And now there’s the stories that some people are lobbying for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
Putting aside that, as a general rule, amendments best serve the commonweal when they *expand* the rights of the people rather than restrict them, wouldn’t such an amendment put the final lie to the notion that we have separation of church and state in this country? After all, marriage, that bwessed awangement, that dweam wiffin a dweam, is a religious ceremony. An amendment that attempts to define what marriage is (a union between male and female only) is, by definition, an amendment that is curtailing religious freedom.
I mean, once the precedent is set, why stop there? Why not introduce an amendment that says, “Marriage is a union between male and female that will only be recognized by the government if it’s done as a sacrament from our lord, Jesus Christ.” Is it likely? No. But once the government is allowed to dictate the specifics of the religious ceremony in any aspect, they can dictate it in every aspect.
PAD
• 
Novi and Ries, if you think you’re getting anywhere by insulting even PAD’s God, think again. You’re already a laughing stock in your own way, and I think it’s past your bedtime. And make sure that the door doesn’t hit you in the ášš on the way out.
Please, if you can find proof that I never said I don’t believe in a god, quote me.
I have said I am not a religious man, but I have never said that a god may not exist. I don’t clame to have all the answers, unlike yourself.
And, also, unlike you, I am actually backing up my statements with facts, not underhanded comments that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
I am insulting PAD’s god? Please. Even PAD has said in this thread that he would have things to answer for for all the suffering in the world.
Remember, Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same god, just in different ways.
Past my bedtime? What a mature individual you are showing yourself to be.
Perhaps you should turn to your religion for guidance in how you *should* be conducting your life, rather than how you are on this forum.
Perhaps it’s you that should leave, Avi.
Luigi Novi: All behavior originates in the brain, and is therefore, by definition, natural.
Chris:
So, why do we try to treat things like Tourett’s syndrome, Autism, Kluver Busey Syndrome,etc?
Because people who have those conditions have difficulty functioning. If you’re autistic, you can’t respond to stimuli properly. If you’ve got Tourette’s, people around you need to know so that they don’t just think you’re being rude.
I agree that “natural” does not automatically mean “good.” However, that wasn’t really Luigi’s point — you and others have been saying that homosexuality has no natural basis, and he refuted that by bringing up several examples from nature.
No, that doesn’t mean homosexuality is good per se — but it means you’re gonna have to work a bit harder to come up with arguments to support your arguments against same-sex marriage. That’s all.
(And by the way, by equating homosexuality with the conditions you described above … does that mean you think people with Tourette’s shouldn’t marry either? Hmm.)
I will say this: Homosexuality is not genetic & it is not a choice.
That pretty much leaves option 3: you believe it’s an illness. That’s your call to make, but I think you’ll find the AMA decided against that assessment several decades ago. Doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong — but again, it means you’re definitely fighting an uphill battle.
TWL
Interesting stuff. There’s an amazing lack of understanding of Christianity in these pages. Some really good points made from both sides, some really bad points made from both sides.
All that to say this: I honestly don’t see how fluid morality can be True. Morality MUST come from a higher construct, outside man, ultimately, or it is Might makes Right. Had the Nazis taken over the world, they would still be wrong.
Nor does it mean that atheists who live moral lives are not moral. If I make an umbrella, it will keep you dry if you use it correctly, whether you believe I made it or not. Spiritual laws are as binding as physical laws, but they may not be as immediately evident.
I was thinking last night that Freedom is a necessary thing; yet people are at their core evil beings, so freedom will always denegrate to something immoral (hence the need for laws). YET, if we lived even in a perfect theocracy where we were forced to live “right” then we would still be evil at the core and never be able to discover it (freedom will often eventually show the evil heart of us all if we have eyes to see it).
Ultimately, God wants our hearts, not our behavior. A changed heart produces the right behavior.
Aside: Jeremy, it wouldn’t effect me at all, but it might effect you. As such, carry on and be happy. That’s all I can offer (or restrict).
Peace and a good year to all.
Bladestar wrote: Sorry Discord, but I see the school of “modern Christian thought” everyday. “Gays are evil!” “Gambling is evil! (but don’t forget Bingo this Monday!)” “God is on our side.”
I typically stay out of these things, because I’m always afraid of misrepresenting my faith (as a flawed human being, I don’t believe I’m capable of perfectly representing the truth of Christianity), but I have to speak up here.
I see the school of athiestic thought every day. In fact, it can be seen in an earlier post (though exaggerated to a nonsensical extreme) in which people are killed for saying they would be willing to share their beliefs.
The actions of a few individuals who say they’re acting according to the teachings of don’t necessarily provide the best indication of the TRUE teachings of . This is true for any philosophy or religion, I think.
Bladestar writes: Christians: Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Protestants, All the various off-shoots of the Catholic tree, etc etc etc
They all claim to be “Christians” but have different beliefs.
Sorry Discord, but I see the school of “modern Christian thought” everyday. “Gays are evil!” “Gambling is evil! (but don’t forget Bingo this Monday!)” “God is on our side.” etc etc etc.
Thank you for making my point for me. In a single post, you have both noted that different Christians have different beliefs, but have simultaneously made generalizations about what awful, closed-minded opinions all Christians hold.
If I (or anyone else) were to come here and call all gays promiscuous, or all blacks stupid, or all Jews greedy and devious, the other posters would jump my sh** immediately and severely, and rightfully so. It’s fun and fashionable, on the other hand, to attack Christians — so why bother to acknowledge that many of us are open-minded, sensible people, just trying to live our lives in a way that doesn’t hurt anyone else?
According to your logic, I’d better get busy. I’ve never gay-bashed, I voted for the lottery, I don’t condemn people of other religions — heck, I’m not even convinced that Mary was a virgin, or really needed to be to give birth to Jesus — I’d better change my ways before the church kicks me out.
All I’m trying to get across is that to me, and to most Christians (although maybe I’m naive about that, but I don’t think so), our religion is about tolerance and treating other people well. Sure, there are bad apples, but there are some pretty obnoxious athiests out there as well. It may be more convenient to make assumptions, but it doesn’t help people of differing opinions to co-exist peacefully.
Avi pathetically mewed: “And make sure that the door doesn’t hit you in the ášš on the way out. “
Why, where are we going?
or all Jews greedy and devious
Yeah, but for some reason it appears to be true that all Jews have great potential with regards to comedy.
I mean, it wasn’t until I came to PAD’s website here to find out he’s a Jew, and it makes perfect sense with how wonderfully funny his writing is. 🙂
Discord vomited: “It may be more convenient to make assumptions, but it doesn’t help people of differing opinions to co-exist peacefully. “
THen you and your christians need to stop trying to FORCE YOUR BELIEFS DOWN OUR THROATS through the law.
My belief is simple, leave others alone, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.
I say, go ahead and do it, but mind others.
Your ilk says “NO! You can’t do it!”
How does two consenting adults (m/f, m/m, f/f) having sex in whatever kinky way they want in private hurting you or anyone else?
It doesn’t. Quit sticking your effing noses into others people’s lives where they don’t belong, and stay the hëll out of my goverment, you have NO RIGHT to try enforce you’re foolish religious beliefs on everyone else via the law.
