Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Willfor]

I realize only one person, Hiiri, said something in such broad strokes about religion. However, I posted to show that there are people on the other side, who are being called either "fucking evil", or "fucking stupid". People who support this topic, and generally keep themselves abreast of what's going on in it.

I probably fall more toward the "fucking stupid" portion of the statement, for what it's worth.

I've been ninja'd maybe 6 times by this point, I need to start articulating my thoughts faster.

[Truean]

Nobody wants to respect the choice of those religions to perform ceremonies for gay couples, they do however, want to force those religions NOT do/perform gay weddings.

Since when does the state keep churches from performing a marriage cermony for homosexuals? It will not be a marriage in the eyes of the state, of course, but nothing is keeping the church from recognizing it as a marriage.

Um....

They try: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/04/02/mulling_way_to_stop_gay_weddings/

Then of course they won't let justices of the peace or mayors do it:
http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/2.5284/n-y-mayor-to-stop-gay-weddings-for-now-1.818039

http://www.365gay.com/news/prop-8-backers-argue-more-to-stop-gay-weddings/

Then of course internationally they really do it with force and gusto:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/02/12/idINIndia-46122820100212

I could post articles all day but... what's the point of getting married if people can say "O that's not real?" Seriously, you find the girl of your dreams and people are like, na, screw you.... Would you still get married....

[Vactor]

Lol, it shows, does it?

not only does it show, but it seems to cloud your reasoning.

If you were a pure athiest, you would realize that it dosen't matter if people worship a god that dosen't exist, nor does it matter if humans achieve greater technology, or live longer, as there is no celestial covenant for the human race, we're all photons moving away from the entropied universe in the end anyway.

You seem to be of the second camp of atheists, the bitter atheists, who by their active denial of god, and their campaign against religions lead me to the conclusion that they still have the structures of belief within them.  Why be so angry towards a god who dosen't exist, unless you believe that it does, and has wronged you.

[Phmcw]

I don't like religion, because I feel they try to scam me. "All you can eat buffet after you're dead, for a hefty price. What price? Well let me decide what's good and evil." (Religion refer for me to Mainstream Christian, Muslim and Jew religions, I never spoke to anyone else.)
I don't like astrologist and witch doctor either if it make you feel better.

I'm not even saying "whatever float your boat", that wouldn't be true.
But I'm damn well saying "you're free to do it anyway" and it's more than most religious people would say about atheism.
I'm not threatening you with warning of eternal torture either.

However, even if hatred is a byproduct of some religion, lumping all religion into being bigoted is pretty bigoted. They don't need to be bigoted to be wrong, however.

"good people can behace well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes incomplete knowledge"

Better quote than the original.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

convenient misinterpretations,

one doesn't have to misinterpret the bible to get really bad advice from it, there's Leviticus

we often belong to religions that don't have a problem with it, like (...) Buddhism

didn't buddhism have something against tatoos and piercings and general body modifications or something? i'd imagine this would get in the way of the T crowd in the GLBT

Is there a definite Buddhist authority that can tell if Buddhism is for or against something?

yeah, you're right. i must have read that associated with some speciffic branch of buddhism. but if we go that way, there are also branches and sects of all the abrahamic religions that don't have anything against gay people and gay marriage

[Virex]

Nobody wants to respect the choice of those religions to perform ceremonies for gay couples, they do however, want to force those religions NOT do/perform gay weddings.

Since when does the state keep churches from performing a marriage cermony for homosexuals? It will not be a marriage in the eyes of the state, of course, but nothing is keeping the church from recognizing it as a marriage.

Um....

They try: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/04/02/mulling_way_to_stop_gay_weddings/

Then of course they won't let justices of the peace or mayors do it:
http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/2.5284/n-y-mayor-to-stop-gay-weddings-for-now-1.818039

http://www.365gay.com/news/prop-8-backers-argue-more-to-stop-gay-weddings/

Then of course internationally they really do it with force and gusto:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/02/12/idINIndia-46122820100212

I could post articles all day but... what's the point of getting married if people can say "O that's not real?" Seriously, you find the girl of your dreams and people are like, na, screw you.... Would you still get married....

This reminds me that the opposite discussion is going on in the Netherlands. Instead of the state forbidding people from marrying gay couples, it forced religious officials to marry LGBT-people against the official's will. Currently there's a discussion going on about an exception clause which would give religious officials the ability to find a replacement official if they don't want to marry people. Just wondering what people's oppinion on that would be.

