospels that didn't go into the bible. I know the facts like places, names and events that are historically proven and the ones not.I would rather not continue this as I find much more funny to joke about it, and joke about ourselves.

[close]

I get where you're coming from. And I'm not interested in personal beliefs of other people. UNLESS they use them to justify taking away equal rights from other people (or misrepresent atheism).
You can wallow in cognitive dissonance and bronze age legends as much as you want, but don't tell other people they can't be happy because you can't cope with having to explain to your brat why their classmate has two daddies.
Unless you're a creationist, read on:

Spoiler

If you accept an old earth and evolution, consider the following, courtesy of Christopher Hitchens: Humans have been around for at least 100,000 years. Which means that for 98,000 years, while humans are afraid of the dark and predators, only live to be 30, die during childbirth or of their teeth, are terrified by natural disasters, wipe out other tribes, and generally are reigned by terror and mayhem, heaven watches with indifference. A civilization gets wiped out by their neighbors, and god is like "look, there they go again". But then, 2000 years ago, heaven suddenly intervenes. God appears to one of the most barbaric and backwards people, not to the Chinese, who can already read, and leads them to the only place in the near east where there's no oil.

[close]

Hahahaha! You see? You can be a funny guy, in your special way.
Anyway, you do know that you tend to sum everything into the same bag. And while you are at it, it's pretty simple that this 2000 year story has been told over and over during the 100,000 years of humans on Earth.

This thread's pretty long! I was really surprised by people at all being surprised by Doug Tennapel being like this because he's been like this for a long time. I remember when I was 12 I got three of his graphic novels and they had so many cool drawings and ideas! And then, weirdly, a straw-man atheist protagonist who has an epiphany and believes in God by the end of the story. Odd!

A friend tells me there's a video going around where Tennapel is actually crying about the controversy, like physically crying, and says he just is so sad that there are people not funding the project because of him when there's a giant staff of artists working on it who will not get to work on it if it is not funded. I don't really sympathize with him and I'm probably not going to fund it but I don't think there's much wrong with.. hoping it gets funded? I would rather his game get made than it not get made.

Gay marriage is all fine and dandy, although from what I've seen the gaiety of marriage usually doesn't last more than a couple years.  Now what we really need is more gay divorce.  Where's all that acrimony going to get you in the end?  Bitter, jaded, and way in hock to the law profession, that's where.  The world would be so much the better place if folks would just laugh it off and move on.

QuoteThe world would be so much the better place if folks would just laugh it off and move on.

Indeed, Baron.
Or if we could be Peter Griffin once in a while.

Moving on sounds great, unfortunately though, some asshole wrote this a long time ago:

QuoteThou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

So don't talk about moving on until you reject the bible in its entirety, ok? Otherwise you're just a cherry-picking hypocrite.
Like I said before, at least fundamentalists are consistent.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 27/06/2013 10:12:55
So don't talk about moving on until you reject the bible in its entirety, ok? Otherwise you're just a cherry-picking hypocrite.

Rejecting some parts of the Bible while accepting others is not necessarily hypocritical. Christianity is much more than the Bible. Ignoring the several thousand years of interpretation and reinterpretation (however convenient or tortured) that makes up the body of Christian theology shows either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Thank you Snarky, and one doesn't have to be religious to acknowledge that.
For some people, truth is something so important to them that they'll loose the ability to move on.

Again, why call yourself a Christian if you reject parts of the bible?
I'm perfectly aware of the fact that there are as much versions of Christianity as there are Christians, which is why I call them cherry-pickers.
Calling yourself Christian and being OK with gay marriage is a contradiction, plain and simple. It's like claiming you're a vegetarian while still eating fish.
Either follow the inspired word of Yahweh, the creator of everything, and call yourself a Christian, or don't.

