General Chat / San Francisco Allows Gay Marriages

Wait, you're telling me there's no ethics without Christianity? You're telling me that we wouldn't treat people with respect if the Bible didn't tell us to? You're saying right and wrong have no standard except for what is said in the Bible? ASo then are all the non-Christian people in the world barbarians? You think the choice is Christianity or anarchy? People can think for themselves. Secular moral philosophy can be traced all the way back to Aristotle. We don't need religion to decide what is right and wrong for us, we can look at the benefits and consequences and decide for ourselves. How do I know what is right? Well that depends on what I value. I value human rights for one thing. Murder is a volation of the most basic human right. This is what makes murder wrong, not the fact that someone told me it was wrong.



I wonder if you really understand what you just said. What are these so-called empty philosophies? Is any philosophy which does not have God as its cornerstone an empty philosophy? Do you mean philosophies which do not spell out the purpose of human life? It seems to me that philosophers are the ones doing the thinking, deciding on the basis of reason what is right and wrong, while the religious moralists are accepting empty philosophies.

You're saying that without religion society is chaos and that is merely your assumption - it's far from proven fact. I've said a hundred times that I'm not against people being religious. The quest for spirituality is an essential part of every human life. But I am against people clinging to religious beliefs when they conflict with basic human reason.



Chrisitianity is not based on virtue. It's based on the belief that Jesus is the son of God and died on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind. And those who have the belief are to go to heaven when they die. That is Christianity. Secularism is not the same thing as Social Darwinism. The Bible does give moral guidance, and Jesus gave moral guidance, but you don't need to be a Christian to follow this moral guidance. In fact, Aristotle's whole moral philosophy is based on the concept of virtue. I'm not saying one is more or less right than the other, just that you don't need a holy book to tell you what a little practical thinking can tell you.

And about the founding fathers, yes obviously they were Christians. Everyone was - they were European immigrants. But the framing of the Constitution is taken from political theorists such as Thomas Hobbes and John Stuart Mill.  In fact, these people were escaping from Europe's oppresive regimes of state dictated religion. This is why seperation of church and state is in the constitution. They didn't want the government telling people they had to be Catholic or Protestant. They didn't want the church running the government either. And they probably thought every religion other than Christianity was a heathen religion. Do you really want to support the religious viewpoint of the 18th century? Let's go fight another crusade while we're at it.    Let's kill or convert those pagan Native Americans because their culture is akin to devil worship. Nevermind that they lived thousands of miles and an ocean away from where this Jesus guy was put to death centuries ago, they obviously should have known that Christianity is the only true faith. The founding fathers had a lot of great ideas about liberty and democracy taken from political philosophers. They were also as culturally ignorant as everyone else at the time. They were Christian because they had no choice really. That was the only religion that was legitimate to them. Now we have a choice. Now we know that there are other cultures out there and we don't need to make them just like us. This is progress it's not decline.

You want to talk about Social Darwinism? How about the capitalist system? That's a form of Social Darwinism isn't it? The founding fathers had no problem with this. Some of them owned slaves. None of them were lower class. They benefitted from Social Darwinism. Christianity has not put a stop to this, in fact it's been used to justify it on many occasions. People are ignorant and selfish. But they don't need to be. Taking accountability for your own actions and basing your morals on reason rather than culturally biased religions is what allows people to transcend ignorance and selfishness and start to appreciate other people. Love your neighbor as yourself applys to all people, not just good Christian people.

amen.
Ed said what I would have before I could.
Damn you Ed!

oh, and the keyword here is "empathy".
only people who don't have empathy will come to the conclusion that ethics must be forced upon others through religion. You must be very shortsighted, STS.

Wait, you're telling me there's no ethics without Christianity? You're telling me that we wouldn't treat people with respect if the Bible didn't tell us to? You're saying right and wrong have no standard except for what is said in the Bible? ASo then are all the non-Christian people in the world barbarians? You think the choice is Christianity or anarchy? People can think for themselves. Secular moral philosophy can be traced all the way back to Aristotle. We don't need religion to decide what is right and wrong for us, we can look at the benefits and consequences and decide for ourselves. How do I know what is right? Well that depends on what I value. I value human rights for one thing. Murder is a volation of the most basic human right. This is what makes murder wrong, not the fact that someone told me it was wrong.



I wonder if you really understand what you just said. What are these so-called empty philosophies? Is any philosophy which does not have God as its cornerstone an empty philosophy? Do you mean philosophies which do not spell out the purpose of human life? It seems to me that philosophers are the ones doing the thinking, deciding on the basis of reason what is right and wrong, while the religious moralists are accepting empty philosophies.

You're saying that without religion society is chaos and that is merely your assumption - it's far from proven fact. I've said a hundred times that I'm not against people being religious. The quest for spirituality is an essential part of every human life. But I am against people clinging to religious beliefs when they conflict with basic human reason.



