OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I'm quite aware I'm treading a thin line of racking off the believers here but you are consistantly ignoring and belittling MY beliefs. That's arrogant and rude of you. You can believe what you want, I don't care but you are attempting to impose your beliefs on others despite the fact they don't affect you in any way, so you bet I'll challenge you on that.

I am very, very sorry.

I'm trying hard not to do that, but typing doesn't always get tone-of-voice and other signs across, and emoticons don't do the job better (littering text with them just makes it look not-serious, imo) It's easier to have real, semantic misunderstandings, too.

What I was hoping to do with this thread was not parade my beliefs and say you should believe this too. Or else! I was hoping to show that it is possible to have a belief against g ay marriage which is self-consistent (hence all the [Christian PoV] tags) and, while not endorsing the lifestyle, isn't out to spread hate or persecution against g ay people. That's what I was hoping to convey.

(In the statement about your rights, I was just trying to address what I viewed as a flaw in your assessment.)

Again, I'm very sorry if I came off as rude or arrogant. I'll try to be more sensitive.

I'll say this again. Does anyone have any reasonable argument that does not involve 1) American constitution or 2) religion for not accepting g ay marriage as marriage rather than civil unions?

Because I don't think you do. You can't hang an agument on 1) because not everyone is from the US and you can't hang it on 2) because not everyone shares your belief.

I've mentioned a bit earlier that my only reason is based on my faith. If I didn't believe in God, I'd shrug my shoulders and say "Whatev. Let them do what they feel like."

Since I believe in God, and that he didn't intend sex for between men and other men, I shrug my shoulders and say "Well, I can explain my reasons to them, but I have no right to interfere if that's their choice. But let us not say that God puts his seal of approval on this."

That last sentence and it's relationship to marriage is what this is all about.

As we've seen, opinion on it is divided. Some people (religious and non-religious) view marriage as being in the domain of religion. Other people don't. I myself have no solid argument either way, not having done enough research. Nor am I simply here to cast my own opinion for one side, as if this were a poll that would determine the outcome.

Again, I'm just hoping to show that there are people who share my opinion who don't hate g ays at all, and wish them no ill.

Gabriel did bring up the adoption issue, which I believe to be valid, but I don't think that it could properly address your question about marriage, since people could just argue that many married couples don't have children anyways.

So, no, I don't think there is a reason against g ay marriage that is not based on belief in what God wants. I do, however, believe that this reason is valid and self-consistent, and that it does not (as LE elegantly puts it) swing it's fist into anyone's nose.

 

[sirpoopsalot]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Being attracted to men, or women may or may not be genetically determined.

There is increasing/mounting evidence that being g ay is indeed a natural state of being - not a state of mind. In other words, it most likely is genetic. One of LE's previous posts mentions some specific evidence about genetics... I also read a recent article about a study that noticed brain-sizes between left & right: hetro-women and g ay men were likely to have almost symetrical left.vs.right brains, and hetro-men and lesbian women were more likely to have relatively asymetrical left.vs.right brains. In other words, being a hetro-male, my left-brain is likely to be bigger in mass than my right-brain (or vice versa).

Whether the current evidence of genetics is "enough" for your (or society's) acceptance is another matter. Considering how little we know about soooo many things (in regards to the human body), I think this topic is hardly exceptional in that the evidence is 'incomplete'.

The brain remains (perhaps) the most complex natural structure that humanity has encountered, so it's unsurprising that we have so little definitive proof about how it works in detail. Likewise, there are the infinite factors of "environment" that have an unquantified effect on how people behave. And how 'genetics and environment' balance each other. And...

As with so many things that remain unknown about the human body, I don't feel there's definitive proof. Yet. Quite frankly, I'll be surprised if it's resolved in any of our lifetimes. However, I'll admit I'm more predisposed to believe whatever limited evidence there is in favour of genetics based upon scientific evidence, compared to "evidence" in favour of 'personal choice' based purely (from what I can see) upon social prejudice. If I was aware of scientific evidence that suggests it's 'personal choice' I might be consider otherwise, but, as far as I know, there's even less evidence for that opinion.


Also, you wrote: "Attraction and actions based on attraction are two different things." I believe that's basically what crazy_bear said when he said: "Peoples' lifestyle can be judged separately from their sexual orientation."

Have you ever read the bible crazy_bear? Care to show us how exactly the Bible is either contradictory or incorrect? I know this is a bit off topic from the original post, but that statement was only put in there to try to show in infallibility.