THAT’S why I have nothing but contempt for you people, you don’t know how to mind your own business, so we have to rise up and oppose you evil oppression at all times…
Rob says…
All that to say this: I honestly don’t see how fluid morality can be True. Morality MUST come from a higher construct, outside man, ultimately, or it is Might makes Right. Had the Nazis taken over the world, they would still be wrong.
Well, I’m certainly not disagreeing with your last sentence — but I think I have to take issue with your initial point.
Why is “Might Makes Right” the only possible morality that humanity can generate internally? Why must any “proper” morality be imposed from without? That seems an extremely paternalistic viewpoint to me, not to mention one that’s pretty condemning of humanity’s basic value.
You’re saying it’s impossible that one particular human or group thereof can decide that “Might Makes Right” isn’t the best way to live one’s life and act accordingly. I find that difficult to swallow.
Nor does it mean that atheists who live moral lives are not moral. If I make an umbrella, it will keep you dry if you use it correctly, whether you believe I made it or not.
Yes — but Rob, the physical capabilities of an umbrella can be empirically tested and reproduced. You’re right that I don’t need to believe you made an umbrella in order to use it to stay dry — but if I keep getting damp despite your claims that the umbrella’s there, I’m not going to be very likely to buy in.
I’m afraid that your claim —
Spiritual laws are as binding as physical laws, but they may not be as immediately evident.
— isn’t one I really see any empirical evidence for. If you can give me an example of a spiritual law that’s binding, I’m interested to see it — but I’m betting that any such law you come up with is something some other faith will break somewhere.
TWL
I was thinking last night that Freedom is a necessary thing; yet people are at their core evil beings,
What a disgusting and untrue opinion. People are not at core evil. That’s Christian clap-trap tied into all that Original Sin šhìŧ that I’m ashamed to have ever bought into. People are not naturally evil. If they were, then all children would be evil — since children have no fully formed sense of morality, were man’s natural disposition evil they would have no counterweight, and would all be murderous little monsters. I, personally, don’t particularly enjoy being around children, but only because they’re poor conversationalists and loud, not because they’re evil.
It takes a mature mind to create evil.
People are, at core, a moral blank slate — amoral, not immoral. However, by the time of adulthood, most of us have encountered, assembled or accepted a system of morality, which may or may not be religious in nature. One need not be religious to be moral, nor need look to a god or gods to determine the morality of various acts.
In fact, given the pre-modern milieu in which all of our religious texts were written, with the requisite misunderstandings or outright hatred of people who are different, science, women, homosexuals, comparative thought and the like, I’d say that those who are not religious can more easily assemble a system of morality that is both rational and coherent in a modern sense.
You don’t need a god to tell you that murdering and stealing are wrong. However, believing in a god may lead you to do terrible, evil, hateful things, like condemn homosexuals, harass other people to change their religions, vote for George Bush (kidding about that last one, but kidding on the square).
Freedom isn’t just a necessary thing, it is the greatest thing. Liberty of conscience and life is more valuable than all the blitherings in all the Bibles of all the nations of the world. Liberty is mankind’s greatest achievement, our philosophical climax, for it represents our first step out of the shadowy world of gods and monsters and into a realm of rationalism, egalitarianism and modernity. Freedom is good, and it is the construct of the human mind; for people, too, are at their basest level, basically good.
I would like to make a simple point. All our laws are based on our opinions. All our religious beliefs are based on our faith, including the athiestic belief system.
The reality is, we are only guessing as to what the higher being(s) of our faith systems want from us. I believe that all faith systems that are based on a higher being are worshipping the same being, just in different ways (i.e., monotheism and polytheism are different views of the same “thing”). But that’s just my opinion.
I believe that we all should just accept the fact that we are talking about opinions until a higher being appears and informs us what is good versus evil, OK versus not, etc., etc., etc. We have religious documentation that says this has happened, but it’s been, what, over 2000 years since the last SUPPOSED appearance of a higher power? We have no irrefutable proof of any direction from a higher being beyond religious documents and faith.
I have faith based in Reform Judiasm and my own opinions.
We have scientific evidence that leads us to believe one thing or another. But can we really know? We can’t analyze all human beings that ever existed for all behavior. So. we take, hopefully, random samples and make estimates to form our OPINIONS on what is natural and what is not.
As to the various positions on what behaviors are “appropriate” or “natural” or whatever label we choose, once again these labels are based on opinions. the majority of humans WE STUDY do or do not do this, therefore we intrepret certain behaviors as correct or incorrect or some shade of gray in between the black and white views.
The legal aspect of this BLOG is, as several have stated, a civil and not a religious matter–in my opinion. Civil matters, like religious ones, are all based in opinion and what scientific evidence we can derive. Then again, that evidence is INTERPRETED. There is no proof that same-sex marriage is natural, acceptable to a higher being, or a civil right. It is just an opinion that I share. I support same-sex marriage because in my experience and opinion it is a good thing.
PHEW!
would like to make a simple point. All our laws are based on our opinions. All our religious beliefs are based on our faith, including the athiestic belief system.
Huh? Athiesim is based on faith. I don’t think so. Athiest look around the world, see no evidence of a higher being and go about thier lives believing what they can see and experience and prove. That’s not faith, that’s mearly responding to and reacting to the world around you. Religious folks look around the world, decide that there must be a higher being, even though that can’t prove it and have no real evidence of it. That’s faith, responding to and reacting to something you really can’t prove but you know or believe must be there. See the difference. If the Lord spoke from the heavens in a voice loud enought for everyone on the planet to hear most atheist would shrug and go, “What do you know, there is a God after all”, and change thier belief system according to the new information provided. In short they would respond to the world around them. OTOH if science tommorrow proves that God does not exist most religious folks would dismiss the information and go on believing what they already believe because that’s thier faith. Responding not to the world around them but to something they believe, that they not only can’t prove but even contridicts what they can prove. (Don’t believe me, look at the arguments over evolution, check a history book about those persucuted for daring to suggest that the earth was not the center of the universe, religion has a long history of dismissing information that conflicts with it’s own teachings).
We have scientific evidence that leads us to believe one thing or another.
If we have scientific evidence then yes we can. Science is fact and by it’s very nature self correcting, (when scientist make a mistake it’s fixed when new information is presented that contridicts the previous theory, that’s the great thing about the scientific method). If we have scientific evidence to believe one way then 9 times out of 10 that’s the correct way to believe, (and if it’s not the scientific method will correct it in time).
Luigi Novi: All behavior originates in the brain, and is therefore, by definition, natural.
Chris: So, why do we try to treat things like Tourett’s syndrome, Autism, Kluver Busey Syndrome,etc? Because, we know that people affected with such conditions are not functioning optimally. They may be born that way, but no one says, “There’s nothing wrong here”.
Luigi Novi: Those things are diseases. Homosexuality is not. A disease impedes biological function. Homosexuality does not. The American Medical Association stopped classifying homosexuality as a disease decades ago, as did the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. You can’t simply arbitrarily “declare” something a disease because it offends your sociopolitical/emotional/moral sensibilities. It must be established to be one through the scientific method. Homosexuality hasn’t.
Chris: As far that Article you posted on whether homosexuality is choice or not, the article itself admits that studies done by Levay could be interpreted as not as a cause, but as a result of. The author of the article did a slight of hand, in his argument for homosexuality. Since the brain sends the commands to act out a compulsion therefore it is natural. End of story.