And theology is nothing more than desperately trying to wrestle with the fact that the bronze age morality of religion has no place in a modern civilized society. They interpret and reinterpret and reinterpret, and suddenly the six days of creation become six ages. Right. I don't want to call theology ridiculous and laughable, but that's what it is. Here's a fine link explaining why: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply
(Not the parts that are about actual scientific work, like how the bible was authored, of course.)

And why do you fail to see that Christians are capable of questioning their symbols, to interpret them in different ways and even question their faith?
It's all a matter of choice.
Christians are aware that there's not a Bible written every year, they are aware of who wrote it and to whom it was directed.
Christians are also aware of the other gospels that aren't part of the bible.

Regarding Gay marriage and gay relations:
to a Catholic like me, the teachings of Jesus are above all, meaning that while it's written on the Bible or the Vatican issues a statement against gay relations, I am capable of loving gay people and gay relationships as I would do with "straight" couples.
I am also capable of understanding why the Vatican is against gays. I can agree or disagree and still be guilty free if I don't follow exactly their way.
To you this sounds like contradiction, to us is just how things evolve.

If I don't eat any meat except fish, I don't call myself "evolved vegetarian". Doesn't matter what reason I have, I am no vegetarian, period.
It's even worse with Catholicism; there's the infallible vicar of Christ, the head of the church. You oppose some of his views, yet still see yourself as a Catholic. It's just mind-boggling.
It's motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance par excellence.

Why not just ditch all the amoral Jesus crap and simply live a happy life of peace and love for your neighbor? I just don't get it.

Ya, well at least with Catholic, you are not allowed to disagree.
That is their special thing, obedience to the church and god's representative on earth.
If you do not blindly follow the Catholic church than by definition you are not Catholic and are instead a Protestant.

Khris,
Why don't you realize that the world is full of people with different opinions and beliefs?
That shouldn't be that hard if you remove "crap" from your thoughts on others.
You say you don't get it. Because you just don't.

If you want to understand others you first have to cut down the attitude that you are right about whatever knowledge you think you possess.
Start to be humble with yourself first.
You posted a pretty clever cartoon the other day, but you fail to understand its meaning.

Miguel, I think what Khris means is that your choice of agreeing/disagreeing with parts of Bible or Pope's opinion is like extracting parts of the house wall and still assuming roof will not fall down no matter what.

Why do you believe in God? Because you saw him? Or because Bible, or Pope, or Christians (parents, friends) taught you? If it is the latter, meaning you get this belief from the book, how do you decide which parts may be questioned and which not? I think that's most important question here.

I'm saying not following what Catholicism dictates but calling yourself a Catholic is stupid and useless. If everybody can arbitrarily redefine what "proper" Catholicism is, what's the point of the label?

wisnoskij makes a very good point; all of the 1,000s of Christian sects were founded because somebody didn't agree with what somebody else declared Christianity to be.

The point of the cartoon I posted is the following: if all you have to say about religious debates is that they're useless, keep your mouth shut instead. It was directed at SSH's useless and smug comment. It wasn't a general call for religious tolerance (which is pretty much an oxymoron).

This isn't about me being right or about what I know, it's about building your life on an artificial, man-made construct that defies all reason and logic.
I don't want to understand religious people, because there's absolutely no need to. I know why they believe, and I know what they believe. It's the result of the fear of death, not accepting the frailty and flaws of their brains, buying into lots of bullshit arguments and generations of tradition. Catholicism to me is indistinguishable from believing in the great Juju of the mountain. It's an ancient death cult, obsessed with sexuality and scape-goating. It doesn't deserve tolerance, just ridicule.

So, let me clarify this... are you against Catholicism or against ANY beliefs in the non-material realm of reality, afterlife, etc.?

Quote from: Khris on Thu 27/06/2013 12:36:46
Again, why call yourself a Christian if you reject parts of the bible?
I'm perfectly aware of the fact that there are as much versions of Christianity as there are Christians, which is why I call them cherry-pickers.
Calling yourself Christian and being OK with gay marriage is a contradiction, plain and simple. It's like claiming you're a vegetarian while still eating fish.
Either follow the inspired word of Yahweh, the creator of everything, and call yourself a Christian, or don't.

