Does opposing gay marriage make you an asshole?

[Trapezoid]

Why 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.

[monkey0506]

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.

[Khris]

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?

[monkey0506]

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

[kaput]

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:

[embed=640,480]<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TkV-of_eN2w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
[/embed]

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

[Trapezoid]

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?

[kconan]

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.

[Ryan Timothy B]

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.

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.

[Cyrus]

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.

[Andail]

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!

[Khris]

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.

[miguel]

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?

[Lewis]

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.

[geork]

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

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.

[Stupot]

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

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.

[Eric]

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.

[Atelier]

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).

[wisnoskij]

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.

[wisnoskij]

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.