General Chat / GAY MARRIAGE

MA clearly is the most reasonable guy here so far.
The religious impulse of finding comfort in not being in control of one self is pure self-enslavement. The concept of religion alone has already cost humans such an enormous chunk of the species' potential, it's not even funny.

The very fact we developed religion separates us from Monkeys and Apes. Its simply a result of self consciousness and a developed self awareness. Denouncing religion for holding humanity back would be like denouncing the domestication of grasses in the 10th century BC for making people live shorter lives.


Sure religion has brought many bad this but its nesseaary in the evolution of hummantiy, and probably any "intelligent" species.

It's organized religion that's the blame, not religion in itself.

nu-athiests use religion as a scapegoat for oppression bc if they didnt have that to point at they'd have to actually examine the oppressive power structures they themselves are complicit in. its essentially a method of avioding actual radical thought and action.

The very fact we developed religion separates us from Monkeys and Apes. Its simply a result of self consciousness and a developed self awareness. Denouncing religion for holding humanity back would be like denouncing the domestication of grasses in the 10th century BC for making people live shorter lives.


Sure religion has brought many bad this but its nesseaary in the evolution of hummantiy, and probably any "intelligent" species.

Being religious or not isn't what seperates species. The Galapagos finches didn't split up over philosophical differences.

I fail to see how it is a necessary step in the evolution of humanity. Necessary for what? And if so, why is there usually a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence? Are less intelligent people more genetically advanced!?

In history, the whole point of religion was so leaders could convert people under their rule and gain power.

Being religious or not isn't what seperates species. The Galapagos finches didn't split up over philosophical differences.

I fail to see how it is a necessary step in the evolution of humanity. Necessary for what? And if so, why is there usually a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence? Are less intelligent people more genetically advanced!?

 

Well yes, religion isn't the actual thing that separates species, but rather  its a result of the things (self awareness, consciousness, ability to think into the future, ability to see ourselves in the future, planning, creativity, etc..) that separate humans from all other species.  The reason religion exists is to give one comfort, being in a group of common believe that no only can pose answers to difficult questions but also provide a guideline for a culture, usually law or a moral system.  Often times this moral system is a very good thing, the ten commandments are for the most part very good laws to live by, no matter who you are.

 

As far as its necessity, if you look at any successful or important civilization in human history, they all have a defining religious affiliation or belief that binned them.  I dont think there is a single world power in human history that was atheist.  Granted, as time goes on, it will probably be more liked, although the likelihood of a new civilization coming into power is essentially 0 due to globalization.

 

The issue with religion always has been when an organized group attempts to expand, as human have a natural issue with people not having the same beliefs or ideals as they do.  This is why the middle ages happened, or why the ME has fallen to where it currently stands (as opposed to the 50's/60's or even in the middle ages where all the world powers in terms of science or engineering were in the middle east).  

 

The same can be said for this issue, as it wouldn't really be an issue if people didn't care what other people think or do or act.

Religion is a result of wondering where we come from on a longer-term basis than a human lifecycle. It doesn't necessarily come before the scientific method (since we have a sample size of N=1) but it's a staple in most cultures because humans rely so heavily on storytelling to understand their society and "the way things are" (for lack of a better way to phrase it). Eventually the curiosity and desire to know leads to better, more reasoned alternatives (as opposed to the first thing we could come up with, which was basically our imaginations).

Liam & Poke: <3

At the end of the day religion has ZERO bearing on gay marriage as it rightly shouldn't because we have this thing called separation of church and state. Marriage is a social, government contract and is part of the state.

The only arguments surrounding gay marriage should be a social one: is it ethical to bar certain citizens from marriage because of sexual orientation? Is t legal? Is it discrimination? Is it detrimental to society to allow marriage to every adult? Is it beneficial? Etc.

Religion certainly has NO place in a discussion about LEGAL matters of discrimatory marriage policies. This is why all those Christian bakeries are being sued and paying huge fines for their discriminatory denial of service for homosexual couples. If sexual orientation is protected status in your state, legally you are NOT allowed to refuse service on that basis lest you want to be held accountable in trial.

Also, let me just remind people that not too long ago people were using similar arguments about interracial marriage before it was legalized. People screamed it will "defile" the pure institution of marriage and that it was "sacrilege" and etc. Did we not learn from history that discrimination does NOT win in the end?

I think his point was that you can read the bible all day long, you just should think yourself about the morality of ertain things and not repeat what the catholic church says.

Yes.

"I believe that this decision is a big step backwards for the American society." - a big step backwards? regardless of what you might say, that is hurtful. 