It is indeed offtopic. Let's stick to the main topic for now, but...

As far as my (very) limited knowledge is aware, there are several documented instances where the bible contradicts itself. I'd recommend a combination of google and a bible for anyone that would care to explore that for themselves (google to provide the specific instances, and the bible to confirm them - afterall, you definitely shouldn't trust what you read on the internet. But if you can read it for yourself in the bible, that should be enough evidence for you to evaluate if it's contradictory or not).

As for it being incorrect (or simply false), that probably can be googled too. The one example I'm aware of would be "the flood / Noah's ark"... how much evidence is there outside of the bible that it happened - versus how much evidence is there in other recorded history that it didn't happen as described in the bible? Again, my knowledge is very limited, but I'm pretty sure there is virtually bup-kiss to support the bible on this, while there is scientific evidence to support that it simply didn't happen (in the manner described in the bible).

 

[water_moon]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

You can also get divorced to break your marital commitment.

I can't. By the laws of my church I can not re-marry within the Church without an annulment, which states in part, that the marriage never existed. Period. Stop. End of Story. Any childern from an annuled marriage are considered born out of wedlock. Why do you think Henry VIII had such a hard time trying to get a SECOND annulment??

And having attended a University that required US Pol Sci to gradute I can attest that the founding fathers were more than worried about the majority.
The KNEW the average Joe "needed guidence" (read: a self centered idiot) that's why we have the Electorial college, why the house in congress with the most power was appointed, "by wise statesmen". It wasn't until the 17th amendment less than 100 years ago in the wake of The World War that senators became directly elected. And we still don't elect the President of these United States, we vote for some one who has said they will vote for who we want as President.

The majorty can not be trusted.

A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. -Federalist No. 10

 

[Cygnus]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

As for it being incorrect (or simply false), that probably can be googled too. The one example I'm aware of would be "the flood / Noah's ark"... how much evidence is there outside of the bible that it happened - versus how much evidence is there in other recorded history that it didn't happen as described in the bible? Again, my knowledge is very limited, but I'm pretty sure there is virtually bup-kiss to support the bible on this, while there is scientific evidence to support that it simply didn't happen (in the manner described in the bible).

The problem with the bible is that a good part of it is in part truth, greatly embellished (and I speak this as a non-Christian)

I once saw a documentary that claimed some evidence of a large flood in the Middle East not all that long ago. Here's an article claiming the same.

Of course, the literalists grasp something like this and brand it irrefutable evidence of uncompromised truth in the holy book.

 

[stephan]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

There are many, many posts in this thread now whose basic message, distilled down, is man, religious people are idiots. How can you be so naive, and so uninformed on how the universe really works. I mean really, believing in God, that is just stupid.

I think you do injustice to most posters in this thread. I have seen this type of argument many times and it usually comes around when a Christian can't get any further then 'because it says so in the bible'. Apparently it has become fashionable to present yourself as Christian and cry foul when anyone criticizes your beliefs (under the banner of freedom of religion), but on the same time lack the scruples to force-feed your own believes on someone else (which is exactly what is happening here). If you cannot accept that not everybody sees the holy bible as the final word, do not say more. Pot, kettle, and so on.

I believe that with all the research I have seen, that it is fairly obvious that a child has the best environment with a mother and a father.

This statement is void unless you provide us with that research. It seems to me you are not forming your beliefs around observations, but are looking to justify a belief you already had (and would never give up anyway). Not that I would expect anyone here to change his or her opinion, but I just felt it needed to be said.

And this:

Did I suggest that there should be a law against homosexual couples raising children? No, I said that granting the same legal standing would make legal requirements about adoption. It would take away the ability to use lifestyle as a deciding factor in adoption processes.

is pertinently false. Inclusion of *one more* 'lifestyle' (I don't like the word) does not mean the impossibility of excluding others. Slippery slope reasoning is often invalid and this is just another case.

 

[skiffcz]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

This statement is void unless you provide us with that research.

We have two billion years of sexual reproduction, which was by this time proven to be superior to any other forms of genome propagation - recombination from two different sources (male and female chromosome set are different) is very cheap and effecient way of keeping genome healthy and unmutated. From this, it happens, that there is usually male and female present to raising the progeny, OR just female, or a group (colletive progeny raising like in packs of wolves etc.) I have not seen a homosexual pair raising offspring in nature, ever, and nature itself rarely do incompetent things. On the other hand, we have a different kind of society than, say, wolves or ants, so this is just a pointer to a possible argument against this form of family, not an argument istself.

