|
Not just the religious - I have relatives who work for HIV prevention groups focused towards gay men. They have trouble labeling themselves as a group, because besides the gay and bi men that they reach out to, there are many who consider themselves straight, and they just happen to occasionally have sex with men.
You're right, I should have worded that differently.
*Starts selling tin-foil hats*
Guaranteed to keep out terrorists and rational thought! Get 'em while they last!Beckett, you still haven't told us what you think about straight marriage. Isn't that a terror risk as well? And as for everyone focusing in on that one remark of yours...well, you can't expect everyone to spend time responding to the same old misinformed points that you've been posting to Samnell for two or three pages now, when you've given them something fresh, new, exciting, and raving mad.
Devil's advocate? - Maybe because men are the preferred, [n]not exclusive[/b], terrorist of choice and you get two of them in a couple? Are they fully equal opportunity yet? What is the incentive plan for women in paradise? Hell, I don't know. They're all jackholes.
.....
Further, faith is good.
Religion is bad......
I'd argue that any belief system, whether you believe in God, Bhudda, Allah, Science or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, that demands you hold yourself above or superior than other people is begging to start a Holy War.
I remember the chaplain at primary school said "An Idea is a wonderful thing. It can change, grow and develop, just like you, just like those saplings out there, and if it's wrong, you change it for the better. A Belief is often less wonderful, because a Belief is harder to change, even when it's wrong or hurtful, because you believe in it." I've actually got that still, written down on one of his old note-pads, that he gave to me after one of the older kids from a very religious families beat the tar out of me because I said Jesus had to be middle-eastern because there were no white people in the Middle East.
I don't think anyone actually has a problem with , whatever name you want to call that Entity/Entities/Energy Source/Etc. It's the goddamn Groupies down here that make us facepalm.
Some interesting little things I've noticed with Religion in my short, bumbling years on earth:
1)
I'm not talking people asking refugees to try to intergrate as much as they can into society, or the neighbourhood watch asking the new tenants to stop throwing parties till three in the morning every night. I'm talking about the sort of people who will flat out ignore somebody else because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise, and that's at best. We've all encountered the types who will try aggressive preachings, then vigilante actions comes next, and then even worse. I've had the misfortune of working with several of these 'Obnoxiously Religious' types, mostly Born-Again Mormons and one splinter-group cultist weirdo who believed the world was going to end and had been buying 18ct Gold Solder to weld into the corners of a shed he and the rest of his cult were building out in the bush to survive the coming apocalypse, and one of these mental midgets in particular comes to mind, a middle-aged lady, quite pleasant to talk to but rather opinionated and snobby, very up herself, whom we had a problem with when a customer walked in and asked if he could have a closer look at a $4,000 platinum necklace. She ignored him several times before I came out to go on my lunch break and saw this going on. Walking over, I've given this twit employee a withering look and asked the gent if he needed help. Somewhat upset, he asked to see the chain. I said, certainly, went to open the door to that display cabinet and she leaned on the door. Being a big bloke, I was able to push her out of the way, none to gently I might add, and got the chain out.
"You can't!" I remember her saying. "He's black, he won't have the money for it! He'll snatch it and run out of the store!"
You could have heard a penny drop. The poor customer was nearly in tears. I was seeing red and remember roaring at the top of my lungs at her, using words that would get me banned here and suggesting anatomical impossibilities in her family tree. She fled out the back, crying ... and bounced off the boss, who had her hand-bag in his hands, shoved it into her chest and gave his own rendition of 'Get out and don't come back'.
Incidentally, she was a moderate Agnostic. Tried to sue us for being fired and spoken to in such a fashion, got laughed out of court by the judge and was forced to buy an advert in the second page of the local newspaper to write an apology to the customer.
That customer is one of our best return customers. Together with his wife (and now their adorable little girl) they have bought close to $15,000 worth of jewellery, watches and similar from us.
2)
The man who trained me was a Persian. Not an Iranian, a Persian, and one of the better men I've worked with and considered a friend. Hated illegal immigrants more than many of the red-necks in my area and shuddered every time he saw a woman with a headscarf walk past. He said the above title to me once when I was complaining about female circumcision, and when I asked what he meant, he replied that anyone with that much belief in a God that they could shoot another Human being had no right to be anywhere near a position of power. Given he was a survivor of the Iranian Revolution, I'd say he had a lot more authority on the issue than I had.
Look at every 'militant' religion in the world. Lots of dumb-ass tools ready, willing and able to murder good, honest folk for no other reason than so S.O.B. with a religious text and a con-man's skills says it's okay. Personally, freaked out by an American friend who explained to me some churches don't actually have people reading their bibles, they rely upon their Preacher to say what's in it for them. I mean, What?
And then there is the bible reading classes the last weirdo I worked with went to. The more I spoke to him about it, the more it seemed less understanding the meaning behind the bible and how to use the wording and different passages to use the Faith to support their personal agenda. And this is the crazy cultist guy I mentioned earlier, who thought the world was going to end sometime 2003-2004.
Religions and other Belief-System that get entangled in Politics rarely remain good things for long, purely because Politics by it's very nature is a infrastructure that actively uses corruption to perpetuate itself from nearly every layer. And how the hell can you argue with a fundamentalist-minded person, religious or otherwise, who believes with such fanatical zealotry that they would die, or kill hundreds, if not thousands, simply to avenge an insult to their Beliefs?
Situational sexuality isn't orientation. Going to the garage does not make one a car.It ain't gay if you ain't catching?Remember this topic from a college class. It's not 'considered' to be homosexuality in their culture.I believe he is referring to the casual sex Middle Eastern males engage in.
'Manlove Thursday' is a common term used to refer to it among deployed soldiers. That seems to be the day for it.