You don't have to believe that any part of the Bible is inspired by God to be a Christian (although many do), and you certainly don't have to believe that every word is. Saying that in your opinion, being a Christian should mean a completely literal-minded adherence to every single thing stated in the Bible is completely beside the point when that has never historically been the case. (For one thing, the Bible has enough inconsistencies that there's no way to follow it literally on every point.)

BTW, pescetarians have often traditionally been considered vegetarians (and would still be seen as such in many parts of the world), although it's not how the term is generally understood in America today. There's nothing true or false about it, it's just a matter of definition.

QuoteAnd theology is nothing more than desperately trying to wrestle with the fact that the bronze age morality of religion has no place in a modern civilized society. They interpret and reinterpret and reinterpret, and suddenly the six days of creation become six ages. Right. I don't want to call theology ridiculous and laughable, but that's what it is. Here's a fine link explaining why: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply
(Not the parts that are about actual scientific work, like how the bible was authored, of course.)

Your opinion about the merits of theology don't really matter. Theological traditions and debates have been embedded as a key part of Christianity (and Judaism) since the beginning. If you just dismiss it from consideration, you're not talking about Christianity as it exists any more, you're talking about a fantasy religion in your head.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 27/06/2013 14:12:22
I don't want to understand religious people, because there's absolutely no need to. I know why they believe, and I know what they believe. It's the result of the fear of death, not accepting the frailty and flaws of their brains, buying into lots of bullshit arguments and generations of tradition. Catholicism to me is indistinguishable from believing in the great Juju of the mountain. It's an ancient death cult, obsessed with sexuality and scape-goating. It doesn't deserve tolerance, just ridicule.

This comes beautifully close to the sort of views ascribed to (and to some extent expressed by) homophobes and same-sex marriage opponents earlier in the thread.

As someone who generally agrees with you Khris, I am a little dismayed by your dogmatic approach and dismissal.

Theology is useful and the idea of God is useful. If I were to say "I was lucky today", you wouldnt jump down my throat and declare that there is no such thing as luck and that I am kidding myself. That would make you a giant arse. In the same way, it is useful to consider "God" a thing even if that thing was not the creator of the universe. As Voltaire put it, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

Where modern Christianity goes wrong is that it ascribes all kinds of acts to God which were almost certainly intended to be allegorical and were taken as such before the inception of the modern perspectives (garden of eden and so forth). Islam is generally better in this regard and the eastern religions even more so.

I gotta go now, so just a short question:

Imagine I said, arguing about whether fairies have translucent wings or not is useless and stupid.
Imagine I said, somebody who thinks that vampires die from sunlight should leave "Team Edward".

Is any of this dismissal based on dogma? It is similar to arguing that "homos are evil", pointing to an old book?
Do I need to be aware of years of Twilight forum discussions in order to make the 2nd statement?

And how does theology fundamentally differ from these forum discussions?

Another fairly standard internet atheist mistake. You can't casually substitute one piece of culture with another. Religious texts are not the same as the fucking twilight series.

When one discusses the nature of God, one is not discussing a work of literature by some guy. One is discussing an *entire cultural perspective*.

Yes I can, that's sorta my point. (Also I'm comparing religious texts to the entirety of vampire literature, not just Twilight.)

How is discussing the nature and will of God (and I'm talking about Yahweh here!) different from discussing vampire biology?
I'm talking about the god of Christianity, of Catholicism, not some arbitrary god concept that might be useful (how, exactly, btw? Because Voltaire said so...?)

I'm not saying that any and all philosophical debate about the nature of the universe, or about whether there's something "greater" than man, is useless. Not at all.
I'm pointing out that there are people who call themselves Christians who think that gay people are abominable, and that there are people who call themselves Christians who think that gay marriage is A-OK. No problem there so far, but both groups point to their book to support their position.