BTW: I strongly advocate against proposing inconsistecies in Bible from one simple reason - it would be the same extreme as ultra-religious people taking Bible as the final word. It is just philosophy and ideas behind the book which matters, and those are almost always burried deeply under ages and ages if human errors made to the actual text. We should judge and comment those ideas and not the form istelf, otherwise its just a childish nitpicking

 

[bassen]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I think you (all) should see a few Disney movies TBH (if you havent seen them).

Lionking 2
Pochahontas

After watching those, take out the abtract content and apply it on the discussion.

Or read Norbert Elias - Established and outsiders. Even there take out the abstract content so you can apply it in your discussion.

Just to give you (all) a descent reality check

and after again:
Think in which group do you belong to and then analyze yourself (be critical).

Once again this is NOT OT

 

[Grisu]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I know that I will probably regret this. But, I am continually bothered by how sanctimonious some people get when they snidely point out how intolerant and judgemental religious people are. Irony anyone?

stephan already named it: here you're turning things upside down. Granted, it is your right to believe, that same-sex relationships are immoral and against God's words, but don't say you're being discriminated when people say, that this view is discriminating. What you're trying to suggest is, that non-Christians or pro-same-sex-relationship-people discriminate you because of your religious views. That's wrong, it is because of a discriminating view, not because of your religion. You can't lock away somebody for years, thus taking their freedom, and then proclaim discrimination against you when it is discvoered and you're put into prison. (Note: you is not meant to mean you, Gabriel74, but people raising this point in genereal).

Have you ever read the bible crazy_bear? Care to show us how exactly the Bible is either contradictory or incorrect? I know this is a bit off topic from the original post, but that statement was only put in there to try to show in infallibility.

I have to side with jrlafrance on this topic, since most contradicitions - IIRC - are found either in the OT or between the old and new testament. Like Luther, the famous reformer of the church, put it (attention: own translation following from 500 year old German to English )
"Moses is given only to the Jewish people and doesn't concern us Gentiles and Christians."
So criticism on the bible should be based on the NT, since it kind of "out-dated" the OT for Christians.

Concerning the adoption I have to add, that I would have concerns about same sex couples adopting children, too. They do indeed need the best environment, and apparently same sex relationships don't offer this kind of "best environment" since they're still being viewed as offending and eyed suspiciously. Because g ay couples are still being discriminated they can't offer the best environment, but it isn't in their hands to change that, but in the hands of those voicing suspicion and criticism.

EDIT: Again, I'm not trying to say that Christians or believers in general are stupid. I think belief plays an important role in everyday life and everyone has to seek and reach out for what is best for them (concerning belief, I mean). But I don't like it at all, when arguments based on belief alone are imposed on other people and have impact on their lives. It is every individual's right to believe what they want, but don't expect others to live according to your believes.

 

[Lady bug]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

To me a modern marriage is mostly a legal ting. The religious part are mostly a result of cultural traditions. I am born i a cultral christian country, so I "bonded" with my partner in the common practised way, witch were a marriage in a church. Had the church ritual been strictly for true believers, I guess I would have been married at the courthouse.

I dont know how it is other places, but here things get messy if your partner dies and you are not married. The rules of inheritance have been changed to make it easyer if ppl have lived together for years, but still things like pension, houseownership and so on can be troublesome, if the diseased ones family puts up a fight, and the couple werent married. I guess homosexual coupples wants to secure therir partners as well as hererosexuals does.

But there are ofcause also the romantic aspect of a marriage. I you love your partner and you like to marry, then why shouldent you be able to do so, though wether or not it's going to be in a church I think must be up to the congregation of the religion/church in question.

As for children, there were in 2000 or 2001 (or around that time) a large sweedish research, that stated that children raised by homosexual parents did not suffer or turned out any different than children raised by hererosexual parents.

For the argument about ofsprings in nature raised by oposite gender or females, that would imply that children could be raised by female couples but not male ones, witch I think would fall under most discrimination laws.

 

[crazy_bear]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

And I would argue that traditional marriage is protected by the dictionary.

So this really is just about the word, and not the fact of same sex marriage?
Incidentally homosexual marriage was explicitly included in the definition you linked.

Being attracted to men, or women is genetically determined. Who one sleeps with is part of one's lifestyle. Attraction and actions based on attraction are two different things.

That is like saying inability to be celibate before marriage is genetically determined.