That is a truly fascinating statement, and the explanation you gave later on was even more interesting. Thank you very much.
lotsa good stuff
Sadly, some Christians don't realize that you can be a Christian and have common sense. Some leave it at the door...
Same applies to atheists as well. Not believing in God doesn't automatically grant you common sense.lotsa good stuffSadly, some Christians don't realize that you can be a Christian and have common sense. Some leave it at the door...
Indeed, however athiests aren't asked to represent themselves in a way that glorifies Jesus...
Okay, going to stop you right there. I don't believe in the existence of 'God' such as is written in the bible and other religions. Most religions are control methods created by man, to control man, for the benefit of a small percentage of man.
That said, while Religion has been the excuse for some of the greatest and most terrible tragedies and abominations the world has ever seen, it is MAN who does this.
Aethiests are potentially even more horrific because we will do just as terrible in the name of Science, for our Country, for our Leaders, and sometimes Just Because.
The Religious at least have the excuse (and that's a poor choice of term, I apologise) that they are following commands put down in manuals that have been written and re-written countless times over centuries by ambitious and politically driven individuals to fulfil their own objectives, noble or base as they might be.
For those of us who reject the concept that we must bend knee to an unseen and often uncaring entity, the burden is there that no matter what we do, we chose to step out from the main herd on our own, and to decide our course for ourselves. Whether that leads to a good or bad ending is firmly upon our own shoulders, and nobody else can be made to shoulder that for us.
Okay, going to stop you right there. I don't believe in the existence of 'God' such as is written in the bible and other religions. Most religions are control methods created by man, to control man, for the benefit of a small percentage of man.
That said, while Religion has been the excuse for some of the greatest and most terrible tragedies and abominations the world has ever seen, it is MAN who does this.
Aethiests are potentially even more horrific because we will do just as terrible in the name of Science, for our Country, for our Leaders, and sometimes Just Because.
The Religious at least have the excuse (and that's a poor choice of term, I apologise) that they are following commands put down in manuals that have been written and re-written countless times over centuries by ambitious and politically driven individuals to fulfil their own objectives, noble or base as they might be.
For those of us who reject the concept that we must bend knee to an unseen and often uncaring entity, the burden is there that no matter what we do, we chose to step out from the main herd on our own, and to decide our course for ourselves. Whether that leads to a good or bad ending is firmly upon our own shoulders, and nobody else can be made to shoulder that for us.
I did not mean to imply that athiests will act like willy nilly asshats becasue they have no guidance, or that they even need guidance.
I was merely stating that some Christians forget when they spew ignorant, hateful crap that it does not edify Jesus one iota.
We all seek to be better people, we just have different motivations.
|
Okay, going to stop you right there. I don't believe in the existence of 'God' such as is written in the bible and other religions. Most religions are control methods created by man, to control man, for the benefit of a small percentage of man.
That said, while Religion has been the excuse for some of the greatest and most terrible tragedies and abominations the world has ever seen, it is MAN who does this.
Aethiests are potentially even more horrific because we will do just as terrible in the name of Science, for our Country, for our Leaders, and sometimes Just Because.
The Religious at least have the excuse (and that's a poor choice of term, I apologise) that they are following commands put down in manuals that have been written and re-written countless times over centuries by ambitious and politically driven individuals to fulfil their own objectives, noble or base as they might be.
For those of us who reject the concept that we must bend knee to an unseen and often uncaring entity, the burden is there that no matter what we do, we chose to step out from the main herd on our own, and to decide our course for ourselves. Whether that leads to a good or bad ending is firmly upon our own shoulders, and nobody else can be made to shoulder that for us.I did not mean to imply that athiests will act like willy nilly asshats becasue they have no guidance, or that they even need guidance.
I was merely stating that some Christians forget when they spew ignorant, hateful crap that it does not edify Jesus one iota.
We all seek to be better people, we just have different motivations.
And often, different definitions of 'better'. Which is why this thread has trouble living up to its title.
Granted.
What's your definition of "better"?
|
Beckett, you still haven't told us what you think about straight marriage. Isn't that a terror risk as well?
Actually, I did if you read back. My point was only that A.) it opens the door to a threat and B.) it is an issue because we are not ready for that. Otherwise, I DO NOT have an issue with homosexual marriages, for religious reasons of the other reasons I mentioned which have nothing to do with religion. As for heterosexual marriages, the threat is minimal, though terrorists d immigrations that ought to be illegal otherwise do infact attempt those as well, most american women are not interested, and most women that come from a country that outside, often do not want to return to such a life once here.
And as for everyone focusing in on that one remark of yours...well, you can't expect everyone to spend time responding to the same old misinformed points that you've been posting to Samnell for two or three pages now, when you've given them something fresh, new, exciting, and raving mad.
The remark that turns out to be true? Which one, because I do not see anything yet I actually ned to defend. I actually purpossefully refrained from responding to many accusations in favor of letting others prove them wrong, simply because I have already had some pretty inhospitible and false/poorly informed accusations thrown my way, and I get the idea nothng I say will change anyone's opinion.
Which I am fine with. I just hope that some people take a step back and return this to a civil conversation, because I do not want it to get shut down.
Trying to keep a discussion about religion civil is kind of like trying to keep a discussion about politics civil .... or like trying to drink the ocean (even Thor failed at this mighty task). This forum was a Pandora's Box from post 1, but I'm always eager to champion a lost cause! ;)
I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, studied the Bible, learned the history of the church -- crusades, schisms (during the Great Schism of the High Middle Ages, everyone in Christendom was excommunicated by either the pope in Rome or the pope in Avignon), reformations, etc., studied other religions (World Religions class and my own research), experimented with hallucinogens (during which time I had what might be called "spiritual" or "religious" experiences by some), read about natural selection, read some Dawkins, and finally began to accept the fact that I could no longer suspend my disbelief in God as described by all the known religions.