Luigi Novi: I never said it was the “end of the story.” What I did say is that studies into the subject are “ongoing” and “preliminary.” I also said that there were many examples of homosexual (and even transsexual) behavior in the animal kingdom.
Chris: Not so fast. Brain’s can malfunction..
Luigi Novi: But that doesn’t mean that a given brain does simply because the person engages in behavior that you don’t like. Feeling uncomfortable about homosexuality doesn’t mean that you can arbitrarily “declare” a person’s brain to be malfunctioning without scientifically establishing it, any more than you can arbitrarily declare an object in space to be the tenth planet, or some incoherent scribbling on a piece of paper to be a new proof of Fermat’s Theorem.
Chris: and besides that the author’s assumption of biological determinism is not without its faults. For example, some people argue that there is no Free Will, but that all our choices are determind by the chemcial arrangements in our brains and we are just carrying them out. Nice theory, except they spend so much time trying to get the rest of us to change our minds, that they betray their own theory. Because if there is no free will, why waste time telling people to think a certain way, or write books or articles on it?
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say there was no Free Will. What I said is that homosexuality appears to be inherent. Who you’re attracted to isn’t determined by Free Will. It’s determined by inborn sexual drives. Whether you act on your attraction is determined by Free Will.
Chris: I will say this: Homosexuality is not genetic & it is not a choice.
Luigi Novi: I don’t know if about it being genetic, but would I agree with you that it’s not a choice, as it does appear to be inherent. Assuming that you erred, and meant to say that it IS a choice, I would point out that such a statement is purely rhetorical, and made without any shred of scientific evidence, but merely because of your personal social/moral feelings over it. (Funny how you can criticize the opposite position for supposedly not having evidence to support it, but that doesn’t seem to stop you from stating the reverse.)
Avi Green: I find it amusing that a few of the posters here have more or less indicated that they’re athiests, in all their needless contempt, and it’s already enough to make me laugh. Novi and Ries…
Luigi Novi: I consider myself more of an agnostic, and I do so because there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of God. That has nothing to do with contempt. It is a statement of fact.
Avi Green: if you think you’re getting anywhere by insulting even PAD’s God, think again.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that I never insulted anyone (since you can’t insult someone who you don’t think exists, and my comments were about how I simply don’t model my life after the Bible), why are you again trying to make believe that my comments have anything to do with Peter? They’re not, and this notion of yours isn’t sticking, especially given the insults and other immature comments toward those who don’t share your beliefs that you yourself are doling out. Peter HIMSELF already stated that he himself is not very enamored of the God you’re talking about. Did you not read his comments when he said:
When I think of the travesties that have been committed in the name of God, the tortures, the murders…thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people, killed in the name of God. Has it occurred to you that the hijackers who flew airplanes into the Twin Towers drew their morality from what they belived THEIR God had to offer? Oh, but he was the wrong God, of course. Completely different from the God who urged Torquemada to annihilate the nonbelievers. But then, I’m sure no one was expecting a Spanish Inquisition. You better hope that morality doesn’t stem from God, because if it does, He has a buttload to answer for.
You’re obviously offended by some of the things said here, but instead of admitting simply that, you’re trying to say, “Hey, everyone, they’re insulting PETER!!” Sorry, but it’s not working Avi. This is a delusion that is purely your own invention, since it is obviously not supported by any of the things said on this blog by either myself or by Peter. Too bad you can’t read them.
Avi Green: You’re already a laughing stock in your own way, and I think it’s past your bedtime. And make sure that the door doesn’t hit you in the ášš on the way out.
Luigi Novi: My statements are based on logic and fact, and are internally consistent. Whether you are unwilling to admit this because it upsets your religious beliefs hardly means that others are laughing at me. You might also want to come up with a new closing comment, since you already used the “door in the ášš” comment, and it was hardly impressive even the first time around. This is a public discussion board, and no one is going to make any “grand exit” just because you seem to have declared yourself Peter’s best friend in your own mind, and think that we are bound to obey your little whims when you tell people not to post here.
James Lynch: Wow, this discussion has shifted from a discussion of the amendment banning gay marriage to attacks on/for religion. As this topic approaches 100+ messages, I’d say both sides should focus a little more on the amendment issue and a little less on who are religious zealots and who are godless heathens.
Avi Green: Thanks for weighing in, James. You’ve hit it right on the nail, but frankly, with the way that they go to all that trouble to identify themselves as athiests and non-believers, well…I can’t tell you how much I’m beginning to laugh at them. I sent a link to one of my colleagues at work, and he told me he fell off his chair with laughter. See, there comes a point when they become so silly, they only end up making themselves look more like clowns! Ha ha!
Luigi Novi: Funny, James didn’t say that. (You do have quite a bit of trouble reading, don’t you?) James made it clear that he is not interested at all in who is a “godless heathen” OR a “religious zealot,” yet you interpret his comment to be affirmation of your bigotry towards nontheists? Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit, Avi.
I also find it interesting that merely pointing out things are actually in the Bible is an “insult to your God,” but now you insult people merely for not sharing your religious beliefs. I guess hypocrisy must be part of your beliefs as well.
vocalyz: I would like to make a simple point. All our laws are based on our opinions. All our religious beliefs are based on our faith, including the athiestic belief system.
Luigi Novi: There is no “atheistic belief system.” Atheism is a lack of a belief. Not a belief that requires faith.
Luigi Novi: There is no “atheistic belief system.” Atheism is a lack of a belief. Not a belief that requires faith.
vocalyz: I disagree with that opinion. For example, one set of definitions for “atheism” is:
“1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.”
1a seems to me as saying, “I believe/have faith in that there is no G-d”, or, “I have faith in my denial of G-d’s existence”. 1b sounds like saying, “I have faith in the principle belief that there is no G-d.”
2 seems to say, ” I believe/have faith that not beleiveing in God is immoral behavior”.
My opinion is that Athiesm is a belief system–the belief that G-d does not exist or having faith in such a principle.
Oh, and Darren, you made my point for me. Sometimes what we take as scientific fact is incorrect or incomplete and must be corrected with knew knowledge. There are certain things about behavior that we can never know for sure. We must assume our research findings are interpreted accurately and are representative of the population at large. This is a reality of the scientific method that I must accept every day in my position with medical research.
Now, how does this apply to the issue at hand? I believe that the evidence to date SUPPORTS the legalization of same-sex marriage. Others may interpret the scientific evidence differently, and I repect their right to that opinion.
Ph, and please forgive my typo (“knew” instead of “new”), and any others that I didn’t catch.
Vocalyz offers definitions of atheism:
“1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.”
Okay so far, though I must say I’ve never seen #2 before.
1a seems to me as saying, “I believe/have faith in that there is no G-d”, or, “I have faith in my denial of G-d’s existence”. 1b sounds like saying, “I have faith in the principle belief that there is no G-d.”
“Sounds like” isn’t really the same as “is.” Yes, one can argue that atheism is akin to a religious belief, but in my experience most of the ones making that argument are believers who want to put atheists into a category they’re more comfortable with.
It’s just as easy to argue that atheists are just stubborn SOB’s who argue “I’m not going to believe in something I have no evidence for.”
Your argument above, though, is one of the reasons why a lot of people who’d probably otherwise call themselves atheists sometimes classify themselves as “hard” agnostics, as in “the jury’s still out either way, but I’m going with no until convinced otherwise.”