[Fenrir]

No. Just no. Get the law out of here and give it back to Godwin.

That law is irrelevant. You can not negate a valid example with “LOL OMG GODWIN!” Either Hilter was a valid example or not. If he is not, I would hope for an expanation of why he is not.

Um....

They try: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/04/02/mulling_way_to_stop_gay_weddings/

Then of course they won't let justices of the peace or mayors do it:
http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/2.5284/n-y-mayor-to-stop-gay-weddings-for-now-1.818039

http://www.365gay.com/news/prop-8-backers-argue-more-to-stop-gay-weddings/

Then of course internationally they really do it with force and gusto:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/02/12/idINIndia-46122820100212

I could post articles all day but... what's the point of getting married if people can say "O that's not real?" Seriously, you find the girl of your dreams and people are like, na, screw you.... Would you still get married....

I was referring to marriage as a function of a church, as such a notion has been around longer than the legal construct. I suppose that it is not really relevant, as it seems that is not what you meant.

[Virex]

No. Just no. Get the law out of here and give it back to Godwin.

That law is irrelevant. You can not negate a valid example with “LOL OMG GODWIN!” Either Hilter was a valid example or not. If he is not, I would hope for an expanation of why he is not.

Well for one, your example is just wrong, because Hitler was not all that interested in science and even mixed religion with occultism all the time.

[freeformschooler]

No. Just no. Get the law out of here and give it back to Godwin.

That law is irrelevant. You can not negate a valid example with “LOL OMG GODWIN!” Either Hilter was a valid example or not. If he is not, I would hope for an expanation of why he is not.

I'm not saying it's not a valid example, because I don't care care whether it is or not -- indeed, many Godwin's law scenarios probably contain very valid examples and comparisons. However, a comparison to Hitler, who was indeed quite evil, usually denotes a downhill turn in a discussion. And I like this discussion.

And sure, what Virex said.

[Strife26]

True Askot, but then there's also Jesus saying that the Old Laws are cast down .

Moreover, I contend for a lot of Christians, there isn't a unifying "this is what we believe," take the place I still consider to be my church, St Marks Lutherean, Fargo, ND. About the most tolerant place you'll find. If we disagree with the loose organization above us (like we did on gay marriage until very recently) we say fuck 'em (in much more polite terms). It's never been bad enough that we've had to break away, but if it was, it'd certainly happen. If I disagree with the pastor, we agree to disagree. Considering religion (all the way from religion to big religions, to christianits, to catholics, to a congregation) as a block is not accurate or all that useful.

"good people can behace well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes incomplete knowledge"

Better quote than the original.

I'm glad that it made sense. Not sure how well I've been doing that today.

Nobody wants to respect the choice of those religions to perform ceremonies for gay couples, they do however, want to force those religions NOT do/perform gay weddings.

Since when does the state keep churches from performing a marriage cermony for homosexuals? It will not be a marriage in the eyes of the state, of course, but nothing is keeping the church from recognizing it as a marriage.

Um....

They try: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/04/02/mulling_way_to_stop_gay_weddings/

Then of course they won't let justices of the peace or mayors do it:
http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/2.5284/n-y-mayor-to-stop-gay-weddings-for-now-1.818039

http://www.365gay.com/news/prop-8-backers-argue-more-to-stop-gay-weddings/

Then of course internationally they really do it with force and gusto:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/02/12/idINIndia-46122820100212

I could post articles all day but... what's the point of getting married if people can say "O that's not real?" Seriously, you find the girl of your dreams and people are like, na, screw you.... Would you still get married....

This reminds me that the opposite discussion is going on in the Netherlands. Instead of the state forbidding people from marrying gay couples, it forced religious officials to marry LGBT-people against the official's will. Currently there's a discussion going on about an exception clause which would give religious officials the ability to find a replacement official if they don't want to marry people. Just wondering what people's oppinion on that would be.

Very wrong morally, and clearly wrong legally in the US.

[Bauglir]

Kinda late, but about that bigotry as a choice tangent. I have to admit that I *do* feel kind of squicky about male homosexuality. To be fair, a lot of sexual acts, regardless of the genders involved, have a similar response, but for whatever reason the whole category of male homosexuality, even as simple as a kiss, makes me feel really uncomfortable. And hey, my own reaction of disgust DOES give me some rights. I mean, it gives me the right to not participate in a homosexual relationship. Actually, that's about it.