Nor could I suspend disbelief in angels, demons, miracle-performing saints, bleeding statues, deities that become humans so they can sacrifices themselves to themselves to appease their own anger over the sins of their own creations, and anything else that would seem indistinguishale from mythology to a rational alien observer.
When I first realized that I don't believe in God (as described by anyone else to date), I was at first depressed and felt more than a little abandoned, like a child who has lost a parent. Then, I began to feel the elation and freedom of someone who realizes that they are the only one in control of their own destiny. I also began to feel a greater sense of responsibility for bringing about goodness and justice. After all, if there really is no vengeful God to punish evil and enforce justice, then it is the duty of people to do so. And when I do good, it feels all the more like a selfless act, as I expect no reward and fear no punishment.
Wouldn't it be ironic if there WAS a God, and that God only let into heaven those who did NOT believe in it but still were good and loving people? After all, how deserving is someone who believes only because he fears being dealt an unimaginably terrible punishment that lasts forever if he does not? Pascal was a weasely coward IMO.
Beckett, you still haven't told us what you think about straight marriage. Isn't that a terror risk as well?Actually, I did if you read back. My point was only that A.) it opens the door to a threat and B.) it is an issue because we are not ready for that. Otherwise, I DO NOT have an issue with homosexual marriages, for religious reasons of the other reasons I mentioned which have nothing to do with religion. As for heterosexual marriages, the threat is minimal, though terrorists d immigrations that ought to be illegal otherwise do infact attempt those as well, most american women are not interested, and most women that come from a country that outside, often do not want to return to such a life once here.
And as for everyone focusing in on that one remark of yours...well, you can't expect everyone to spend time responding to the same old misinformed points that you've been posting to Samnell for two or three pages now, when you've given them something fresh, new, exciting, and raving mad.The remark that turns out to be true? Which one, because I do not see anything yet I actually ned to defend. I actually purpossefully refrained from responding to many accusations in favor of letting others prove them wrong, simply because I have already had some pretty inhospitible and false/poorly informed accusations thrown my way, and I get the idea nothng I say will change anyone's opinion.
Which I am fine with. I just hope that some people take a step back and return this to a civil conversation, because I do not want it to get shut down.
Wow. How the heck did I get the quoting honors for posts I only responded to? Maybe the quote buffer runneth over?
|
|
Wouldn't it be ironic if there WAS a God, and that God only let into heaven those who did NOT believe in it but still were good and loving people? After all, how deserving is someone who believes only because he fears being dealt an unimaginably terrible punishment that lasts forever if he does not? Pascal was a weasely coward IMO.
But what if you believe that not believing in God was the way to heaven and choose to be a good and loving person believing that your not believing would get you into heaven?
But what if you believe that not believing in God was the way to heaven and choose to be a good and loving person believing that your not believing would get you into heaven?
Wouldn't it be ironic if there WAS a God, and that God only let into heaven those who did NOT believe in it but still were good and loving people? After all, how deserving is someone who believes only because he fears being dealt an unimaginably terrible punishment that lasts forever if he does not? Pascal was a weasely coward IMO.
God would roll a d20. 1-10, heaven; 11-20, the Pits of Baator!
I'm telling you, God is the ultimate impartial DM. We are the player-characters of our True Selves, which have played countless other PCs before us in the Great Sandbox Campaign of Reality. It is in striving against and overcoming the challenges of life that we find the closest thing to a true heaven. Evil and ugliness are necessary for good and beauty to have meaning. True challenges, where we must use teamwork and what talents we may have to succeed, and where the chance for failure exists, because no amount of brown-nosing the DM will cause It to fudge The Rules, are required if we are to feel true victory.
|
|
But what if you believe that not believing in God was the way to heaven and choose to be a good and loving person believing that your not believing would get you into heaven?
Wouldn't it be ironic if there WAS a God, and that God only let into heaven those who did NOT believe in it but still were good and loving people? After all, how deserving is someone who believes only because he fears being dealt an unimaginably terrible punishment that lasts forever if he does not? Pascal was a weasely coward IMO.God would roll a d20. 1-10, heaven; 11-20, the Pits of Baator!
I'm telling you, God is the ultimate impartial DM. We are the player-characters of our True Selves, which have played countless other PCs before us in the Great Sandbox Campaign of Reality. It is in striving against and overcoming the challenges of life that we find the closest thing to a true heaven. Evil and ugliness are necessary for good and beauty to have meaning. True challenges, where we must use teamwork and what talents we may have to succeed, and where the chance for failure exists, because no amount of brown-nosing the DM will cause It to fudge The Rules, are required if we are to feel true victory.
The Church of RPGs? I sense a schism coming between the roll-players and role-players.
|
The Church of RPGs? I sense a schism coming between the roll-players and role-players.But what if you believe that not believing in God was the way to heaven and choose to be a good and loving person believing that your not believing would get you into heaven?
Wouldn't it be ironic if there WAS a God, and that God only let into heaven those who did NOT believe in it but still were good and loving people? After all, how deserving is someone who believes only because he fears being dealt an unimaginably terrible punishment that lasts forever if he does not? Pascal was a weasely coward IMO.God would roll a d20. 1-10, heaven; 11-20, the Pits of Baator!
I'm telling you, God is the ultimate impartial DM. We are the player-characters of our True Selves, which have played countless other PCs before us in the Great Sandbox Campaign of Reality. It is in striving against and overcoming the challenges of life that we find the closest thing to a true heaven. Evil and ugliness are necessary for good and beauty to have meaning. True challenges, where we must use teamwork and what talents we may have to succeed, and where the chance for failure exists, because no amount of brown-nosing the DM will cause It to fudge The Rules, are required if we are to feel true victory.