Changed for accuracy. I wanted to include a link to an article I read recently, but couldn't find it again. Essentially it said that while a "*** gene" hadn't been found that an genetic region had been identified that was directly linked to sexual orentation.

Agreed that attraction and lifestyle are different. But this goes for hetero couples too. A person that sleeps around in hetero relations is a no better candidate for adoption than a homosexual that does the same.

regarding biblical inaccuracy/contradictions, I agree that spending much time on this is counterproductive, but I will mention the most important one for christians, and that is that the bible contradicts itself on the lineage of Joseph, and thus the descent of Jesus from David. (which in itself is contradictory because of immaculate conception, whereby Jesus is not descended from Joseph anyway).

 

[jjscud]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

But I don't like it at all, when arguments based on belief alone are imposed on other people and have impact on their lives. It is every individual's right to believe what they want, but don't expect others to live according to your believes.

I most certainly don't expect others to live according to my beliefs but I believe that a child had a right to a mother and a father who have made a commitment to work together to raise that child. Its not something you can argue against because its only what I believe.

Whatever institution it is that is designed to raise children must be, according to my beliefs, between a man and a woman. Currently that institution is marriage.

But there is the difference to me, I'm not remotely interested in what to guys are doing in their own house and I have no interest in forcing my beliefs on them. IMHO, God has already taken care of a lot of this, two men or two women, no matter how hard they try, can't make children all by themselves. I will disagree with anything else that removes children's right to a mother and a father.

 

[crazy_bear]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I most certainly don't expect others to live according to my beliefs but I believe that a child had a right to a mother and a father who have made a commitment to work together to raise that child. Its not something you can argue against because its only what I believe.

Whatever institution it is that is designed to raise children must be, according to my beliefs, between a man and a woman. Currently that institution is marriage.

But there is the difference to me, I'm not remotely interested in what to guys are doing in their own house and I have no interest in forcing my beliefs on them. IMHO, God has already taken care of a lot of this, two men or two women, no matter how hard they try, can't make children all by themselves. I will disagree with anything else that removes children's right to a mother and a father.

No-one can change your mind, nor am I trying to. Similarly, you won't convince anyone else to change their mind. The point is simply that in order to respect other people's beliefs you cannot create a law against their beliefs just because it contradicts yours.

 

[VoX Dei]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Adding my 2 cents to the jar (ie., my opinion).

What's moral behavior?

An innocent person is murdered. That's an immoral act on the part of the murderer as the victim was deprived of something that was entitled to (ie., his/her own life).

An homosexual cannot marry. That's not immoral. We are talking about 2 consenting adults here. Noboby was wronged. What's immoral here is feeling in the right to pass judgment on others and tell them how they should live their lives. Plain hypocrisy. That said, any religion/church should be entitled to choose wether or not marry homosexual couples. However, the right to a civil contract marriage type should not be denied to homosexuals.

Homosexual couples adopting children is a more delicate matter. We aren't just talking about adults here. It's highly unlikely that children are able to make a decision like this one on their own. The problem here is that no adult is qualified to make this choice for a child, because there are no known cases of adjusted/maladjusted adults that were raised by homosexual couples to base the decision on.

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I would now like to out myself as a worshipper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yes I know it's a religion that is often looked down upon by others, but regardless, I live my life according to the Meatball Manifesto which was written nearly 3000 years ago by a series of Pasta Prophets. The problem is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not like those who practice Christianity. Oh he doesn't necessarily mind that some people believe in Jesus, in fact he believes in loving the sinner, just not the sin. But he does not approve of the Christian lifestyle, and he believes that it is harmful to children to indoctrinate them into believing Christianity is okay. Because of this I am supporting a constitutional amendment that says that marriage should be defined as existing between two non-Christians, because I care about our children and want what's best for them. Don't get me wrong, I totally don't have anything against Christians myself, and I do not in any way look down on them as inferior or believe they are bad people. It's just that I believe that they are contributing to the downfall of society, that's all.

This ridiculous analogy brought to you by the letters F S M. Before anyone gets very very angry at me I'd just like to state for the record that I do not actually believe any of the things listed above, it was just meant as a thought exercise. I think that faith is an important part of human society for lots of reasons I won't get into here, though I also support skepticism of organized religion, again for reasons I won't get into. It's important to remember that criticism of religion can and should co-exist with freedom of religion. Freedom to believe and practice what you wish does not make you immune to having your beliefs challenged by individuals, though it does make you immune to persecution from the state. I think this is particularly important for Americans to remember because one of the reasons we exist as a nation is that early immigrants were driven by a desire to worship in their own fashion, free of persecution in Europe. The concept of separation of church and state is intended to protect religious people as much as it is intended to protect non-believers.

