|
As a suggestion, if you'd occasionally read your posts in someone else's voice and see how they sound[...]I don't know about the rest of you, but I read LT's posts in the voice of Bubbles, from the Powerpuff Girls.
And, for future reference, my posts should be read in Morgan Freeman's voice, which comes the closest to capturing my gravitas. Either that, or in the voice of the Professor, from Futurama, which captures my inhuman genius and ever-increasing senility.
I can never take you seriously again.
Nobody's perfect, but as long as we keep striving to be, how about we treat each other decent?As a suggestion, if you'd occasionally read your posts in someone else's voice and see how they sound, you might then be able to reword them so as to keep the salient points, but avoid sounding like that snide little know-it-all fat girl in 3rd grade that everyone hated. Addressing others as equals, rather than as if you think they're insufferably inferior beings, might go a long way towards fostering a reciprocal courtesy and respect in those you're addressing.
That too. It's why you're "ganged up" on so often. That and your generally really wrong about most things I've read from you.
Even when evidence is provided and no counter-argument to that evidence is forthcoming, the religiously fanatic atheists (and I do note that not all atheists, just like not all Christians, are religiously fanatic, but many certainly are) are doing their evangelizing thing.
You know what really weirds me out about the Christians Vs Atheists argument from the Christians side? Why paint hostile atheists as religious evangelizers when that is clearly a misnomer at best? It seems to be an attempt to say “See? You guys are as bad as we are!” But my question to that is “Wait…you think being religious and evangelizing people is a bad thing?...then why….?”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Empirical Data
Click this ^
A question posed:
Is it possible that sticking to and enforcing some christian principles in the public arena would be beneficial to a society, regardless of the claimed source of the principle?
If so, is it possible that the christian belief (as interpreted by many) that the institution of marriage should only exist between a man and a woman a good one for our society, again, regardless of the claimed source of the principle?
More Empirical Data
^ Click this.
I submit that all things considered, there are many benefits to basing the standard of marriage and family on something that empirically shows more success, and allowing those who disagree to live their lives in peace without bigotry, hate, and judgement from the rest.
I can never take you seriously again.
... again?
Click this ^A question posed:
Is it possible that sticking to and enforcing some christian principles in the public arena would be beneficial to a society, regardless of the claimed source of the principle?
If so, is it possible that the christian belief (as interpreted by many) that the institution of marriage should only exist between a man and a woman a good one for our society, again, regardless of the claimed source of the principle?
More Empirical Data
^ Click this.I submit that all things considered, there are many benefits to basing the standard of marriage and family on something that empirically shows more success, and allowing those who disagree to live their lives in peace without bigotry, hate, and judgement from the rest.
Family Research Council? Really? Hardly an unbiased source of data.
I find it interesting that Christ (you know, the guy that Christians name themselves after) didn't say word one about homosexuality. Everything to support an anti-gay marriage stance comes from the Old Testament.
Empirical Data
^ Click this.
Egads. Its a suicidal frog that hopped on a dissection table. Where do i begin slicing:
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
· A 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study reported similar results, with 70.7 percent of women married between 1970 and 1974 reaching their tenth anniversary and 57.7 percent staying married for twenty years or longe
The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer
....comparing apples and oranges. A marriage is not a relationship. If they had compared relationships to relationships i bet they'd get a different number.
A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]
.... BAHAHAHHAA.. their wives were listening.
Homosexuals...are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good "marital" relationship.[20]
Huh. You think mayby thats a reason they want to actually be able to get married?
Also, you might want to account for the age differences. Comparing a generation of out of the closet homosexuals in their 20's and 30's to a sample size that includes married couples that forged their morality in the 50's is going to skew results a bit.
Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont who have entered into civil unions: USA Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions.[23]
... Right. Because its been there for 12 years. As opposed to heterosexual marriage has been there since...
However, as already shown, only a small minority of gay and lesbian households have children...
... This message brought to you by captain obvious. I think the author of the study might benefit from a basic biology class. Of course they don't have children. They can't reproduce together and they can't adopt because they can't get married.
I find it interesting that Christ (you know, the guy that Christians name themselves after) didn't say word one about homosexuality. Everything to support an anti-gay marriage stance comes from the Old Testament.
Jesus didn't say anything about it but paul did (see the agreeing with BNW topic for that can of worms)
damned, white, and cake.
This thread?
Don't take it seriously. Trust me.
I can't believe I've never seen the Fiendish Nietzsche avatar before!
What are the three types of lies again?
Its not enough to say "meh its statistics they must be lying" you need to show the lies.
Well, I'm glad Kybyrn posted something from the Catholic Education Resource Center because it allows me to post this article, which I read when doing research for the DD/BNW smackdown of earlier this week.
I couldn't help but see similarities between this article and the Polygamy discussion of a while ago. From which I am still smarting.
Sometimes I feel sorry for Raptors... Their long claw thing looks really uncomfortable. Good veternarians must have been hard to come by.
...is it possible that the christian belief (as interpreted by many) that the institution of marriage should only exist between a man and a woman a good one for our society, again, regardless of the claimed source of the principle?
Nope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe I've never seen the Fiendish Nietzsche avatar before!
I'd tell you to remove your goggles and look more closely, but you can't even see straight to begin with, you French hack.
Nope.
Good point.
Note: my opinion has been altered.
I find it interesting that Christ (you know, the guy that Christians name themselves after) didn't say word one about homosexuality. Everything to support an anti-gay marriage stance comes from the Old Testament.Jesus didn't say anything about it but paul did (see the agreeing with BNW topic for that can of worms)
Paul also said women should stay quiet in church and be submissive to their husbands. I think Jesus has the better message.
On the contrary, the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:
Uh oh...we know that radically different is always a bad thing.