And my assessment of that fact is that some Christians have unchained more of their intellect from the old book than others. Theology in my mind is debating which chains we can cut.
Why not cut all of them, dismiss the book as a failed attempt at creating morality and a model of the universe, and move on?

If you don't understand my frustration and intolerance, please note that to my mind, being religious is no different than believing in auras, astrology, conspiracy theories, dowsing, psychics and all the other bullshit.
I don't have a purely materialist world view because that's how I want it to be, I have it because every single thing about the entire universe constantly tells us that's all there is.

There is a brilliant video online from some major Christian network. It starts out innocent enough, with six Christians starting to talk all kinds of stupid about the war on Christmas. About twenty minutes in or so, they suddenly split into two groups and spend the remaining two hours arguing whether the universe was created in six days or six ages. I laughed my ass off. I'll see if I can find it.
It just pains me to see grown adults behave like that. It's like watching six years olds argue which Pokemon is more powerful.
Edit: Awww Yissss, found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM
(This just goes to show what happens if you chain your intellect to a book.)

Quote from: Khris on Thu 27/06/2013 16:20:44
How is discussing the nature and will of God (and I'm talking about Yahweh here!) different from discussing vampire biology?
I'm talking about the god of Christianity, of Catholicism, not some arbitrary god concept that might be useful (how, exactly, btw? Because Voltaire said so...?)

Yes, because Voltaire said so. :/

No, as metaphor and shorthand for things that language are ill-equipped to describe but that the mind can understand. ("God does not play dice")

Quote from: Khris on Thu 27/06/2013 16:20:44
I'm not saying that any and all philosophical debate about the nature of the universe, or about whether there's something "greater" than man, is useless. Not at all.
I'm pointing out that there are people who call themselves Christians who think that gay people are abominable, and that there are people who call themselves Christians who think that gay marriage is A-OK. No problem there so far, but both groups point to their book to support their position.

Christianity is a fractured philosophy. Show me one that isn't.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 27/06/2013 16:20:44
And my assessment of that fact is that some Christians have unchained more of their intellect from the old book than others. Theology in my mind is debating which chains we can cut.
Why not cut all of them, dismiss the book as a failed attempt at creating morality and a model of the universe, and move on?

If you don't understand my frustration and intolerance, please note that to my mind, being religious is no different than believing in auras, astrology, conspiracy theories, dowsing, psychics and all the other bullshit.
I don't have a purely materialist world view because that's how I want it to be, I have it because every single thing about the entire universe constantly tells us that's all there is.

There is a brilliant video online from some major Christian network. It starts out innocent enough, with six Christians starting to talk all kinds of stupid about the war on Christmas. About twenty minutes in or so, they suddenly split into two groups and spend the remaining two hours arguing whether the universe was created in six days or six ages. I laughed my ass off. I'll see if I can find it.
It just pains me to see grown adults behave like that. It's like watching six years olds argue which Pokemon is more powerful.
Edit: Awww Yissss, found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM
(This just goes to show what happens if you chain your intellect to a book.)

Let's be clear about something. There are the learned and there are the masses. One does not analyse feminism by searching tumblr and one does not critique theology by referencing some pop-youtube video. That's fucking Ken Ham for christ's sake. Have a little respect for the topic.

Also, I am a materialist. I think creationists are idiots. However I think it's dangerous to dismiss a huge part of academia out of hand as useless.

Again: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply
Also, as nutty as Ken Ham is, I think the stuff Ross says is much more sad and ridiculous at times. It's almost heartbreaking to see his obvious intellect go to waste like that.

And since you mentioned "God does not play dice", saying "The universe doesn't play dice" is much better. And not just because this quote still gets used today to claim that Einstein was religious.