Chrisitianity is not based on virtue. It's based on the belief that Jesus is the son of God and died on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind. And those who have the belief are to go to heaven when they die. That is Christianity. Secularism is not the same thing as Social Darwinism. The Bible does give moral guidance, and Jesus gave moral guidance, but you don't need to be a Christian to follow this moral guidance. In fact, Aristotle's whole moral philosophy is based on the concept of virtue. I'm not saying one is more or less right than the other, just that you don't need a holy book to tell you what a little practical thinking can tell you.

And about the founding fathers, yes obviously they were Christians. Everyone was - they were European immigrants. But the framing of the Constitution is taken from political theorists such as Thomas Hobbes and John Stuart Mill.  In fact, these people were escaping from Europe's oppresive regimes of state dictated religion. This is why seperation of church and state is in the constitution. They didn't want the government telling people they had to be Catholic or Protestant. They didn't want the church running the government either. And they probably thought every religion other than Christianity was a heathen religion. Do you really want to support the religious viewpoint of the 18th century? Let's go fight another crusade while we're at it.    Let's kill or convert those pagan Native Americans because their culture is akin to devil worship. Nevermind that they lived thousands of miles and an ocean away from where this Jesus guy was put to death centuries ago, they obviously should have known that Christianity is the only true faith. The founding fathers had a lot of great ideas about liberty and democracy taken from political philosophers. They were also as culturally ignorant as everyone else at the time. They were Christian because they had no choice really. That was the only religion that was legitimate to them. Now we have a choice. Now we know that there are other cultures out there and we don't need to make them just like us. This is progress it's not decline.

You want to talk about Social Darwinism? How about the capitalist system? That's a form of Social Darwinism isn't it? The founding fathers had no problem with this. Some of them owned slaves. None of them were lower class. They benefitted from Social Darwinism. Christianity has not put a stop to this, in fact it's been used to justify it on many occasions. People are ignorant and selfish. But they don't need to be. Taking accountability for your own actions and basing your morals on reason rather than culturally biased religions is what allows people to transcend ignorance and selfishness and start to appreciate other people. Love your neighbor as yourself applys to all people, not just good Christian people.

1) The statement about empty philosophies never made any assumptions. However, you might have made the assumption that I conclude non-Christian views empty, but I never said that. Don't read something thats not there.
2) I didn't say Christianity was based on virtue, I stated Christianity, THEN included other religions simply because I don't want to sound like I'm shoving it down folks throat. Granted, that wasn't worded as carefully on my part, but that is what I meant.
3) Show me where in the constitution the separation of church and state is. That came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, and was really written to prevent the state from influencing the church. BTW, I agree with you about the church oppression and I do not associate myself with that (for one, I'm non-denominational, that was the Catholic church, which is still deep in mud today...no offence to Catholics)
4) Christianity NEVER endorsed slavery. People may have done so under that banner, but wrongly. Many were killed during the Spanish Inquisition (many were Christians breaking away from Catholic dominance), that was done in the name of God, as were the crusades and Constantines wars. I don't justify those things either.
5) Am I saying without Christianity there would be chaos? I believe that, but obviously thats not enough for you, and I understand. Here's a question for you...I don't know whether or not you believe in creation or evolution, but where did your conscience come from? Anyone who says it "evolved" must come to realize there really is MORE chance of the existance of God because to believe in God requires only one action, and that is to believe He exists. To believe in evolution requires belief that in the beginning we had nothing+chance+time. What does that equal? Absolutely nothing. Oh, and another question...Where did empathy come from?

P.S. Looking over your reply I noticed your statement about not needing a holy book to know whats right and wrong. True, but Genesis says God made man in his image, so man was created with that in him. Of course Adam and Eve fell, and were corrupted, but that conscience was still there.

Haven't read the last page or so of long replies, so I'm not totally sure where this discussion has lead to. I would like to talk about this, though:

If they change it for both hets and homos, I will personally lead the fucking parade!!!!

Personally, I don't see what everyones problem with the Civil Union idea is. It sort of defeats the purpose of it to change the name of a hetero marriage. Marriage has been a union of man and woman ever since the tradition started. Why should we change it's title for Hets just because all of a sudden gays come along and decide they want to be married as well?
Basicly my question is; how is it discriminating to title a gay marriage differently from a normal marriage, when both have the same exact rights?
Marriage= the union of a man and a woman
Civil Union= the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman
Discrimination? Am I missing something?
Trying to think of a good example to support my argument, but my minds gone blank.......

Not sure if you heard it or not, but both Kerry and Edwards both said they personally oppose same-sex marriages, but disagree with Bush's wanting to ban it a constitutional ammendment.

It was on the ABC Nightline news or whatever.

I've been waiting to throw out a certain statistic sometime during this discussion and I think in response to Ed's post, now is the time. I forget where exactly I saw this, I think it was in an article from a Gale Group database, but I am sure of its authenticity.

According to a recent poll, 58% of Americans think that you must be religious to be a moral person.
40% do not.

In Canada the proportion is something like 30% to 68%.

Gimme time and I'll get you the source.