2 seems to say, ” I believe/have faith that not beleiveing in God is immoral behavior”.
Okay, this one I’m just going to completely toss out. If the definition given is “Godlessness; immorality”, that does not in ANY way mean that atheists profess the statement you quote just above. It means the dictionary writer considers “godlessness” as innately immoral.
Since we appear to be of similar minds on the same-sex marriage issue, this isn’t an especially big deal … but I felt a few corrections/comments were in order.
TWL
Excellent points Tim! I didn’t mean to imply that the G-dlessness thing was an atheistic belief. It’s just my interpretation of the definition. BTW, I got those definitions from dictionary.com. An interesting source.
Tim:
The argument is often made that it takes an act of faith for an atheist to state that there’s no God (there’s no way one could know for sure). Agnosticism is the more “rational” course because it is defined as “just not knowing one way or another.”
I’ve always described myself as an atheist, mostly because when I became one, I was essentially rejecting the judeo-Christian God and the concept of which always struck me as obviously absurd. However, as I’ve gotten older, I realize how big the universe is and how much we don’t know and well, who knows, maybe there is something… but then maybe there isn’t. When it comes to religious faith, it’s like falling in love. I don’t feel it, so I don’t have it.
However, I still say I’m an atheist when asked. I believe it’s because I live my life as if there’s no God, rather than in the middle.
I can go along with that, SER. A friend of mine cites herself as an agnostic when asked for just about the reasno you lay out in your first two paragraphs: the universe is so big that’s awfully hard to say you know for certain either way.
I can agree with that, but call myself an atheist for much the same reasons you do.
TWL
Vocalyz said:
I disagree with that opinion. For example, one set of definitions for “atheism” is:
“1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality
I didn’t mean to imply that the G-dlessness thing was an atheistic belief. It’s just my interpretation of the definition. BTW, I got those definitions from dictionary.com. An interesting source.
Well, that’s actually a very lousy definition. Even dictionaries make mistakes. A better place to look is http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm:
Here’s a bit from that page –
Most of the North American public defines an “Atheist” is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries — not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public’s word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they are probably in the minority. Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief.
Go ahead and read the whole page. It might help make things a little clearer. Defining Atheism is a tricky thing.
Having commented that this discussion was degenerating into personal attacks, I hate to start going after someone specifically. That said…
Avi Green wrote: “Thanks for weighing in, James. You’ve hit it right on the nail, but frankly, with the way that they go to all that trouble to identify themselves as athiests and non-believers, well…I can’t tell you how much I’m beginning to laugh at them. I sent a link to one of my colleagues at work, and he told me he fell off his chair with laughter. See, there comes a point when they become so silly, they only end up making themselves look more like clowns! Ha ha!”
Apart from the fact that I disagree with you Avi — read my original posts on why I’m against this amendment — I think you’re one of the worst people writing here. Apart from your assumption that the Bible is infalliable and “rights do not come from the government, but from God” (the idea that government was based on divine mandate ended centuries ago; and even theocracies only assume their rights come from a deity), your arguments veer into incoherence. For example:
“this isn’t your website, and you are in no position to tell anyone else here how to run their business.”
This is your response to someone who disagrees with you? Lots of people here disagree with each other, but they don’t cite website ownership or how they “run their business” as a reason they’re wrong.
Then there’s “You’ve been caught with your pants down insulting more than a few people here, and once again, you do so on a website that doesn’t even belong to you, with complete disregard for Mr. David and Mr. Hauman, respectively.”
Only PAD owns this website, and he doesn’t mind people disagreeing with him here. And I don’t think anyone has disregarded PAD or Mr. Hauman; they haven’t said so, and I don’t recall them ceding their ability to say so to you.
And finally, “you choose to make a fool out of yourself by just being snide and cynical, which is in complete contrast to what comic books like Superman and Spider-Man are all about, if we were to use those as examples.”
I think I abbreviate for all who read this when I say: WTF??? The discussion was about an amendment banning gay marriage (and frequently veered into religion vs. secularism in the government), and you think attitudes about comic books are involved? The next time you write a sentence that begins with you claiming someone is making a fool of themselves, you should make sure the rest of the sentence isn’t making you look like a bigger fool.
I had hoped not to write this, as others have refuted your comments so well, but you mentioned me by name. And I’d hate for anyone to think that because you agree with me, I agree with you. Try more focus to the issue, and coherence in your reasoning, when you write.
Jeremy wrote:
“i’m gay. i’ve been living with my boyfriend for 3 years. what harm would it do, to you personally or to the country as a whole, to let me marry him?”
It would not cause me “harm” in any way, but would lead me to think that society thought less of what it means to be married.
For eons, marriage, regardless of if it was a convenient way to pass on lands and wealth, or if it was something that God intended, has been between a man and a woman.
Why seek to change that? If you can “marry”, and have all the rights and responsibilities inherent to that (as you implied by saying a JP ceremony, like “normal” people), why seek to have the definition changed from what it has meant for longer than homosexuals have been grousing about insurance, inheritance, or adoptions?
Mr Lynch:
If homosexuality IS in fact a genetic trait, such as autism, then why NOT treat it as an illness? There are many cases of homosexuals “abandoning” their genetic calling, marrying a spouse of the opposite sex, and never going back to a gay lifestyle. If that does not indicate that there is some degree of choice involved, or that homosexuality is not something to be cured, then what does that indicate?
You also asked why I said that the issue affects only a small part of the population. I simply go by the numbers. In the most liberal polls conducted on the subject, 10% of the population says that they are gay. Yeah, when you look at the sheer number of people in the US, that is a large number, but it still is only 10%.
Saul:
Semantics. A men’s room does not need multiple men in it at one time in order to be used. If you really want to complain regarding the way something is defined, I suggest you contact the publishes, and take it up with them.
Someone posted:
“How does two consenting adults (m/f, m/m, f/f) having sex in whatever kinky way they want in private hurting you or anyone else?”
Now, if I am told that I must legally recognize what a minority of people are doing, how is that keeping things in the bedroom?
Luigi Novi posted:
“A disease impedes biological function. Homosexuality does not”
Unless you count sex as a tool for procreation as a biological function, which many, many people on ALL sides of the argument do.
Some one posted several questions of how God can allow bad things to happen to good people, and allow bad to live and prosper.
The answer to this is simple. We don’t know. By most definitions/beliefs God is infinite. Humans are finite. Since to be finite means we comprehend finite things, how can we hope to comprehend that which is infinite? This really is a philosophical question that will never be answered unless God Himself opens a webpage and let’s us ALL in on the joke. Or we die, and can ask Him.
The reason that religion has been mentioned (and spawned a tangent or 10), was that PAD indicated that he thinks marriage is a religious construct (“After all, marriage, that bwessed awangement, that dweam wiffin a dweam, is a religious ceremony.”) The conversation took several cues from the thread opener.
As for the point of this whole thread, as I said, I think that any change to the constitution that mentions homosexuals is detrimental to the document on the whole. Homosexuals are not a different ethnicity (such as Negro), nor are they a different sex (such as women). To mention something that has yet to be conclusively defined (is it a choice, or genetic, or inherent? There are too many schools of thought with evidence in any direction to have a hard and fast definition) in THE official document of our nation would be a very bad idea.