You're really at the heart of what I'm trying to say right there. When someone comes along with this "It's my belief, so I have a right to think it" argument, they don't seem to understand that what you're essentially telling them that there's something inherently wrong about them and that they are a lesser person.  That's fucking shitty, dude. 

Back in the good old [blatantly] racist days, people would quote all kinds of scripture to justify their points.  Including slavery.  Including segregation.  Including sexism.  Tell me, if you had come here and said something to the effect of "Black people just don't have the intelligence to vote and shouldn't be allowed to, and that's just my belief.  You all have to accept that I will continue believing it," how long do you think it would take for people to lose their fucking minds on you?  The difference between what you just did, CSW, and the not-at-all-exaggerated example from our past, is that we've reached the point where we understand that saying something like that about different races, even nicely, and politely, and with all the proper grammar, is an incredibly hurtful and incendiary statement. Just because you don't realize that about homosexuals yet doesn't mean that you're allowed to go around shitting on them without getting a few stern "fuck you"s from people that do.
 

Not gonna respond to MA. There's no changing your opinion that I'm crazy if you've already made up your mind. Maybe later because there are definitely some things wrong with your argument. Sorry to disappoint, Steve. 

Actually, I called you reasonable.  If I didn't make that clear, let me throw some more compliments your way. You do seem capable of listening to others' arguments and figure out how they fit in your own framework.  Good on you, sir.  That's mature discussion. But read what I just said above in response to Sammy's post. I also don't think you're crazy, but I do think you believe some pretty crazy shit.

 

 

Having two parents is pretty much always better than one - less stress for everybody and a more balanced upbringing for the child. I have yet to read a study that suggests the sex of the parents has an effect on this, however.

Quoting only Ling here, but in response to Sammy's, CSW's, and this statement...  Having two parents is only good if you have two good parents.  Having two asshole parents is certainly not better than having one good one.  That's off topic, sure, but I think artificially holding up the nuclear family as the ideal is problematic because I don't know many functional families that even fit that mold. 

Further, unlike marriage, the concept of a family doesn't need to be accepted/codified/modified to continue to allow those families to define it for themselves.  Your family is your family no matter what it looks like and who you choose to include. And I will again make the point that family structures are incredibly diverse and have almost never fit the nuclear family mold.

 

(I edited this a lot after posting.  Last edit 9:47 EST... If you quoted me before that, it's no longer relevant.)

MA you hit the nail on the head.

 

While CSW is being "polite" and "peaceful" about his rather questionable opinions, we would not stand for his comments if this was about something like racism. No matter how nicely you word it you are still spreading hate and calling for discrimination against an oppressed minority group. The same stands for homosexuals and their right to marry: you might think the bible's teaching can justify your opinions on the matter, but not only does religion have zero to do with the legal ruling of the matter, but you're also justifying discrimination based on religious beliefs, which is EXACTLY what many slave owners did pre-civil war. 

 

No matter how you spin it, discrimination is discrimination, whether it's against your sex, your race, your sexuality, etc.

And MA ignores my response to his proposal

I prefer to ghost potentials rather than ever deal with my feelings.  It's a straight guy thing.

Nah, gay guys are all about that ghosting too.

I think I'm done posting in this thread. I've made my stance clear, and if you think I'm a discriminatory bigot who believes in a bunch of cosmic crap, go right ahead. I noticed how just because I mentioned I'm Catholic and that some of my statements probably stem from that, I automatically get called out. It's not the first time it has happened to me, but I'd venture to say that's a bit of an ad hominem fallacy right there. And I never used the Bible for source material, as you say I did. Not sure where you got that. 

 

----------------------------------

 

So to review. My stance is that gay marriage is morally wrong, because it goes against the order of society, which is structured in the family unit. Could be two-parent, single-parent, divorced, whatever...doesn't matter! My point with the "family is the basis of society" is that if everyone was by themselves and there was no family, society would have a real tough time getting along.

 

So what are homosexuals supposed to do? All of my previous statements on this were kinda unnecessary, I'll admit. I've got no grounds to talk about love between homosexuals because I don't know much of anything about it. Anyways. In the short term, I've got no problem with gays living together, raising families, etc. It really doesn't affect me too much. But what I was trying to say initially is that I don't think it will end well in the future. Marriage will lose its proper definition and become useless in society.

 

So how do we avoid this? Simple, don't call it marriage. Call it a civil union, call it whatever you want, as long as it's not marriage. "But isn't that discrimination? It's not equal for all if one is marriage and one is a civil union!" Is it REALLY different? From a legal standpoint, it's the same; from a love standpoint, you still get to live together and have a loving relationship together. 

