Does opposing gay marriage make you an asshole?

[dactylopus]

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

[miguel]

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.

[monkey0506]

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.

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.

[dactylopus]

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.

[monkey0506]

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.

[Eric]

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.

[monkey0506]

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.

[kaput]

There's no such thing as imagination.

Just to clarify - you are being facetious, right?

[monkey0506]

Absolutely not.

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

[kaput]

ahhh, right. My bad.

[Scavenger]

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.

[ZapZap]

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

[Krazy]

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.

[Khris]

Scale.

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?

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).

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

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.

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. 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?

[miguel]

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.
     

[Cyrus]

DELETED

[Khris]

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?

[Ali]

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?

[dactylopus]

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.

[Eric]

That was a Twilight Zone joke, by the way.