Also, materialism isn't a fractured philosophy, right? And even if it was, having different opinions about whether some crimes warrant death sentences is different from discussing properties of imaginary beings.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 27/06/2013 17:17:08
Again: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply

PZ Myers is not a place to get one's fallacies from. He's a buffoon.
The courtier's reply is horseshit anyway. It amounts to "I don't want to learn about your stuff because it conflicts with my philosophy which has already dismissed it". It's begging the question.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 27/06/2013 17:17:08
And since you mentioned "God does not play dice", saying "The universe doesn't play dice" is much better. And not just because this quote still gets used today to claim that Einstein was religious.

No, because they mean different things. This is exactly what I'm talking about. "God" means something to us beyond the physicality of the universe whether he exists or not.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 27/06/2013 17:17:08
Also, materialism isn't a fractured philosophy, right? And even if it was, having different opinions about whether some crimes warrant death sentences is different from discussing properties of imaginary beings.

Materialism is pretty scant as a philosophy. It's a statement at best and even then people can't quite agree what matter is or what it means to be material.

Also, Theology is also about the analysis of the properties *given* to imaginary beings by people.

I didn't make an argument from Myers' authority. Theology relies on the existence of a God. How is it not moot if there is no god? What place does it have, especially in academia?
I ask again: how is theology different from arguing about fairy wings? Just because religion is ingrained into our culture doesn't mean theology is more valid. I myself used to have more respect for religion, but there's really no good reason for it and I lost it.

If theology were only about arguing whether there actually is a god, or who wrote the bible, etc, I wouldn't have any problem with it. To be perfectly clear, I dismiss the part of theology that argues about how bible passages need to be reinterpreted in order to make them not clash with scientific findings.

(Btw, the Courtier's reply is given by the religious guy, and it amounts to "you can't dismiss theology unless you have studied it for years". And yes, it is horseshit.)

Regarding fractured philosophies: I consider myself a materialist humanist, and I'm of course aware that I don't necessarily share the opinions of every other materialist humanist. BUT, I'm not following an absolute authority or scripture. I'm free to change my views without mental gymnastics, without having to try and stuff reality into the narrow confinements of an old text.

I meant that the courtier's reply as a fallacy is bullshit. Not the reply itself.

So rebutting the claim that one can't dismiss theology is a fallacy because...?

How can "rebutting a claim" be a fallacy?

That's literally nonsense.

K.

Let's get back on track though.
Here's a fun read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology#Criticism (Especially Thomas Paine nails it beautifully.)
I'm not trying to argue from authority here; I'm just saying that my view might not be as radical as it is made out to be here.

So....
I ask again: how is theology different from arguing about fairy wings?

Quote from: Khris on Thu 27/06/2013 23:50:17
I ask again: how is theology different from arguing about fairy wings?

Scale.

You destroy a child's belief in fairies, and the wound it inflicts on them will heal quickly.
You destroy a man's belief in deities, you wound his entire world, the world of his ancestors, and every piece of culture that relies on his belief to exist. There is a reason why people feel the world would be an empty, soulless place without the existence of a deity. Because then everything that they held dear, all that energy, all their accomplishments, and all the accomplishments of their forebears, would be wasted. For nothing.

Ain't no one man fights harder, or suffers more, than the man who doesn't want to believe he is wrong.

I realise you're being glib, but yes, scale.

More specifically the scale of the impact on human culture.

But the impact may be positive overall in the long run, even if there is an immediate backlash.

Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Thu 27/06/2013 13:56:59
Miguel, I think what Khris means is that your choice of agreeing/disagreeing with parts of Bible or Pope's opinion is like extracting parts of the house wall and still assuming roof will not fall down no matter what.

Why do you believe in God? Because you saw him? Or because Bible, or Pope, or Christians (parents, friends) taught you? If it is the latter, meaning you get this belief from the book, how do you decide which parts may be questioned and which not? I think that's most important question here.

Well, Crimson, thanks for explaining what Khris means, it's becoming repetitive: people putting cold water on the steaming pot.
My choice on the matters regarding the Bible or the Vatican is a concious decision and it doesn't make me less of a believer.
A man doesn't have to read the Bible every day or travel to Saint Peter Square to believe in God.