 

So I suppose all I ask is that we keep heterosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions separate. It's the solution with the least amount of discrimination. And if you've got a problem with that, just realize that there's already a lot of discrimination in our society, mostly with race and gender, as several of you have pointed out. It's not always a bad thing. 

 

It's hard to have a discussion like this without stepping on some toes, which I clearly did...I apologize to anyone I may have offended, again. Thank you all for the meaningful discussion. I hope none of you decide to hold grudges on me for toeing the line. I think we can agree to disagree on this topic. 

I think that is a well put and potentially agreeable statement. 

I think I'm done posting in this thread. I've made my stance clear, and if you think I'm a discriminatory bigot who believes in a bunch of cosmic crap, go right ahead. I noticed how just because I mentioned I'm Catholic and that some of my statements probably stem from that, I automatically get called out. It's not the first time it has happened to me, but I'd venture to say that's a bit of an ad hominem fallacy right there. And I never used the Bible for source material, as you say I did. Not sure where you got that. 

I was wondering how long it would take for you to get to the poor, persecuted Christian routine. Ad hominem?  Sir, the wrongness of your arguments stands on its own.  And about that source material comment...

So to review. My stance is that gay marriage is morally wrong...

Perchance, would you be so kind as to explain which code of morals you're talking about? How silly of me to assume it was the from your church.

because it goes against the order of society...

We've already covered this.  Stop saying shitty things and expecting people to be okay with it.

So what are homosexuals supposed to do?

Anything you're entitled to do. That's how equality works.

I've got no grounds to talk about love between homosexuals because I don't know much of anything about it.

  Yes you do.  They fuck.  In all the lovely ways that you're so afraid of. Is that really so hard to imagine?

Anyways. In the short term, I've got no problem with gays living together, raising families, etc.

  Aww, how benevolent of you.

It really doesn't affect me too much.

  Yes! you've got it! Stop here!

Or...

But what I was trying to say initially is that I don't think it will end well in the future. Marriage will lose its proper definition and become useless in society.

 

So how do we avoid this? Simple, don't call it marriage. Call it a civil union, call it whatever you want, as long as it's not marriage. "But isn't that discrimination? It's not equal for all if one is marriage and one is a civil union!" Is it REALLY different? From a legal standpoint, it's the same; from a love standpoint, you still get to live together and have a loving relationship together. 

 

So I suppose all I ask is that we keep heterosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions separate. It's the solution with the least amount of discrimination.

The solution with the least amount of discrimination is to have equality. 

And if you've got a problem with that, just realize that there's already a lot of discrimination in our society, mostly with race and gender, as several of you have pointed out. It's not always a bad thing.

...I'm going to assume that this didn't come out how you meant for it to. Because what you just said is that current discrimination should continue to be tolerated, and that discrimination against women and blacks is "not always a bad thing."  Would you care to back track from this statement?

It's hard to have a discussion like this without stepping on some toes, which I clearly did...I apologize to anyone I may have offended, again. Thank you all for the meaningful discussion. I hope none of you decide to hold grudges on me for toeing the line. I think we can agree to disagree on this topic. 

I see you've learned nothing here.

I think that is a well put and potentially agreeable statement. 

I've edited his post down to what would be a potentially agreeable statement.  I'll even leave in the top part about me being an asshole.

"I think I'm done posting in this thread. I've made my stance clear, and if you think I'm a discriminatory bigot who believes in a bunch of cosmic crap, go right ahead. I noticed how just because I mentioned I'm Catholic and that some of my statements probably stem from that, I automatically get called out. It's not the first time it has happened to me, but I'd venture to say that's a bit of an ad hominem fallacy right there. And I never used the Bible for source material, as you say I did. Not sure where you got that.

So to review... All of my previous statements on this were kinda unnecessary, I'll admit. I've got no grounds to talk about love between homosexuals because I don't know much of anything about it... I've got no problem with gays living together, raising families, etc. It really doesn't affect me too much.

...It's hard to have a discussion like this without stepping on some toes, which I clearly did...I apologize to anyone I may have offended, again. Thank you all for the meaningful discussion. I hope none of you decide to hold grudges on me for toeing the line."

Done.  An agreeable statement.

i wish i was straight so that i could participate in this heated discussion

csw, insulting you would be ad hominem. Your belief in some kind of sacred definition of marriage stems from a religious background, not the actual, real definition of marriage, which is a legal one.