However, marriage, as it has been defined for CENTURIES is clear. Even homosexuals recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is why they want to change the definition. They wish to change it to include them. To recognize that a change is desired, is to recognize what it means to be married.
As for the thread in general, I think everyone needs to calm down a bit. I am faithful in my religion. To the point that I sometimes surprise people that I didn’t seek to enter the priesthood. Setting that aside, I think everyone should just calm down, accept that there are “religious zealots” who will always seek to “cram their faith down people’s throats”, and focus on the points.
Too many posts have been vile to the very idea of religion in any form. Mr. McPike for instance, equates religion with antiquity and irrationalism. Bladestar seeks to make religion nothing more than a game, and marginalize the beliefs of any who disagree with him (and crossing a few lines of good taste in the process). In his posts, he advocates killing anyone who talks about their religion, or use thier faith to pass laws (basically, he seeks to slaughter people for having views different than his. I don’t need to hear HIS views, but I’m subjected to them all the same.)
There have been an equal number of posts that have read like a sermon to the faithful.
Basically, I think it would be best if everyone just cut to the chase. Stop preaching. Stop posting hate. Just stick to the discussion, and maybe, just maybe Atheists can teach “bible-thumpers” a few things, and Christians may be able to teach the “godless heathens” a point or two.
“It would not cause me “harm” in any way, but would lead me to think that society thought less of what it means to be married.”
ok–so no harm would be done–good.
“For eons, marriage, regardless of if it was a convenient way to pass on lands and wealth, or if it was something that God intended, has been between a man and a woman.”
not necessarily–polygamy was fairly popular in some cultures–but i’ll grant you that it is normally between a man and woman. of course for eons it was only between 2 people of the same class or race. why did we change that?
“Why seek to change that? If you can “marry”, and have all the rights and responsibilities inherent to that (as you implied by saying a JP ceremony, like “normal” people), why seek to have the definition changed from what it has meant for longer than homosexuals have been grousing about insurance, inheritance, or adoptions?”
why not? the burden of proving that same-sex marriages would be bad for the country is clearly on the conservatives that oppose said marriages. there are many pluses–as you said–insurance, adoption, etc. one could even argue that by getting married gays/lesbians are conforming to the conservative idea of family values at least more so than they would be if they weren’t married.
if the problem is just the word marriage meaning a union in the eyes of god, then change the word to a non-religious one but do so for the entire population as far as the gov’t is concerned. if marriage is strictly a religious idea, then keep it that way.
Luigi Novi: There is no “atheistic belief system.” Atheism is a lack of a belief. Not a belief that requires faith.
vocalyz: I disagree with that opinion. For example, one set of definitions for “atheism” is:
“1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.”
1a seems to me as saying, “I believe/have faith in that there is no G-d”, or, “I have faith in my denial of G-d’s existence”.
Luigi Novi: It isn’t saying that. Disbelief or denial of something has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with lack of evidence.
vocalyz: 1b sounds like saying, “I have faith in the principle belief that there is no G-d.”
Luigi Novi: In general, atheism isn’t a belief, and I know of no example in which atheism exists as a “doctrine.”
vocalyz: 2 seems to say, ” I believe/have faith that not beleiveing in God is immoral behavior”.
Luigi Novi: That would seem to be an opinion that some theists hold about atheism, rather a part of atheism itself, and again, like 1b, it is a mischaracterization of atheism, rather than a definition that correlates anything I’ve observed or learned about it in the real world.
Which dictionary was this, anyway?
vocalyz: My opinion is that Athiesm is a belief system–the belief that G-d does not exist or having faith in such a principle.
Luigi Novi: In order for it to be a system or doctrine, it would have to have an organized set of rules, laws, parameters, etc. Atheism is not an organized system at all, and therefore doesn’t have any of these things. A belief or a system of beliefs is something one has or subscribes to. Atheists don’t do this. They don’t get together in a church because of a shared “belief.” Atheism refers to a belief that atheists lack.
But thank you for your contribution to the discussion, vocalyz. 🙂
SER: The argument is often made that it takes an act of faith for an atheist to state that there’s no God (there’s no way one could know for sure). Agnosticism is the more “rational” course because it is defined as “just not knowing one way or another.”
Luigi Novi: I can sorta see where you’re going here, and how you come to see it this way, and I myself find “agnostic” a more reasonable label for my position, but if atheists follow the principle of skepticism and scientific rationalism, then perhaps their lack of belief is derived from the notion of the need to prove extraordinary claims, rather than their negative. If I tell you there’s an invisible dragon in my garage that you can’t feel because he’s intangible, and who’s fire breath generates no heat (to use Carl Sagan’s hypothetical example), and you conclude that you cannot offer even provisional agreement, are you denying the dragon because of faith, or because there’s simply no evidence to indicate the dragon? To those who uphold the principles of Occam’s Razor, the scientific method, etc., it’s the latter, not the former. To argue that it takes faith not to believe in God requires you to first assume as a given that God exists, and that those who deny it need some special psychological quirk (i.e.: faith) to deny him. But God can’t be assumed as a given, because there’s no evidence for him. Is denying something for which there is no evidence requiring of faith? Or should one simply say that: That there is no evidence for, rather than assert its negative to be true (i.e.: take an agnostic stance instead of an atheist one), because asserting the negative requires evidence itself?
Wolfknight: For eons, marriage, regardless of if it was a convenient way to pass on lands and wealth, or if it was something that God intended, has been between a man and a woman. Why seek to change that? If you can “marry”, and have all the rights and responsibilities inherent to that (as you implied by saying a JP ceremony, like “normal” people), why seek to have the definition changed from what it has meant for longer than homosexuals have been grousing about insurance, inheritance, or adoptions?
Luigi Novi: Because there are people in love who want to get married who aren’t allowed to.
Wolfknight: If homosexuality IS in fact a genetic trait, such as autism, then why NOT treat it as an illness?
Luigi Novi: Because in order for something to be an illness, it must meet certain criteria that homosexuality does not have. An illness must be something that impedes the function of the body’s systems. Homosexuality doesn’t do this.
Luigi Novi: “A disease impedes biological function. Homosexuality does not”
Wolfknight: Unless you count sex as a tool for procreation as a biological function, which many, many people on ALL sides of the argument do.
Luigi Novi: Homosexuality doesn’t impede the biological function of the reproductive system. Rather, it simply orients the person toward people with whom they can’t reproduce (i.e.: members of the same sex). Their plumbing works fine. They simply don’t feel attracted to the gender with whom that plumbing would result in a kid. Again, the American Medical, Psychiatric and Psychological Associations stopped classifying homosexuality as an illness a long time ago after concluding that it was not a disease.
Wolfknight: Even homosexuals recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is why they want to change the definition.
Luigi Novi: They’re forced to acknowledge this because others try to keep it that way. If the law didn’t cause any problems when the couple walked into the courthouse or the church that allowed it, then they wouldn’t have to change it.
Wolfknight: Bladestar seeks to make religion nothing more than a game, and marginalize the beliefs of any who disagree with him (and crossing a few lines of good taste in the process). In his posts, he advocates killing anyone who talks about their religion, or use thier faith to pass laws (basically, he seeks to slaughter people for having views different than his.)