For the second part of your questions, let's say that I never saw God to begin with. But I believe in God because it is/was the most natural decision I had to make in my life. It's like breathing to me. Being born in a Catholic country had a major influence, of course. But it was never imposed on me. It felt right and it still does.
Through the life of Jesus I found and experienced immense love towards life and other people and the most important lesson of all: not to judge others based on race, creed or sexual behaviour.
How do I decide witch parts of the Bible or the Vatican may be questioned? Well, I decide what to question based on my own life. It's a concious decision.
Jesus never told anybody that a book would be the law and that there would be a pope that could decree this and that.
This doesn't mean that I do not respect the Catholic Church, in fact, as members, it is our duty to "change" mentalities whenever old dogmas keep holding the wheel. The church is alive, it's the joint faith of many. But we are all humans with big flaws and we surely did mistakes, and will again.

So, the most important question according to you has a simple answer: the Catholic Church is more than the Bible or the Vatican, it's the sum of all Catholics faith. People who think for themselves and chose to believe.

It's nice to see that despite my blatant efforts to shift the religious debate away from this thread that it's still alive and well. (roll)

I haven't said anything in this thread for some time, of course, but Khris specifically brought up something about how everything we have learned and are learning about the universe is that the physical (material) realm is all that exists (I don't particularly feel like going back to look for the exact quote).

I just wanted to comment how ironic it is that you use solely physical evidence to dismiss the proposed existence of a non-physical realm. If there are other planes of existence, wouldn't it be a prerequisite to that discovery that non-physical evidences be examined? What I'm driving at is that even if they could interact, a non-physical plane wouldn't exist in the material world (kind of by definition).

All other things aside, this is one of the most basic points that people like Khris use to support their one-sided, closed-minded arguments. They reject the existence of immaterial planes from the start (refusing to even consider the proposed evidence(s)), and without that assumption at least being labeled as "plausible", religion loses almost all of its potential merit.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 28/06/2013 02:58:58
All other things aside, this is one of the most basic points that people like Khris use to support their one-sided, closed-minded arguments. They reject the existence of immaterial planes from the start (refusing to even consider the proposed evidence(s)), and without that assumption at least being labeled as "plausible", religion loses almost all of its potential merit.

Please provide the proposed evidence.

Instead of my posting something that you've already decided is a fairy tale, let me just concede and say this:

No, you're right. Three dimensions are the most that could possibly exist. Human beings are the most complex lifeforms that could be rationally conceived, especially given the terrifically finite size of our sole universe outside of which nothing could possibly exist.

There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination.

Now Eric, let's not be mentally handicapped. There's no such thing as imagination. That's a story your parents [didn't make up] to scare you.

String theory is a good example of how few dimensions of existence could possibly exist. Which as everyone knows is only and exactly three, because believing in anything more than that is indicative of severe brain hemorrhaging.

QuoteThere's no such thing as imagination.

Just to clarify - you are being facetious, right?

Absolutely not.

I was just making a point. Same logic is same.

ahhh, right. My bad.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 28/06/2013 04:23:23
No, you're right. Three dimensions are the most that could possibly exist. Human beings are the most complex lifeforms that could be rationally conceived, especially given the terrifically finite size of our sole universe outside of which nothing could possibly exist.

String theory is a good example of how few dimensions of existence could possibly exist. Which as everyone knows is only and exactly three, because believing in anything more than that is indicative of severe brain hemorrhaging.

Please, dispense with your fake histrionics. It's not a good look for you. Let's wrap this up.

Let's say, yes, there is something beyond what we know.

There may be more than three dimensions, there may be particles that man does not currently see or understand, there may well be beings that are more powerful than we could ever conceive of. There may be countless things, lurking behind the curtain of our reality, invisible to our crude instruments and intangible to our senses. There may be gods and demons, there may be other planes of existence. There may be any number of laws of physics that we have not yet discovered.