I sense I need to stop reading or another headache will come about.
The Church of RPGs? I sense a schism coming between the roll-players and role-players.
Hmmmm, L. Ron Hubbard once said that the quickest way to get rich was to start your own religion (which he later did, creating what would become Scientology, and making himself quite rich).
I am the high priest of Sandboxism! Please address your tithes to Michael Johnson, and I will see to it that the DM receives your sacrifice, and suggest that He slip a few uber magic items with your name on them into the Great Sandbox Campaign of Life!
Hmmmm, L. Ron Hubbard once said that the quickest way to get rich was to start your own religion (which he later did, creating what would become Scientology, and making himself quite rich).
The Church of RPGs? I sense a schism coming between the roll-players and role-players.
And then bludgeoned the IRS into tax exemption with an epic stream of thousands of frivolous lawsuits.
One of the biggest difficulties in being an agnostic atheist, for me personally, is navigating in a diplomatic and loving way the fine line between being honest and respecting the beliefs of my mother, co-workers, and in general 80-some-odd % of the pop. of the US.
I do want to get along with theists, and I respect their choice to derive whatever strength and comfort they can from whatever source works for them, but because I personally view religious faith as a socially accepted mass delusion, I am often tempted to just fake being a Christian so I don't have to defend my position against a born again self-appointed evangelist hell-bent on saving my soul, or so I need not worry that my poor mother will die thinking her son is going to Hell for being a heathen.
I'd argue that any belief system, whether you believe in God, Bhudda, Allah, Science or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, that demands you hold yourself above or superior than other people is begging to start a Holy War.
It occurs to me that anyone who holds a philosophy that believes in supermen inevitable believes themselves to be one of these supermen; yet anyone who holds a philosophy that believes in saints must believe they themselves are not saints.
It occurs to me that anyone who holds a philosophy that believes in supermen inevitable believes themselves to be one of these supermen; yet anyone who holds a philosophy that believes in saints must believe they themselves are not saints.
Luckily, the percentage of Nietzscheans among the atheist population as a whole is rather small.
Seriously, you're not put off by the fact that he's shot full of arrows? To me that's a red flag that says, this person has unresolved issues. :-)I've tried, but he's got St. Sebastian and how do I compete with that? I mean, look at him!Oh, my. Number 3 especially.
Only your unenlightened eyes, blinded by science and unbelief, would see those arrows as arrows. Sophisticated believers know better. The fact that they are painted as arrows is proof positive that they are not arrows.
If you think about it, you'll see what they really are. :)
|
|
Seriously, you're not put off by the fact that he's shot full of arrows? To me that's a red flag that says, this person has unresolved issues. :-)I've tried, but he's got St. Sebastian and how do I compete with that? I mean, look at him!Oh, my. Number 3 especially.Only your unenlightened eyes, blinded by science and unbelief, would see those arrows as arrows. Sophisticated believers know better. The fact that they are painted as arrows is proof positive that they are not arrows.
If you think about it, you'll see what they really are. :)
Crossbow bolts?
Crossbow bolts?
If you think about it, you'll see what they really are. :)
Try again.
Dousing rods?Try again.Crossbow bolts?
If you think about it, you'll see what they really are. :)
That's a bit closer.
My apologies, Emperor7. I was responding from my phone, so I may have gotten the wrong post. Hard to see and scroll between things when I quote.
No problem. They were lengthy strings.
|
|
Seriously, you're not put off by the fact that he's shot full of arrows? To me that's a red flag that says, this person has unresolved issues. :-)him!Oh, my.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. This is not one of those times.
And as for everyone focusing in on that one remark of yours...well, [...]you've given them something fresh, new, exciting, and raving mad.The remark that turns out to be true? Which one, because I do not see anything yet I actually ned to defend.
Okay, how about I reword my objection. It is truethat legalizing same-sex marriage would present an opportunity for terrorists to gain citizenship/entrance into the country. However, in light of the already existing ways into the country (straight marriage, student visas, travel visas, already being a citizen, and plain old stealth), the "increased terrorist threat" posed by gay marriage is trivial. That is why citing terrorism as a legitimate non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage is raving mad.
I often have trouble comprehending some of your posts due to what I assume are typographical errors (I share your frustration with posting via mobile), so it's possible that I misinterpreted your original post. To clarify, perhaps you could answer these questions:
1. Do you object to the legalization of same-sex marriage? If so, why?
2. Do you believe that "the threat of terrorism" is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of same-sex marriage?
2b. Do you think that religious belief is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of same-sex marriage? (This is question 2b because it's outside of the original topic of "non-religious objections to gay marriage", however, I'm still interested in the answer)
I just hope that some people take a step back and return this to a civil conversation, because I do not want it to get shut down.
I saw this op-ed piece linked over at Jerry Coyne's blog, and it immediately made me think of this thread. If I may quote a quote:
By mid-morning Thursday [at the National Institute for Civil Discourse], Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush were conducting anger-management classes, working with Fred Phelps and his civility-impaired congregation from the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. Mr. Phelps and his strident adherents filed into the institute waving their famously uncivil signs: “God Hates Fags,” “Priests Rape Boys” and “You Are Going to Hell.” After two hours of tea and therapy with the two former presidents, Mr. Phelps and his followers emerged bearing signs that said: “We Believe That the Non-Sectarian Divinity May Not Approve of Certain Sexual Orientations. You May Have A Different Opinion. Let’s Compromise!” and “Some but Not All Priests Have Struggled With Pedophilia. If You Disagree, We Are Willing to Listen!” and “Have A Great Day! Before You Go to Hell!” All of their signs featured cheerful emoticons and happy faces.. . . The centerpiece of the tour was a look at how even a topic like abortion, predictably rancorous and caustic, may be elevated in tone to an acceptable level of civility. Observers were allowed to watch through one-way mirrors as pro-lifers and pro-choicers struggled to converse civilly and accommodate each other’s polarized views under the watchful eyes of institute mediators.