Luigi Novi: I would question whether he was actually being literal and serious when he said that, Wolfknight.
Wolfknight asks:
If homosexuality IS in fact a genetic trait, such as autism, then why NOT treat it as an illness?
Because it’s not doing any harm. It is not impeding your ability to function. Yes, one can argue it’s impeding your ability to reproduce — but that doesn’t make it an illness, simply something that needs to be worked around in the event that a couple wants children. The only biological “problem” homosexuality creates is one that many heterosexual couples share — and as a result, I’m finding it very difficult to understand the cries of “but they are different! They are!”
There are many cases of homosexuals “abandoning” their genetic calling, marrying a spouse of the opposite sex, and never going back to a gay lifestyle.
And there are also an awful lot of cases of people attempting to live straight lifestyles and then coming out as gay later in life. I’m not sure what this shows, really.
If that does not indicate that there is some degree of choice involved, or that homosexuality is not something to be cured, then what does that indicate?
I’m with you on the “some degree of choice involved” part. Genetics aren’t destiny — they’ll indicate predilections only.
As for the “not something to be cured” argument, however … that’s making a huge leap based on no evidence. My brother, for example, was a huge Trek fan during his mid-teens: he went to cons, joined Starfleet, rose to the rank of Commander … and then decided it wasn’t for him and basically walked away. Does that mean his level of Trek fandom is “something to be cured”?
I’ll ask again: apart from reproduction, name me a way in which homosexuality impedes an organism’s functioning. If you can’t, then will you concede that your objections are based primarily on your faith and in your gut?
You also asked why I said that the issue affects only a small part of the population. I simply go by the numbers. In the most liberal polls conducted on the subject, 10% of the population says that they are gay. Yeah, when you look at the sheer number of people in the US, that is a large number, but it still is only 10%.
And Muslims are a whole lot less than 10% of the U.S. population. Are we therefore allowed to ban mosques? After all, that issue would “only affect a small part of the population” by your standards.
And lastly …
As for the point of this whole thread, as I said, I think that any change to the constitution that mentions homosexuals is detrimental to the document on the whole.
No problem!
“No two adults above the age of consent who wish to marry shall be prohibited from doing so.”
Cool, let’s eat. 🙂
(Yes, it’d need some tweaking, but I assume the point is clear — there’s no need to mention the gender at all. It’s much easier to make a general statement when expanding rights than when restricting them. That, I believe, is one of the places PAD started from when this whole thread began.)
TWL
Wolfknight wrote well:
As for the thread in general, I think everyone needs to calm down a bit. I am faithful in my religion. To the point that I sometimes surprise people that I didn’t seek to enter the priesthood. Setting that aside, I think everyone should just calm down, accept that there are “religious zealots” who will always seek to “cram their faith down people’s throats”, and focus on the points.
Too many posts have been vile to the very idea of religion in any form. Mr. McPike for instance, equates religion with antiquity and irrationalism. Bladestar seeks to make religion nothing more than a game, and marginalize the beliefs of any who disagree with him (and crossing a few lines of good taste in the process). In his posts, he advocates killing anyone who talks about their religion, or use thier faith to pass laws (basically, he seeks to slaughter people for having views different than his. I don’t need to hear HIS views, but I’m subjected to them all the same.)
There have been an equal number of posts that have read like a sermon to the faithful.
Basically, I think it would be best if everyone just cut to the chase. Stop preaching. Stop posting hate. Just stick to the discussion, and maybe, just maybe Atheists can teach “bible-thumpers” a few things, and Christians may be able to teach the “godless heathens” a point or two.
Thank you very much for your observations, Wolfknight, and if I were a king, I’d wish to dub you a general. 🙂 To say the least, these buffoons who’ve gone so far as to resort to potentially anti-religious and even anti-Israeli nonsense have also gone so far as to proclaim themselves either athiests or even pagan worshipers(!) that as a result, they’ve not only made themselves look ridiculous and laughable, they’ve practically ruined any genuine ability to put forth a good argument for their side.
However, while I don’t want to castigate Mr. David for one, I’m going to have to point out that by allowing these individuals to act as badly as they have on this site, he’s running the risk of giving a bad impression of himself and how he manages his property here.
I’m very sorry if I’m embarrassing PAD, or even Glenn, but if law and order aren’t maintained correctly on this site or others like it, then you run the risk of leading to exactly the same problems that have brought down many good forums across the web. I once went to a small entertainment forum where the first moderator assigned to it was a pathetic hypocrite, and the members seemed glad when he left, and another, more responsible moderator, took over. One of the offending members there was rightfully tossed out a short time after the new mod took over, this being a journalist I once spoke about here, and not only that, he even got fired from his newspaper sometime later, for angering the editors.
So I hope you’ll consider my points here, and take proper steps to police the forum, regardless of whether the posters who’ve acted up are right or wrong. Let’s be clear, in this day and age, to lead a website where one can visit and be entertained, good conduct and responsiblity are required if there is a forum, to make it all work.
“With great power comes great responsibility.” Stan Lee, Amazing Fantasy 15, 1962
Avi, I think you just managed to miss Wolfknight’s point entirely.
Thanks for the futher elaboration, Tim. Just to clarify, I did later state that the second definition was not meant to reflect the point of view of atheism.
I do, however, want to point out that I think atheism does follow your definition of a belief system. It has one basic rule that God does not exist, which is derived from a lack of evidence. Also, I don’t believe your example of not congregating is a good one. Some people have faith in a higher being, yet don’t believe in organized religion and do not congregate based on that belief system.
I must say I’ve enjoyed this discussionn and it’s many tangents. Altough I could do without the hostility. We’re just sharing ideas people.
Happy New Year!
Muslims are gay?
Tim Lynch writes: The only biological “problem” homosexuality creates is one that many heterosexual couples share — and as a result, I’m finding it very difficult to understand the cries of “but they are different! They are!”
Thank you! The most embarrassing thing about the Massachusetts goverment fighting gay marriage recently was that the only argument they could come up with was, basically, that marriages are designed to biologically produce children, and gay marriage cannot do so. Well, guess what? My heterosexual marriage can’t do that either, although we desperately want it to. Should my marriage license be revoked? What about close friends of mine who have decided not to have children yet? Set them a deadline or force them to annul? It’s idiotic when you look at it that way, and it’s equally idiotic when pointed at gay couples.
The real problem, to me, is this idea that gay marriage somehow lessens the validity of hetero marriage. I figure if I’m valuing my marriage by that of others, there are way more hetero relationships out there that de-value mine by comparison. Bill and Hillary Clinton, anyone? How about Scott and Laci Peterson? My own parents, for that matter, prior to their much-needed divorce. Valuing my relationship by comparing it to others is stupid, and, IMO, very emotionally destructive. If a gay couple gets married somewhere, nothing will change in my household, and the opinions of others about my marriage will still not matter to me.
That said, I still think a constitutional amendment is a bad idea. Lobbying to change local laws may take longer, but is still legally preferable in the long term (going back to the opinions of the founding fathers) than granting any new powers to the feds as relates to our personal lives.
However, while I don’t want to castigate Mr. David for one, I’m going to have to point out that by allowing these individuals to act as badly as they have on this site, he’s running the risk of giving a bad impression of himself and how he manages his property here.