ETA: I should add that I think that calling Christians (or members of any other religion) stupid or ignorant or brainwashed is rude. It's not illegal, but it's not helpful, and I can understand why it makes people feel defensive. I don't think anyone here has done that, but I thought I should say it anyway.

 

[Gabriel74]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I think you do injustice to most posters in this thread. I have seen this type of argument many times and it usually comes around when a Christian can't get any further then 'because it says so in the bible'. Apparently it has become fashionable to present yourself as Christian and cry foul when anyone criticizes your beliefs (under the banner of freedom of religion), but on the same time lack the scruples to force-feed your own believes on someone else (which is exactly what is happening here). If you cannot accept that not everybody sees the holy bible as the final word, do not say more. Pot, kettle, and so on.


This statement is void unless you provide us with that research. It seems to me you are not forming your beliefs around observations, but are looking to justify a belief you already had (and would never give up anyway). Not that I would expect anyone here to change his or her opinion, but I just felt it needed to be said.

And this:

is pertinently false. Inclusion of *one more* 'lifestyle' (I don't like the word) does not mean the impossibility of excluding others. Slippery slope reasoning is often invalid and this is just another case.

You have either misunderstood my point, or are trying to argue something easier.

First, I never claimed all of the people who disagreed were discriminating. There are many posts in this thread that are condescending, and flippant about how naive someone must be to believe in a higher power. How science and reason would prove to the most simple mind that the Bible, and organized religion in general is a farce.

This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with my stances. Anyone here is more than welcome to disagree, what I take issue with is the condescending style in which some here have done it, clearly not all, but some. If I used the same tone to denounce their belief systems, or the stance that *** marriage is clearly protected by human rights, I would be banned for politically incorrect flaming. Its a double standard. But, to clarify, since for some reason you missed it the first time, I don't mean everyone here, most people here can disagree maturely, some feel the need to throw in barbs about the stupidity of believing in God. That, and only that, was what I had a problem with.

If I was doing some sort of research paper, rather than discussing this on the internet, perhaps I would feel some need to provide a bibliography of my sources. I do not. Nor could I even bring them all to my memory at this point in time. I have read the research, that is enough for me. And whether you think I am grasping at straws to back up my own preconceived notions or not, I frankly don't really care. I have reasons for my beliefs, both religious and secular, you can believe that or not. That is your choice. I have given everyone else here the benefit of their sources or their beliefs, I just disagree with some of them.

I made no slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument would be: if we allow this, then what is next, sibling marriage, aunt nephew marriage,etc.?

I didn't make that argument. My argument was, if *** marriage is legally recognized, then there will be (not may be as in slippery slope), but will be legal protections when it comes to adoption rules. I do not want that, I disagree with it, so I would vote against it. No slope.

 

[lionheartthebrave]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Homosexual couples adopting children is a more delicate matter

Why? The last time I checked the US has a lot of children waiting to be adopted into a loving home, why should it matter what gender the parents are, as long as they want the child? (surely it's better than an orphanage?)

It seems that religion seems to be used as a cover for some people for their homophobic beliefs (here's an example of what I'm thinking of)

@Caly: it is the hovering Spaghetti monster! Die heathen!

 

[Gabriel74]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I would now like to out myself as a worshipper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yes I know it's a religion that is often looked down upon by others, but regardless, I live my life according to the Meatball Manifesto which was written nearly 3000 years ago by a series of Pasta Prophets. The problem is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not like those who practice Christianity. Oh he doesn't necessarily mind that some people believe in Jesus, in fact he believes in loving the sinner, just not the sin. But he does not approve of the Christian lifestyle, and he believes that it is harmful to children to indoctrinate them into believing Christianity is okay. Because of this I am supporting a constitutional amendment that says that marriage should be defined as existing between two non-Christians, because I care about our children and want what's best for them. Don't get me wrong, I totally don't have anything against Christians myself, and I do not in any way look down on them as inferior or believe they are bad people. It's just that I believe that they are contributing to the downfall of society, that's all.