Butters I am only talking about the civil name. Let the churches continue to marry men and women. I am only speaking of the legal document. If it is not equal, then....it is not equal. That's all. On the flip side of your argument, why are heterosexuals threatened by changing the fiscal title? Man this is one hell of a hot button issue. It shouldn't be, but then again, all Rosa Parks wanted to do was sit at the front of the bus, and look what a stink that caused.

The funny thing is, they showed Kennedy(D) opposing the amendment, which would mean he's for gay marraiges. It's funny because, he's Catholic, and that's totally against their religion to even support it in any way shape or form. And he's just one of MANY catholics in politics. Ha. He's gonna fucking burn in hell now along with everyone else not for the amendment.

Who cares (some of you say)? WHO CARES!?

Every one who is straight and got AIDS, thats who.



Dagoth Ur
Check this out Homos!

Matthew Shepard has been in hell for 1962 days.

ROTFLMAO!

Which ignorant fool might you be?

Who cares (some of you say)? WHO CARES!?

Every one who is straight and got AIDS, thats who.



Dagoth Ur
Check this out Homos!

Someone didn't pay attention in Health class when they were ickle...

Ah yes, our good friend Fred Phelps, perhaps one of the biggest closet homos of our time.

Remember, those who scream the loudest have the most to hide.

And welcome back 11 (or 3, or whatever you're calling yourself these days)

The pendulem of Tolerance and Intolerance

on the intolerance side you have people like Saddam and Hitler who will oppress forcefully against certain races. the very worse case in intolerance is using poverty as your weapon as well as genocide ie Hitler tactics.

on the tolerance side, you have people like LBJ and Salahadeen's who opened their doors to the different races and religions and preach tolerance for everyone. the very worse case scenerio is that opening it too much.

Or even the Ying Yang effect, with all good comes the birth of evil, with all evil comes the birth of good.

Its not the matter of whether gays get married, but its this.... for every change in society their will always be ramifications. what are the ramifications if homosexuality is equal just to everyone else, and thats its ok, i'm not going to give examples & neither do i know, but change will happen if homosexuality is taken as the norm.

on the matter of "beast-sexual" next, and someone said (i think it was Panic) who said that scandinavian countries adopted those rights for beast-sexual was because of isolation. I have this.
have you visited North/South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nevada (not Las Vegas), northern Arizona, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alaska, Iowa, parts of Minnesota Wisconcin and parts of Illanois.
They all are more or less little towns with maybe no more then 500 people in them with maybe a few cell phones and maybe at most 20-30 computers in the close vicinity.

Canada has A LOT of open,secluded, and isolated areas.

plus what is to say that this won't happen? were pushing the limit i think on the tolerance scale, if everything is ment to be ok, pretty soon you lose all of todays morals, then someone will come up and make a beef about it swing us way the hell back to intolerance. there needs to be some balance between the two, rather then say "well this group and this group and this group"

yeah you could say i was trying to connect the deviants together, not necessarily coming all at once but over due course of time, others will start.

I'm tired of debating this issue, as of late. all i want homosexuals have is no added tax and have the same contract rights as heteros due, but no more then that.
its more of a moral dilemma to me for future generations.

Im gonna go play RCT now.

Dagoth. Nine posts. And you are already easily the most backwards person here. You make me sick.

At least I understand and respect Guardian's and others' points of view.

Hopefully that site is not real otherwise I have lost all hope for humanity. We should just end all life now with some atomic bombs and see what really happens in the end. Maybe god will send all you against gay marriage to hell. I would be laughing my ass off.

Wow, you're real optimistic today, Turtleman.

Wow, you're real optimistic today, Turtleman.

Indeed. I forgot to take my anti-depressants today..

Yes T-Man, that site is real. Fred Phelps has a church in Kansas City, whose soul preaching ground is that God hates fags.

There are some very laughable "fag facts" as he calls them. Gave me a very good chuckle. Interestingly enough, Fred is a disbarred lawyer, whose congregation consists only of his family members. They go to any gay persons funeral (Randy SHiltz, Mathhew Sheppard to name a few) and protest. On a side note, when they got to SF for Randy Shiltz's funeral, an angry mob pelted them with eggs forcing them back onto their Jesus Bus, and thus Randy's funeral went off without incident.

Those people really need to get jobs (or die and go to hell, I can't decide which)

Edit: Iris, I just noticed you changed my title. Bummer. I kinda wanted to remain a radar blip. Oh well. Hey, can you change my "showoff" description to "Disney Guru"?

I hate radicalists.

On a side note, when they got to SF for Randy Shiltz's funeral, an angry mob pelted them with eggs forcing them back onto their Jesus Bus, and thus Randy's funeral went off without incident.

Omg. That just made my day. Thank you! Now I feel happy.

Those people give Christians bad names.

I hate radicalists.

Exactly. I do not think I hate religion just the people who do stupid shit like that. That's probably why I started assuming all religious people are like that. I made a mistake I guess. Oh well. Sorry about offending anyone before. I just really, really, really hate people like that.