You know, this should be posted all around the net, just to show what kind of a hypocrite you truly are, Avi.
And to show how ridiculous “bible thumpers” really are.
Hopefully PAD isn’t embarrassed by your attempts to “represent” him and his faith.
Avi Green posted:
\\However, while I don’t want to castigate Mr. David for one, I’m going to have to point out that by allowing these individuals to act as badly as they have on this site, he’s running the risk of giving a bad impression of himself and how he manages his property here.
I’m very sorry if I’m embarrassing PAD, or even Glenn, but if law and order aren’t maintained correctly on this site or others like it, then you run the risk of leading to exactly the same problems that have brought down many good forums across the web. I once went to a small entertainment forum where the first moderator assigned to it was a pathetic hypocrite, and the members seemed glad when he left, and another, more responsible moderator, took over. One of the offending members there was rightfully tossed out a short time after the new mod took over, this being a journalist I once spoke about here, and not only that, he even got fired from his newspaper sometime later, for angering the editors.
So I hope you’ll consider my points here, and take proper steps to police the forum, regardless of whether the posters who’ve acted up are right or wrong. Let’s be clear, in this day and age, to lead a website where one can visit and be entertained, good conduct and responsiblity are required if there is a forum, to make it all work.\\
Sorry, Avi, but this isn’t, strictly speaking, a “forum”; this is PAD’s weblog, and he’s graciously allowing others to comment on the topics that *HE* chooses to present. If this were a real forum, anyone would be able to start a discussion, but we can’t; we can only react.
Of course, for you to dare presume that YOU are the arbiter of PAD’s blog is more than annoying; it’s downright insulting to PAD. I wouldn’t presume to speak for him; I would only quote him. When you have publicly received PAD’s blessing to speak for him on this blog, then and only then should you take it upon yourself to (1) chastise others on his behalf, and (2) presume to tell him how to handle his weblog.
Does that fix it?
Well, that got rid of the bold. Let’s try again for the italic:
Ack. Sorry, that last post was mine.
Wolfknight: If homosexuality IS in fact a genetic trait, such as autism, then why NOT treat it as an illness? There are many cases of homosexuals “abandoning” their genetic calling, marrying a spouse of the opposite sex, and never going back to a gay lifestyle. If that does not indicate that there is some degree of choice involved, or that homosexuality is not something to be cured, then what does that indicate?
Luigi Novi: That the person is forcing themselves into a situation in which they will not be happy because they are trying to conform to society in order to escape the scorn or shame heaped on them for being gay. Yeah, gays have tried to deny their sexuality, and they end up leading very unhappy lives for it.
Wolfknight: Basically, I think it would be best if everyone just cut to the chase. Stop preaching. Stop posting hate. Just stick to the discussion, and maybe, just maybe Atheists can teach “bible-thumpers” a few things, and Christians may be able to teach the “godless heathens” a point or two.
Avi Green: Thank you very much for your observations, Wolfknight, and if I were a king, I’d wish to dub you a general. 🙂 To say the least, these buffoons who’ve gone so far as to resort to potentially anti-religious and even anti-Israeli nonsense have also gone so far as to proclaim themselves either athiests or even pagan worshipers(!) that as a result, they’ve not only made themselves look ridiculous and laughable, they’ve practically ruined any genuine ability to put forth a good argument for their side.
Luigi Novi: So Wolfknight opines that the theists and non-theists here should not attack one another over their beliefs or lack of beliefs, and after apparently complimenting him on saying this, you continue by insulting nontheists? Explain this to me.
What part of Wolfknight’s “maybe, just maybe Atheists can teach “bible-thumpers” a few things” comment did you not get? Why is there so little logical connection between your responses and the prior statements that they’re ostensibly in reaction to?
Avi Green: However, while I don’t want to castigate Mr. David for one, I’m going to have to point out that by allowing these individuals to act as badly as they have on this site, he’s running the risk of giving a bad impression of himself and how he manages his property here.
Luigi Novi: If you think that Peter thinks that calling atheists “buffoons” “ridiculous” and “laughable” isn’t behaving “badly,” then your problem isn’t how Peter runs his site. It’s your own hypocrisy, and a deluded belief that Peter is automatically on your side simply because he’s Jewish, and your unprovoked insults towards others are not examples of your own “bad behavior.”
The way this site is run is simple: Free speech should be met with more free speech.
Some people will use this for ad hominem attacks. Some will use this to make points in an intelligent manner, while others will do so in a less intelligent manner.
And in the end…
…it’s words.
Not guns. Not bricks or bats or even weapons of mass destruction. It’s just words, having just exactly–not one bit more nor one iota less–as much impact as any individual allows them to have.
I see no need to shut down or curtail topics thus far because the pattern has remained consistent: People spout off until everyone has their say and then it runs out of gas. Every time. Then they start commenting on another topic. Which is fine, and how it works.
I’m certainly not going to go around bìŧçh slapping people or hitting them on the wrist and telling them what not to say. If you think someone’s being a serious áššhølë, do one of two things: Tell him so, or ignore him. That’s what I do. And since I’m so smooth I make teflon look like velcro, you should just emulate me. When faced with truly offense comments, just ask yourself: What Would Peter Do. Then either do that, or do the exact opposite. One of ’em’s GOTTA work.
PAD
PAD wrote:
You better hope that morality doesn’t stem from God, because if it does, He has a buttload to answer for.
Not really. There’s a difference between claiming to be God’s agent and actually being one, and also between being a representative and being a faithful representative. You don’t dissolve the North Carolina government because some cop in Wilmington uses excessive force or even commits some hideous felony; why blame God for acts done by people claiming to act on his behalf?
I dunno if anyone’s still following this thread, but ironically enough my first column at a new weekly column website I’m launching formally today is about this very issue. And I’d been planning this column for weeks. So it really is a coincidence.
If anyone would like to check it out, the column deals with why even Republicans should oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment (for mainly political reasons).
http://column.kirkmcpike.com/
Feedback always welcome, natch.
Becasue I am masochistic enough to weigh in on this…
I’m going to start with the whole pot/kettle argument. There have been those who have said on this board that it has been humorous of people to mention their faith or lack thereof into this discussion. Some of these people have gone so far as to claim that the atheists here are insulting Mr. David or being anti-semetic (the term may have been anti-Isreali. Franly, I’m too lazy right now to scroll back and check). I have seen no such post from any of the atheists. While vocal and obviously opinionated, they have been civil. Oddly enough, the only things close to insulting to Mr. David I have seen came from one to the faithful crowd. Also, the first post to mention the religious aspects of this issue ALSO alsocame from one of the faithful.
That having been said…
Since my faith, beliefs, and religion are moot in regards to this issue, I will say that I have asked at least 200 people through various message boards, internet sites, in person and on radio shows whygays should not be allowed to marry. I have been given variations of two responses.
1. God says in the bible that homosexuality is an abomination. Aside from the fact that Emil Blonsky was married…Sorry, geeking out for a sec.
We do have a constitutionally binding seperation of church and state which deals with this issue. For those unaware, in Greece, the worship of Bacchus allowed marriage between people of the same sex. Since the government cannot claim this religion to be invalid, the governemt cannot, constitutionally, ban gay marriage.
2. Homosexuality is not natural/is disgusting.
Since it is a proven fact that homosexuality occurs in nature in other species, I’ll ignore that part.