But. (and here's where we bring this discussion screeching back to the original topic)

The existence or nonexistence of any of these has no bearing on morality. The possibility of every god, no god, or some gods existing remain roughly equal. Their reality is not diminished by whether or not they are popular, or whether their texts are pleasing morally. With this caveat in mind, that there may in fact, be (a) god(s), and it may not be yours, or indeed, anyone's, you come to realize something very, very important.

Once all gods can exist, none of them can.
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. This is an incredibly shallow reasoning - once you open up the possibility of the existence of a deity, you don't strengthen your evidence for your deity, be it Yahweh or Odin or Ra. You posit that there is something behind that curtain pulling the strings, and it is your god. But until that curtain is actually pulled, it may as well be anything. But I can tell you something in a heartbeat. It could just as likely be Yog-Sothoth, the Key and the Gate, behind those curtains, and not Yahweh, the All Benevolent.

What does this mean for our topic at hand? Well, it means that all morality as set out by all scripture has now no more divine power than the paper they are written on. We must choose, then, to follow the rules that result in the most amount of happiness to the most amount of people. These will, naturally, overlap with tenets set out by scripture, since the scriptures themselves aren't devoid of wisdom. Be nice to people, do not kill them, don't be wasteful. All good. 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.

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.

Even if a god existed that really hated gay people's happiness for some reason, the chances of that are so remote, so incredibly tiny, that following it out of fear of that god is worse than trying to have a job playing the lottery. It is so cosmically irrelevant, that basing your society's decisions on people spontaneously combusting is more likely to have an effect on your life. Basing your society on the chance that, at some point, someone will turn into a pig, is more likely to have an effect on your life. These chances, that a certain iteration of a certain god with a certain belief system exists and cares whether or not gay people get married, are so small as to be completely and utterly useless as a belief.

So believe in any god you want, they're all equally valid. Believe whatever you wish is behind that cosmic curtain. 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.

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

I like The Oatmeal's premonition
[imgzoom]http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/gay_marriage/gay_marriage.png[/imgzoom]

That Oatmeal! He sure makes being a cool smart, progressive, bacon loving internet Atheist something to be proud of. Not only that but he brings the lulz (and the trues!)

I only wish this comic had been done in the form of a 80000 pixel high info graphic sourced from wikipedia.

Quote from: Scavenger on Fri 28/06/2013 00:14:16Scale.

So what?
By saying it's scale, you're making my point for me. There's no more to theology than to arguing about fairy wings, only that it concerns more people.
So how again am I dogmatic and overly dismissive? How do I compare to homophobes, Snarky?

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 28/06/2013 02:58:58I haven't said anything in this thread for some time, of course, but Khris specifically brought up something about how everything we have learned and are learning about the universe is that the physical (material) realm is all that exists (I don't particularly feel like going back to look for the exact quote).

I just wanted to comment how ironic it is that you use solely physical evidence to dismiss the proposed existence of a non-physical realm. If there are other planes of existence, wouldn't it be a prerequisite to that discovery that non-physical evidences be examined? What I'm driving at is that even if they could interact, a non-physical plane wouldn't exist in the material world (kind of by definition).

For the sake of argument, let's assume a god exists. He's either interacting with our physical plane or he isn't. If he is, there should be evidence, yet there is none, or we would all be believers.* If there is a god, but he doesn't interact in any way with our physical plane; if everything he does is indistinguishable from non-existence, then this god, for all intents and purposes, does not exist.

* see next paragraph

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 28/06/2013 02:58:58All other things aside, this is one of the most basic points that people like Khris use to support their one-sided, closed-minded arguments. They reject the existence of immaterial planes from the start (refusing to even consider the proposed evidence(s)), and without that assumption at least being labeled as "plausible", religion loses almost all of its potential merit.

Congrats for bringing out this old horse. 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc). I'm simply going where the evidence leads.
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.

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?

Scavenger,
interesting read. To be able to put things in perspective while being polite and not arrogant is a gift and I think everybody here thanks you.