By noon, progress was undeniable, as pro-choicers were overheard politely saying, “If you will respect my right to choose, I may respect your right to harbor demented religious delusions.” To which the pro-lifers decorously responded, “If you will respect the word of God and the sanctity of all human life, I may respect your right to murder unwanted babies.” Still not quite there, but the day was barely half over! . . .
. . . Still, the civility institute hopes that these time-honored free-speech fundamentals can be modified. Just a bit. If we promote civility, might we not achieve a political nirvana where it is possible to be robust, vehement and caustic while at the same time remaining punctiliously civil and decorous?
Sure, but that would bring to mind another Ambrose Bierce quotation: “Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy.”
I saw this op-ed piece linked over at Jerry Coyne's blog
Do I know you over there? And have I asked you that before?
|
|
I saw this op-ed piece linked over at Jerry Coyne's blogDo I know you over there? And have I asked you that before?
I read often, but rarely post. If I do ever post, it'd be under Jagyr, Jagyr Ebonwood, or Brandon. I do see you pop up every so often, and so far I've refrained from waving and yelling "Hi!". :)
Edit: Also, any site that uses Gravatars will identify me with this image.What could it possibly be. I can't think of anything else...
Well, I give up. :P
I saw this op-ed piece linked over at Jerry Coyne's blog, and it immediately made me think of this thread. If I may quote a quote:
I was reminded of this.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.
|
|
I was reminded of this.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
Which reminded me of this:
You're Being Hostile
This is a great one to pop out if it seems like they’re going to push the matter. After all, nobody wants to be “hostile”, do they? In a culture rigidly defined by social protocol, invariably designed to favour the privileged, people are very concerned about “getting along with others“.Especially Marginalised People™! Know why? Well, since they’re marginalised, they experience a variety of discriminations, usually in many aspects of their daily lives. It is not at all unusual, therefore, for Marginalised People™ to have to be accustomed to being very, very cautious about the way they engage with the Privileged®. This is because discrimination may mean they routinely encounter violence, silencing, oppression or just good old-fashioned outright ridicule and diminishment. That can make life stressful and exhausting, so many Marginalised People™ develop complex strategies to avoid hostile engagements with Privileged People® .
Further to this, Marginalised People™ are forced into a certain sort of social behaviour by Privileged People® - “appropriate” behaviour. After all, there are different rules for them than there are for the Privileged®. This training in “appropriate” behaviour usually begins when they are very young, so it is well-ingrained.
By accusing them of hostility, you will successfully enliven their sense of caution and anxiety around this matter. You may also provoke a feeling of guilt that they are not “behaving” the way they have been trained to.
But even better - by accusing them of hostility, you pass the blame back to them, rather than consider what you might have said that was so offensive and hurtful it caused the “hostility”!
This will definitely work in your favour, because it will further insult and enrage them. You are making progress…
|
|
However, in light of the already existing ways into the country (straight marriage, student visas, travel visas, already being a citizen, and plain old stealth), the "increased terrorist threat" posed by gay marriage is trivial. That is why citing terrorism as a legitimate non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage is raving mad.
I often have trouble comprehending some of your posts due to what I assume are typographical errors (I share your frustration with posting via mobile), so it's possible that I misinterpreted your original post. To clarify, perhaps you could answer these questions:
Sure. I don't mind sharing my opinions. I don't expect others to agree, as they are my opinions only.
1. Do you object to the legalization of same-sex marriage? If so, why?
Not for it's own sake. My concerns are simply that I do not feel that the country is ready for it yet. I am not against same sex marriages on any sort of moral grounds, religious grounds, (which I honestly do not concider myself anyway), and I absolutely believe each state must keep thier own laws about what is or is not allowed with same sex marriages, just like they do with opposite sex marriages.
2. Do you believe that "the threat of terrorism" is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of same-sex marriage?
No, becase the threat is so minor. I don't belive the threat in regards to homosexual (male) marriage is as minor, particularly if it where a universal federal law. But I am also concidering it paired with (what would otherewise be) illegal immigrations. Now that is a threat more evenly shaired by homo- and heterosexual marriage, so I think that would actually be a more appropriate question for a moral quandry.
2b. Do you think that religious belief is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of same-sex marriage? (This is question 2b because it's outside of the original topic of "non-religious objections to gay marriage", however, I'm still interested in the answer).
Yes I do. Not for myself, but I think that people should have the right to object to or fight for what they believe, doesn't matter if it is religious based, or poliical, or whatever other reason.
To be a little more specific, as there are a few ways I can take this question.
I do believe that religious motivation is a valid reason.
No, my religious background does not make me want to object to same-sex marriage.
I do have an issue with people attempting to argue or insinuate that religion shoud be faulted with all the bad that so many people shoot it's way.
|
|
Beckett, thank you for answering my questions, I truly appreciate it. I hope you will continue to indulge me by answering a couple more (you'll find they are familiar):
1. Do you object to the legalization of mixed-race marriage? If so, why?
2. Do you believe that "the threat of terrorism" is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of mixed-race marriage?
2b. Do you think that religious belief is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of mixed-race marriage?
Once you've answered these questions, please reread the following statements, replacing "same-sex marriage" with "mixed-race marriage". Would you still agree with your statements? If not, why not?