Most people call this the “ick” factor. If you are not used to being around gays, I can somewhat understand having the ick factor. The problem with using it as a justification of creating a constitutional amendment based around it is pretty simple to see.
If you want an amendment banning gay marriage because you find it personally disgusting, why can’t I have one banning the sale of quiche, which I find personally disgusting? The argument becomes that I can’t because it’s very easy for me to not buy the quiche myself. I propose then, that if you don’t like the idea of gays being married, don’t marry a homosexual.
On a side note, I would like to express my admiriation for Mr. David for allowing a discussion with this much potential venom on his site. I would advise him to be very vigilant in reading it, though.
To quote Eric Bogosian: “Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words cause perminant damage.”
I think most of our laws or social mores come from the religious faith of our citizens (it’s overwhelming a religious country). If you ask me why murder should be illegal, I’ll give you my secular reasons why, but many people will simply point to the ten commandments as the basis for this belief.
So, I have no problem with someone attempting to outlaw gay marriage based on that belief. I don’t think it violates the establishment clause. I mean, to take a different spin, how many people oppose the war in Iraq because of their religion? We can’t expect everyone to have a secular basis for their beliefs.
That said, I think the argument can be won based on the fact that the government that governs best is the one that governs least. Passing laws controlling behavior or actions that don’t harm anyone else is wrong and goes against my beliefs as a classic liberal (I always have to say “classic” liberal rather than just liberal because I support all the constitutional amendments).
If you want to change the culture of the nature, you can’t do it by using the government as a blunt object. You have to make your case known. Appeal to the public, be it with abortion (you can have abortion remain a legal option but still “win” if you’re pro-life by taking the issue to the people and changing the culture so that abortions are, as Clinton put it, “legal but rare”), gun control, or gay marriage.
It would not cause me “harm” in any way, but would lead me to think that society thought less of what it means to be married.
On the other hand, for some of us the entire anti-family push of those who seek to prevent gay marraige makes us think less of what it means to be married. Choosing marriage, particularly legal marriage, was a difficult choice for me to make because of all the people seeking to take this family-building institution (which barred same-sex couples merely by inertia) and turn it into a force for active discrimination. I was wary of seeming to endorse the institution by my participation in it.
The way these gay hating groups claim the title “pro-family” just bothers me to no end. “Pro family” my ášš. What am I? I’m a member of one family, trying to forge a relationship to be the foundation of another. I am part of my parent’s family, my own family, the family that is my friends and loved ones, the family that is my community and my country.
“Pro-family”? When all they seek to do is cast out members of the American family into the wilderness to die? Families are those people who love each other despite their differences. These groups are many things, but they are not pro-family in any way.
Wow, don’t check for a few days and you miss all the fun.
This is sorta off-topic, but Tim had such a strong reaction to “humans at their core are evil” and reviled it as bible-thumping clap-trap or somesuch, that I thought I’d respond (despite no one but Tim taking any interest).
It’s not actually just a bible-thumping ideology, but let me apologize for using the word “evil” when I should have realized that was perjorative. People at core are SELFISH. This is, I think, demonstrable fact. We do what will benefit us or at the least, not harm us. Children are a perfect example of unvarnished, self-centered, selfish behavior. Why do I consider that to be “evil”? Because for most of us, if not all of us, what keeps us from doing truly evil things is the fact that it won’t benefit us in the long run. It will damage us physically, or reputationally, if only in our own eyes.
I am not saying we are all Hitlers. I am saying we are all capable of great evil.
As for homosexuality, *blaug* it is a most difficult topic. I generally keep out of such discussions, because I’m not gay. (Is that an example of selfishness????)
I agree… Go away for a few days, and, oy!
Removing God from the equation, as many non-theists, atheists, and agnostics love to do, can anyone offer a valid reason why natural selection would allow such a thing as homosexuality to occur? How does homosexuality further a species? How is homosexuality anything other than an evolutionary dead-end?
I’m not asking to offend anyone, or start trouble, but let’s get this down to brass tacks.
Gay marriage is sought because some people want the same “rights” as others.
But there is no real reason for such a thing to occur. I see this as solely a social issue, and one that can have nothing to do with God at all.
Let’s say that married people are afforded some privileges and courtesies simply because they are married, and that marriage is defined as heterosexual couples (which seems to be the sticking issue).
Since it is accepted, that for the most part, the purpose of marriage, indeed sex in general, (not counting in obscure Greek religions) is reproduction, what is the benefit of homosexual “marriages”, and why should those seeking them be considered “married”?
The answer is almost always, “I want the same rights”.
You have lost no rights at all. Married couples are not guaranteed the “rights” that homosexual couples talk about.
No where in the US Constitution are married people guaranteed estates, possession of holdings, visitation of the sick, or any of the other “rights” being sought.
So is this really something that needs to be pursued in law?
As for how “natural” homosexuality is, or how much it is not a choice, I again suggest you look at the human form. Men and women are designed a certain way. The act of reproduction (sex) is designed to be performed with those involved facing one another (It by no means is limited to that, but we are talking basic design here), in an act of great intimacy.
For one man to have sex with another, the design is ignored. For men, it involves facing AWAY from your “lover” at the moment of greatest intimacy. In addition to being against the design, I would think that such a thing might be insulting.
What is the benefit?
I am told to be more tolerant, and accept these things as “normal”.
Why is my opinion being ignored, or labeled as “phobic”?
Where is the tolerance for what I think, feel or believe?
I suppose the evolutionary thought would be population control, but that puts evolution at a species awareness level rather than an individual adaptation level, so I’m not sure that holds…
While I agree with the basic design theory, the missionary position is unique to humans, even for those with primate proportions.
The basis for marriage, legally, has always been for the protection of the children who result from marriage. But legally, marriage has been turned into a joke with no-fault divorce. Kids aren’t protected by marriage any more, so marriage really has no legal basis anymore. It really is a bastion for “rights” now, so I don’t see why it should be limited to sexual relationships.
The act of reproduction (sex) is designed to be performed with those involved facing one another
Nature would disagree.
Wolfknight posted: For one man to have sex with another, the design is ignored. For men, it involves facing AWAY from your “lover” at the moment of greatest intimacy.
Not necessarily. It’s more than possible for two people to have insertive anal sex (which, I assume, is the “moment of greatest intimacy” to which you refer) while facing each other.
Rob says…
This is sorta off-topic, but Tim had such a strong reaction to “humans at their core are evil” and reviled it as bible-thumping clap-trap or somesuch, that I thought I’d respond (despite no one but Tim taking any interest).
Actually, that wasn’t me — that was Kirk McPike. (Not that I particularly disagreed with what he had to say, mind you.)
It’s not actually just a bible-thumping ideology, but let me apologize for using the word “evil” when I should have realized that was perjorative. People at core are SELFISH.
At least, they start out that way (i.e. most infants are pretty self-centered because they’ve no real conception of much else). I can agree with the idea that humans start that way — I’m not sure I can agree that we’re all fundamentally that way. Explain Mother Teresa.
And as I recall, this was the basis for you saying that morality had to be defined from something beyond humanity, or it’s nothing but Might Makes Right all the way. I still disagree very strongly with that.
In any case, apology accepted — I’m glad we’ve more common ground than I’d thought.
TWL