This ridiculous analogy brought to you by the letters F S M. Before anyone gets very very angry at me I'd just like to state for the record that I do not actually believe any of the things listed above, it was just meant as a thought exercise. I think that faith is an important part of human society for lots of reasons I won't get into here, though I also support skepticism of organized religion, again for reasons I won't get into. It's important to remember that criticism of religion can and should co-exist with freedom of religion. Freedom to believe and practice what you wish does not make you immune to having your beliefs challenged by individuals, though it does make you immune to persecution from the state. I think this is particularly important for Americans to remember because one of the reasons we exist as a nation is that early immigrants were driven by a desire to worship in their own fashion, free of persecution in Europe. The concept of separation of church and state is intended to protect religious people as much as it is intended to protect non-believers.

ETA: I should add that I think that calling Christians (or members of any other religion) stupid or ignorant or brainwashed is rude. It's not illegal, but it's not helpful, and I can understand why it makes people feel defensive. I don't think anyone here has done that, but I thought I should say it anyway.

Problem is Caly, when people make their comparisons like you do here between people who believe in the Bible, or other religious texts, and your flying spaghetti monster, you are patently calling them idiots, and mocking, not just their beliefs, but the fact they would even believe as misguided and naive.

You may not say the words stupid or idiot, but everyone gets your meaning. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my beliefs, or even finding them unbelievable personally, its the level of disrespect that brings about condescending mocking that I take issue with.

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Problem is Caly, when people make their comparisons like you do here between people who believe in the Bible, or other religious texts, and your flying spaghetti monster, you are patently calling them idiots, and mocking, not just their beliefs, but the fact they would even believe as misguided and naive.

You may not say the words stupid or idiot, but everyone gets your meaning. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my beliefs, or even finding them unbelievable personally, its the level of disrespect that brings about condescending mocking that I take issue with.

I apologize if that's how it came across. It's not that I think that believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is equivalent to believing in Jesus; quite frankly if I met someone who believes in the FSM I probably would think they were a bit :crazy:. Christianity, in comparison, is an established religion with a long historical tradition, and while I am not Christian myself I don't think that those who are are stupid for believing in it. I just used the FSM example to show that, really, my religious beliefs (whatever they are) should not trump anyone else's right to live as they will. I could have just said "I'm Wiccan" or whatever and made the same point, but I was also trying to inject a bit of levity into a serious thread

 

[crazy_bear]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Problem is Caly, when people make their comparisons like you do here between people who believe in the Bible, or other religious texts, and your flying spaghetti monster, you are patently calling them idiots, and mocking, not just their beliefs, but the fact they would even believe as misguided and naive.

You may not say the words stupid or idiot, but everyone gets your meaning. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my beliefs, or even finding them unbelievable personally, its the level of disrespect that brings about condescending mocking that I take issue with.

What you say is true Gabriel, but can you see the problem for non-believers? How can a non-believer ask a believer to question their belief honestly, or to justify their own belief without being condescending when the very question comes across as condescending? This is why it hasn't been allowable to question belief in polite company for so long. The FSM was created as an analogy specifically to ask believers to truly think deeply on their faith and explain how their beliefs are more valid than the FSM.

Unfortunately this is way OT in an OT thread.... maybe another thread?

 

[stephan]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with my stances. Anyone here is more than welcome to disagree, what I take issue with is the condescending style in which some here have done it, clearly not all, but some.

The only thing that's condescending here is some Christians telling other people how they should live their lives and what they can and cannot do.

Its a double standard. But, to clarify, since for some reason you missed it the first time, I don't mean everyone here, most people here can disagree maturely, some feel the need to throw in barbs about the stupidity of believing in God. That, and only that, was what I had a problem with.

In your previous post you used a rather different wording.

For the record, I consider the literal correctness of the Bible rather uninteresting. People who try to (dis)prove things like Noah's flood have rather missed the point. I do not think all Christians are idiots. If you want to be a Christian then that is a choice you have hopefully made thoughtfully sometime in your life. The only thing I take issue with is forcing believes on people who have thoughtfully come to another choice than you.

I didn't make that argument. My argument was, if *** marriage is legally recognized, then there will be (not may be as in slippery slope), but will be legal protections when it comes to adoption rules. I do not want that, I disagree with it, so I would vote against it. No slope.

You argument was

No, I said that granting the same legal standing would make legal requirements about adoption. It would take away the ability to use lifestyle as a deciding factor in adoption processes.

So you are either arguing that there are only two lifestyles (hetero and g ay) or you are making a slippery slope argument. That people are allowed to adopt does not (or should necessarily) give them the right to adopt. I hope there are more considerations to make than sexual preference when it comes to adoption. The idea that a hetero sexual couple is better in raising a child than a homosexual couple is in my opinion completely unsubstantiated and therefor unjust.