My concerns are simply that I do not feel that the country is ready for [same-sex marriage] yet. I am not against same sex marriages on any sort of moral grounds, religious grounds, (which I honestly do not concider myself anyway), and I absolutely believe each state must keep thier own laws about what is or is not allowed with same sex marriages, just like they do with opposite sex marriages.
...
I do believe that religious motivation is a valid reason.No, my religious background does not make me want to object to same-sex marriage.
A few more things:
- When I say "legitimate reason" in the questions above, I specifically mean something that should be honored by the courts and the state.- Do you truly believe that civil rights, human rights, or equal rights should be witheld solely on the basis that the country "isn't ready for it"? The country arguably wasn't ready for Emancipation, nor Women's Suffrage. Imagine there was a law that made it legal to (or even endorsed) the regular beating of red-headed people with sticks. Imagine that the number of people opposed to this law is <50% of the population*. Do you think this hypothetical law should be abolished? Why?
* Side note, I recently read an article reporting that 61% of the population is in favor of gay rights (in terms of supporting gay marriage and the end of DADT). However, I'm on my mobile and I don't remember where I saw the article.
|
|
Beckett, thank you for answering my questions, I truly appreciate it. I hope you will continue to indulge me by answering a couple more (you'll find they are familiar):
1. Do you object to the legalization of mixed-race marriage? If so, why?
Not at all. I take it you mean a more specific racial grouping, but my wife is, as far as I know, of full europian decent, while I have a significant proportion of Cajun, Native American, African (not American :) ) and general Europian. I have friends of all races, and some of them are in homosexual or mixed racial relationships, (someimes both).
But, I don't think that these two things are the same thing. And will delve into that a little, next.
2. Do you believe that "the threat of terrorism" is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of mixed-race marriage?
Perhps if it where a more likely eventuality. But I do not believe that these are similar enough to count as a counter. As I mentioned, it is not just terrorist, and it is also not just a possible threat. I think it is very likely that a large group of people will try to circumvent the immigration laws and will also open the door to terrorist cells gaining easy access to the country. That angle really isn't so much an option for interracial marriages, not by themselves, anyway.
2b. Do you think that religious belief is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of mixed-race marriage?
Again, yes. For the same reason. And, I also DO NOT personally believe this is correct, just, or good.
However, I also want to point out that no religion I know of actually believes/practices this. There are a very few that believe more along the lines of keeping a community together, or not mixing blood with other groups, (but ot out of a racial hatred or dislike), and there are people that happen to follow one religion or another, who also happen to believe in racism or racial purity/superiority, but I am not familiar with any that believe that because of their religion. I know of a few that believe, (sometimes correctly) that by mixing blood, he offspring will become slighly weaker over generations, but do not generally dislike other races.
Once you've answered these questions, please reread the following statements, replacing "same-sex marriage" with "mixed-race marriage". Would you still agree with your statements? If not, why not?
My concerns are simply that I do not feel that the country is ready for [same-sex marriage] yet. I am not against same sex marriages on any sort of moral grounds, religious grounds, (which I honestly do not concider myself anyway), and I absolutely believe each state must keep thier own laws about what is or is not allowed with same sex marriages, just like they do with opposite sex marriages.
...
I do believe that religious motivation is a valid reason.No, my religious background does not make me want to object to same-sex marriage.
Under very different circumstances, I don't think the country was ready for interracial marriages, [i]at one point in time. If someone would have tried to make a Federal Law allowing/forcing it in say the 30's, I think we would be living in a very different country than we are now. Woman's Rights, in the victorian or colonial eras likely would have led to there not being an America.
I'm going to try to avoid going off topic, but I do think racial equality IS a good thing. But, I do not believe my opinion is more correct than anyone elses, just because it is my opinion.
A few more things:
- When I say "legitimate reason" in the questions above, I specifically mean something that should be honored by the courts and the state.
- Do you truly believe that civil rights, human rights, or equal rights should be witheld solely on the basis that the country "isn't ready for it"? The country arguably wasn't ready for Emancipation, nor Women's Suffrage.
I do think that the threat is significat enough to hold off on allowing it country wide right now. I'm not sure if I would concider that a "Right", as there is nothing keeping homosexual couples from being together. Heterosexual marriages can and are invalidated by different state regulations, usually dealing with either age or parential conscent, and I view this as the same thing, just a different degree. If I do not agree with a state regulation, I have a "Right" to move somewhere else without that regulation, (actually I do not, but you guys/gals do, while I can be executed in any state regardless of that states laws on the death penulty ha ha ha).
Imagine there was a law that made it legal to (or even endorsed) the regular beating of red-headed people with sticks. Imagine that the number of people opposed to this law is <50% of the population*. Do you think this hypothetical law should be abolished? Why?
Absolutely, (I believe it should be abolished). Because I don't believe anyone should be beaten, harassed, picked out for <having red hair>, or treated unjustly. This was the point I was attempting to get across with Samnell. This is not impartiality, but rather the exact opposite. Picking out one group and then saying everyone but them should have a benefit, becuase they are that group is not impartiallity.
I do believe that any individual has the right to believe that this is a valid reason to beat someone, but NOT to actual do it, and certainly not to do so legally.
* Side note, I recently read an article reporting that 61% of the population is in favor of gay rights (in terms of supporting gay marriage and the end of DADT). However, I'm on my mobile and I don't remember where I saw the article.
That ended March 1st, by the way. (My entire unit was jokingly hoping it would have been April 1st. . ., because everyone was oh so surprized. . .)
|
|
Don't worry, you'll figure it out eventually.What could it possibly be. I can't think of anything else...
Well, I give up. :P
Well, I'd have never thunk it...
Woman's Rights, in the victorian or colonial eras likely would have led to there not being an America.
Wait... what??