From my point of view, I'd like to bring some things up:

-considering that humans naturally search for things that are out of reach (beyond the 3rd Dimension),
-and assuming that the One God that is today accepted by the major religions is a result and a product of human faith through time in the divine,
-acknowledging the fact that only fundamentalists will take sacred scriptures literally and that Muslims and Catholics are able to respect themselves and also think about a faith that is beyond the scriptures,
-considering all this, in my opinion, humans will naturally conceive a deity as a being of knowledge, kindness and moral assertiveness.

If humans are since the beginning naturally inclined to accept the divine, if they share their existence with something they cannot see but "feel", then although with many mistakes and false starts, humans do conceive their God as a "good" God.
     

DELETED

How does somebody classifying homosexuality as a disorder relate to whether they're pro or anti gay marriage? And how does materialism come into play here?
What you're saying doesn't make any sense.
What's your point here? What do YOU think about this?

Quote from: Cyrus on Fri 28/06/2013 16:14:32
You know, the anti-gay attitude isn't always related to religion. Some researchers just see homosexuality as a genetic abnormality like polydactyly or Downs syndrome (since people were biologically intended to procreate, they believe same-sex attraction to be counter-evolutionary).

That might be true, but it's no grounds for a moral objection to homosexuality or gay marriage.

I'd be shocked to hear anyone objecting to gay marriage on those grounds who wasn't also religious. If you're against things which are counter-evolutionary, you really ought to object to condoms. Remind me, which group is it that usually objects to homosexuals and condoms?

Quote from: Cyrus on Fri 28/06/2013 16:14:32
You know, the anti-gay attitude isn't always related to religion. Some researchers just see homosexuality as a genetic abnormality like polydactyly or Downs syndrome (since people were biologically intended to procreate, they believe same-sex attraction to be counter-evolutionary). Therefore they insist on treating it with gene therapy or something like this. This is purely materialistic and has nothing to do with Christianity.

Are people with Downs syndrome prohibited from marrying?  No, they are not.  Therefore, this argument is invalid.

Also, I reject any statement that is based on the 'fact' that humans are intended to procreate.  Yes, it is our means of reproduction, but we are not mandated to reproduce.  We have a vast number of other useful functions.  I believe that each individual decides for themselves what they are 'intended' to do in life.

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.

That was a Twilight Zone joke, by the way.

Quote from: Scavenger on Fri 28/06/2013 05:38:15Once 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.

Quote from: Scavenger on Fri 28/06/2013 05:38:15Both 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.

Quote from: Scavenger on Fri 28/06/2013 05:38:15But 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.

Quote from: Scavenger on Fri 28/06/2013 05:38:15And 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.

Quote from: Scavenger on Fri 28/06/2013 05:38:15Even 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.

Quote from: Scavenger on Fri 28/06/2013 05:38:15So 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.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 28/06/2013 11:27:01If [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.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 28/06/2013 11:27:01I 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc). 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.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 28/06/2013 11:27:01Since 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.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 28/06/2013 11:27:01Tracy 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).

Quote from: dactylopus on Fri 28/06/2013 17:52:33monkey_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.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 28/06/2013 19:02:42
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.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 28/06/2013 19:02:42

Quote from: Scavenger on Fri 28/06/2013 05:38:15With 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Limited), the silverware company, began as a sex cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfectionist_movement).  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.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 28/06/2013 19:02:42
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.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 28/06/2013 19:02:42

Quote from: Khris on Fri 28/06/2013 11:27:01Since 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?

Quote from: dactylopus on Fri 28/06/2013 17:52:33monkey_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.

monkey:

QuoteSo 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.

QuotePeople 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.

QuoteI 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?

QuoteIt'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).

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 28/06/2013 19:02:42

Quote from: Scavenger on Fri 28/06/2013 05:38:15Once 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?

QuoteFirstly, 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.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 28/06/2013 19:02:42

Quote from: Scavenger on Fri 28/06/2013 05:38:15Once 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.

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.