Because, really, that reaction is my failing. Not anybody else's. Nobody else needs to change to accommodate my flaws, and nobody, nobody, has the right to demand that another person bury himself (or herself; stupid English language) just because, "I'm offended". Sure, you've got a right not to be offended. That's fair. But that right is utterly and completely insignificant beside a person's right to be a person.

You've got two options; you can either change yourself so you're not offended anymore (which, to my shame, I've never yet been able to manage), or you can suck it up and accept that you're not the arbiter of all that is right and good in this world. I don't know what part of my background makes me dislike the concept, but it sure as hell wasn't Truean's fault, or Tyg13's, or any of the many, many other people who would be hurt if my instincts ran the world. So you know what, fuck those instincts. They're not helping anyone.

Might be a bit of a rant, but eh. I felt I needed to say it.

EDIT: HOLY SHIT GUYS, 21 NEW REPLIES. THERE'S GONNA BE LIKE 20 MORE BY THE TIME I'VE CAUGHT UP.

EDIT: Oh just one. Wow.

[Phmcw]

This reminds me that the opposite discussion is going on in the Netherlands. Instead of the state forbidding people from marrying gay couples, it forced religious officials to marry LGBT-people against the official's will. Currently there's a discussion going on about an exception clause which would give religious officials the ability to find a replacement official if they don't want to marry people. Just wondering what people's oppinion on that would be.

By "religious official" you mean mayor who didn't want to marry homosexual couple or priest who didn't want to marry homosexual couple.

In the first scenario it's only logical : the law tell you to marry them you'd better marry them or face the full penalty of law.
(Only using this turn of sentence because I dreamed to since I heard "the trial".)

[Fenrir]

Bauglir, I would not call your distaste for homosexuality a “failing” or a flaw. You are under no obligation to be otherwise.

There is plenty of stuff that I do not like, and I am not ashamed of it. I also do not abuse people because they do stuff that I do not like, because I value personal freedom above those things that I regard with distaste.

[Virex]

This reminds me that the opposite discussion is going on in the Netherlands. Instead of the state forbidding people from marrying gay couples, it forced religious officials to marry LGBT-people against the official's will. Currently there's a discussion going on about an exception clause which would give religious officials the ability to find a replacement official if they don't want to marry people. Just wondering what people's oppinion on that would be.

By "religious official" you mean mayor who didn't want to marry homosexual couple or priest who didn't want to marry homosexual couple.

Mayor, though in the Netherlands IIRC there are many more official people who can mary you, so it's not realy a problem to get a replacement.
Also the exception clause would be added to the law, so there would be no case of breaking the law (similar to how grave moral objects could be cited as a reason to disobey your boss)

[Hiiri]

If you make a habit of being anti-religion it's taking up the space in your mind that would occupy religious thought. If someone else likes the idea of a god, let them believe. If someone doesn't, then they don't have to believe. Hate someone for their actions not for their groups.

People will always believe in things.. which is fine by me. It's not like we can ever stop it, or should, because all ideas start out at similar level. But don't expect me to respect their beliefs, if they have nothing to back it up.

That quote is fucking wrong. Yes, the aplifyatory verbiage was needed. You can replace religion with all sorts of different words (for example, patriotism). About the only way I can see to make that quote accurate would be "good people can behace well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes incomplete knowledge"


Personal vendettas are wrong, if you're unable to see something as anything other than stupid, your not able to form a valid opinion any more.

Hm, true, the quote sounds better than it is. But just because I have a great issue with religion in general, doesn't mean I can't form a valid opinion on it, it just means I get carried away more easily than others. It might cloud my judgement from time to time, but it doesn't mean I can't listen to reason after calming down.

Lol, it shows, does it?

not only does it show, but it seems to cloud your reasoning.

If you were a pure athiest, you would realize that it dosen't matter if people worship a god that dosen't exist, nor does it matter if humans achieve greater technology, or live longer, as there is no celestial covenant for the human race, we're all photons moving away from the entropied universe in the end anyway.

It does matter. My subjective experience is all that matters to me (and everyone else for that matter). Whether I get free healthcare at a hospital or get sacrificed to a sun god at an altar, is a big difference. And influencing the little world around us is all we can do about it.

You seem to be of the second camp of atheists, the bitter atheists, who by their active denial of god, and their campaign against religions lead me to the conclusion that they still have the structures of belief within them.  Why be so angry towards a god who dosen't exist, unless you believe that it does, and has wronged you.

I'm not angry at an idea of a god. I get easily angry at people doing things or talking about something they have no reason to believe in in the first place, and expect us to respect it.