Did you just say that full equality for women earlier in our history would have prevented the existence of America as a country?
Please tell me I'm wrong in that interpretation.
(I apologize for the threadjack, and for picking out one statement in a long post to question rather than addressing the whole thing, but this just brought my brain to a screeching halt and I had to ask.)
|
|
Woman's Rights, in the victorian or colonial eras likely would have led to there not being an America.Wait... what??
Did you just say that full equality for women earlier in our history would have prevented the existence of America as a country?
Please tell me I'm wrong in that interpretation.
(I apologize for the threadjack, and for picking out one statement in a long post to question rather than addressing the whole thing, but this just brought my brain to a screeching halt and I had to ask.)
I mean more along the lines of a country we might recognize. Just speculation, and if you feel diferently, please enlighten me as to why. Please also realize this is not me saying I think woman's rights are right or wrong, only that if implimented at different points in time, may have changed history drastically.
For example, having woman's rights in the victorian era, (in what we concider them anyway), would have possibly devistated the industrial revolution, which might have led to various powers not being able to break away from rural and agrarian communites in favor of larger cites, and also severly restricting most exploration of the world and discoveries, etc. . . Things of that nature.
For colonization, not having the community "leadership" of a household that builds into a structured community heirarchy, would probably have left each villiage to weak to defend against native american raids and most would have been either slaughtered as a whole or taken as slaves once the families where killed.
Woman's Rights, in the victorian or colonial eras likely would have led to there not being an America.Wait... what??
Did you just say that full equality for women earlier in our history would have prevented the existence of America as a country?
Please tell me I'm wrong in that interpretation.
(I apologize for the threadjack, and for picking out one statement in a long post to question rather than addressing the whole thing, but this just brought my brain to a screeching halt and I had to ask.)
I mean more along the lines of a country we might recognize. Just speculation, and if you feel diferently, please enlighten me as to why. Please also realize this is not me saying I think woman's rights are right or wrong, only that if implimented at different points in time, may have changed history drastically.
For example, having woman's rights in the victorian era, (in what we concider them anyway), would have possibly devistated the industrial revolution, which might have led to various powers not being able to break away from rural and agrarian communites in favor of larger cites, and also severly restricting most exploration of the world and discoveries, etc. . . Things of that nature.
For colonization, not having the community "leadership" of a household that builds into a structured community heirarchy, would probably have left each villiage to weak to defend against native american raids and most would have been either slaughtered as a whole or taken as slaves once the families where killed.
First, you say that you're not postulating whether or not equal rights are good or bad, and then you proceed to give examples of how full equality for women early on in human history would have led to the downfall of civilization as we know it. If you're trying to come across as neutral in that respect, you're failing.
Second, I can't argue against your suppositions about potential alternate histories, because they're pure imagination. You haven't presented any evidence to support your hypothetical suppositions about the different course history might have taken. Personally, I don't think your suppositions CAN be supported by evidence, so there's really no point in debating that.
And this is probably not the thread for it anyway.
|
|
That's fine. But how do you disagree? I actually fill like I am giving woman's rights more respect by suggesting that there would be a huge shift in outcome throughout history, because that means that it was important and would have ramifications, rather than suggesting it would not becuase it is not a major factor.
:) Also, just for the record, it is impossible to prove an opinion. An opinion can not be right or wrong. However, if you feel that mine is not valid, I would be delighted in hearing your side and reasoning.
Also, how am I not being nuetral on the issue? I did not say anyhing about downfall, and even reposted last tie to clarify it. I never said what we would have in it's stead would be "worse", just different. That's all on you. In the same way that if we had not discovered nuclear power, the world would certainly be different for it.
If we had not discovered the atomic bomb, would we have won WW2? Maybe. Would any country be the same, though? No. Does that mean worse. Not at all. Maybe the amount of deaths would have reached even higher, to the point that every government in the world united in forbidding the use of firearms there after, for any purpose.
In the most sincerest sense, I would like to hear your side, (besides accusations). Maybe you will show me something I didn't consider or change my opinion if there is a good point.
|
|
Also, just for the record, it is impossible to prove an opinion. An opinion can not be right or wrong.
...
Also, how am I not being nuetral on the issue?
...
But, I do not believe my opinion is more correct than anyone elses, just because it is my opinion.
I don't get this attitude. The obsession with neutrality, the insistence that all points of view are equally worthy. One must realize that there are many issues on which there is a clear right side and/or a clear wrong side. By always staking claim to the median, one gives false credibility to the blatant wrong/bigoted/crazy/etc position.
There must be some reason you hold the positions you do - these aren't just opinions, these are the things you believe in and hold to be true. State your opinion, defend it, back it up with evidence! These are issues of Truth, issues with great moral implications - don't just go all wishy washy and say "maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, oh well, who knows?"
This isn't "which ice cream flavor do you prefer", this is serious shit here!
I do think that the [terrorist] threat is significat enough to hold off on allowing [same-sex marriage] country wide right now. I'm not sure if I would concider that a "Right", as there is nothing keeping homosexual couples from being together. Heterosexual marriages can and are invalidated by different state regulations, usually dealing with either age or parential conscent, and I view this as the same thing, just a different degree.
There is so much wrong with this paragraph, but I don't have the time to unpack it right now. Some quick notes until I can devote more time:
- "Significant terrorist threat"- Country wide bad, but statewide is okay?
- "Right now" is bad why?
- "Nothing keeping homosexual couples from being together"
- Two men wanting to marry is the same as two children wanting to marry, just less so
Argh. I'm going to be busy for the rest of the night gaming. Samnell, get in here and address these points for me.
*turns on gay Batsignal*
Samnell, get in here and address these points for me.
*turns on gay Batsignal*
Sorry, I did my time and invest far too much of it into dealing with stuff like this already. Plus I'm reading a history book chiefly populated by people who would be at best lawful evil in D&D (It's about America in the Sixties.) so I'm over quota.
So far as the country not being ready for something: the bigots are never, ever going to be ready. So "we're not ready for it" is just another way of saying segregation forever.
|
|
Also, just for the record, it is impossible to prove an opinion. An opinion can not be right or wrong.
...
Also, how am I not being nuetral on the issue?
...
But, I do not believe my opinion is more correct than anyone elses, just because it is my opinion.
I don't get this attitude. The obsession with neutrality, the insistence that all points of view are equally worthy. One must realize that there are many issues on which there is a clear right side and/or a clear wrong side. By always staking claim to the median, one gives false credibility to the blatant wrong/bigoted/crazy/etc position.
I wouldn't say I'm obsessed with neutrality. I do believe that all points of view are valid, and I don't think the fact that my opinion is better than your opinion, simply because it is my opinion.
Let me say it this way. Do you think I should have the right to dictate what you are allowed to believe? I'm saying no, I don't. You are saying you don't understand how I can think that way.
I want you, and everyone else to think for themslves. Agree or disagree with me.
I also like to be open to learning and switching my opinion if I see something I had not concidered or learn something new, like a different point of view.
There must be some reason you hold the positions you do - these aren't just opinions, these are the things you believe in and hold to be true. State your opinion, defend it, back it up with evidence! These are issues of Truth, issues with great moral implications - don't just go all wishy washy and say "maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, oh well, who knows?"
This isn't "which ice cream flavor do you prefer", this is serious s!#@ here!
Being that it's my job to defend these rights for all american's (and other countries as well), I am and do take these things very seriously. I have given reasons why I believe my opinions. I have stated my opinions. I am also the only one that has been defending opinions here. I'm extremely lost with this one. I'm in no way whatsoever being wishy-washy. I'm just nt as close-minded or unhumble to think that I am right no matter what. Maybe I am wrong. At least I can admit that, because it seems no one else here can. And you say that it's a bad thing? Really.
Sounds right along the lines of "because Jim-Bob said so", to me.
So where are everyone elses opinions and defending of those opinions? What examples or reasons have been given to counter all the things people are accusing me of lying about or being wrong?
I do think that the [terrorist] threat is significat enough to hold off on allowing [same-sex marriage] country wide right now. I'm not sure if I would concider that a "Right", as there is nothing keeping homosexual couples from being together. Heterosexual marriages can and are invalidated by different state regulations, usually dealing with either age or parential conscent, and I view this as the same thing, just a different degree.
There is so much wrong with this paragraph, but I don't have the time to unpack it right now. Some quick notes until I can devote more time:
- "Significant terrorist threat"
Honestly not sure what your issue is here, so I'll wait.
- Country wide bad, but statewide is okay?
Yes, I think so. For most issues, not this one only. Each state is different, so I think trying to enforce federal laws on issues based on another area's preferences is historically a very stupid idea. Particularly in cases with such baggage.
- "Right now" is bad why?
Because I don't think the country is ready. Plane and simple. I don't thinkwe have developed the legal codes yet, concidered all the ramifications, or decided yet how much influence state vs federal governmen will have.
- "Nothing keeping homosexual couples from being together"
As in no law makes it outright illegal to be homosexual, or in a homosexual relationship. Actully not actually true, as for example, it is illegal in Texas, though that hasn't actually been used in a practicle sense in a hundred years, and is right up there with it being illegal to walk and chew gum.
I've just read a short philosophical paper about the morality of worship. The short version is that, per the authors, worship is in itself immoral. (The link goes to a PDF of the paper.) I'm somewhat inclined to agree but not completely settled on the matter. It seems to me that the decision hinges on what is entailed in worship.
No, I don't mean human sacrifice, genital mutilation, stoning unbelievers or any of that. Certainly some religions do or have done those things and plenty more, but others do not. They might be indicative of certain kinds of worship or certain styles of religious belief, but one could condemn them and still leave plenty of worshiping untouched.
But setting that aside, my hope is that I could get some insight from the believers as to whether or not they have the concept of worship down:
For any rational moral agent (A), if A worships
x, A’s worship of x is the joint performance of
three acts:a. A is unconditionally obedient to x and to the
demands that x’s existence and properties place
on A,b. A views x as absolutely worthy of worship, and
c. A performs rituals or communicative acts expressing 3a and 3b.
Are the authors, leaving aside their eventual conclusion about worship, barking up the wrong tree, or is this supposed to be at least the ideal to which you aspire?
So where are everyone elses opinions and defending of those opinions?
Well, for me, the idea that some hypothetical terrorist who likes to molest boys and really wants to blow something up in America refuses to come over until we allow same sex marriage so he can illegal gain entry to the country with a consenting adult is ridiculous. It seems pretty obvious to me that they think molesting boys is not the same as homosexuality so it does not apply. There is also the annoying fact that plenty of homosexual men marry women just to put up a front that they are straight. I can not imagine a determined homosexual terrorist would find it any more difficult.
Illegal immigrants! RAWR!
Sorry. No. Stop looking for a scapegoat and look for the real cause of our problems. It is not some Mexican mowing my yard for about half what the kid down the street wants.
And I have already voice my opposition to the idea that we should not do the right thing because it's 'too soon'. As others have said, it is always going to be 'too soon' for those who do not want to do the right thing.
I will not argue that giving women the vote earlier would make this a different country. I believe that is a given. The idea that it would be worse off. Ha! The mental gymnastics you would have to perform to justify that position are staggering.
The right thing to do is the right thing to do. From freeing all people, giving all people the right to vote and letting consenting adults marry consenting adults.