Finally, this paper will present evidence from gay activists themselves indicating that behind the push for gay marriage lies a political agenda to radically change the institution of marriage itself.
There is the 'agenda' word again. Because, you know, wanting to be treated equally is a nefarious 'agenda'.
Everything changes. I know it is scary, but that is just the nature of the universe.
Male Homosexual Relationships
Whoa whoa whoa! Relationships? You mean you are comparing marriages to relationships? How long to most heterosexual relationships (Please note, not marriages) last? The evident bias is bad, now you are just arbitrarily picking numbers to make your point.
Some more reading.
Epic fail. Your empirical evidence is anything but.
Nope.Good point.
Note: my opinion has been altered.
It was my honest response to a completely rhetorical question. Sometimes I feel like not letting the absurd pass without comment. Really though BNW already tore your argument apart, the fact that you are responding to me instead of him clues me in on the fact that you have no interest in actually learning anyway so why should I say more than I feel like saying?
As a suggestion, if you'd occasionally read your posts in someone else's voice and see how they sound[...]I don't know about the rest of you, but I read LT's posts in the voice of Bubbles, from the Powerpuff Girls.
And, for future reference, my posts should be read in Morgan Freeman's voice, which comes the closest to capturing my gravitas. Either that, or in the voice of the Professor, from Futurama, which captures my inhuman genius and ever-increasing senility.
"Good news everyone!!"
Dogblade,
You've not given an intelligent response to my posed questions.
Attacking the data is fine. Anybody can look at it as they please and form an opinion about its validity. Also, i didnt cite the author of the essays, only the data presented, so attacking the website is also useless. Please attack or consider the questions I asked. Then I'll give a response.
It's validity is completely bogus. The manipulation of numbers is painfully obvious to anyone who does not support their own agenda of denying others equal rights.
Courtfool, is that aN indirect personal attack, generalizing my own beliefs, which you don't even know yet?
I invite you to seriously consider my questions, and answer them.
Dogblade,
You've not given an intelligent response to my posed questions.
That is true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Courtfool, is that aN indirect personal attack, generalizing my own beliefs, which you don't even know yet?
No more so than claiming homosexuality makes someone less than others (sinful/deviant/unatural).
I invite you to seriously consider my questions, and answer them.
Is it possible that sticking to and enforcing some christian principles in the public arena would be beneficial to a society, regardless of the claimed source of the principle?
Only if those principles can stand on their own merits at which point, can you really call them 'Christian' or are they simply a culturally shared principle?
If so, is it possible that the christian belief (as interpreted by many) that the institution of marriage should only exist between a man and a woman a good one for our society, again, regardless of the claimed source of the principle?
Again, if the principles can stand on their own.
Would you agree to live under Sharia law if I could prove to you that it would benefit our society? What if the evidence I showed you was little more than baseless claims, fear mongering and statistics taken out of context? Would you still be willing to live under Sharia law?
Point taken. I should have taken more time researching my own posted data. My point is this: you say "culturally shared principle". My personal belief, and this you should quote me on, is that for a society to have long term survivability, there must be a foundation on unchangeable principles, otherwise we fall into relativism, which historically has led to utilitarian regimes seizing control. I do believe that we should fight for social equality, but we must always consider the ramifications of altering the fundamental principles on which we base our nation. Once you start attacking the base, it's not long before the tree falls, and you must rebuild the tree.
Slavery was a fundamental principle. Appealing to tradition is a fallacy.
...and while we are talking about a foundation of unchangeable principles, Jesus himself was not so hung up about changing the law.
Love god. Love your neighbor. Everything else should get a skeptical eye. Even fundamental principles.
I agree that the move to abolish slavery was totally necessary, but slavery was not a principle. In fact, the principles of the American people are what set in motion the abolishment of slavery.
And American principles have set in motion equality for same sex partners.
Look at the arguments made against inter-racial marriage and the similarities are startling. That does not mean they are the same thing, but it should be a big, giant red flag making your Spidey sense tingle.
Matt 5:17-20 31-32
That is a little more specific than "love your neighbor".
Krybyn, The Family Resource Center is known to take things way out of context when it comes to homosexuality. The FRC still links homosexuality with pedophilia. They point at a study by the American College of Pediatricians to back that claim up even AFTER the ACP came out and said otherwise. Sorry, but what you claim is empirical data is anything but empirical data in the way you want it to be.
Edit: Ninja'd...Again.
The FRC is not, and never has been, a source of anything but false propaganda. They've proved it over and over.
My apologies for the skewed data.
|
The problem is that most people usually judge a group by its loudest members, which are usually those in a small fringe group. I know all atheists aren't Christian-bashing intellectual snobs who think anyone with faith is either stupid or crazy, but those are usually the ones you encounter.
Um, Athiests aren't saying that christians are anti-gay. Christians are doing that all by themselves. They're really quite loud about it.
I, like many athiests, have an issue with blind faith. It's not a concept I respect. Unfortunately all religions are based on blind faith.
That being said I can respect specific religious people, but that respect is based on their behavior. Assuming behavior is f both parties are willing to not talk about religion we get along just fine. This is the relationship I have with my brother and it's quite good.
Not all faith is blind.
I rather think ignorance is blindness. Behavior stems from belief.
|
|
My apologies, CJ, but I didn't want, even for a second, to be associated as: a) anti-gay marriage (just anti-marriage, thank you!); or b) accusing him of "pandering".So what does that make me? And answer in another thread, this one is icky ;)Again, my apologies, CJ. Perhaps I should've redacted your name.
In this post quoted here, I am not trying to indicate anything about you-- the a) and b) were about the exchange on the first page.
No problem. I must have missed the exchange anyway.
Yeah, I still think he is desperate for votes. Personally I can't vote for either major candidate.
I can't vote for Bush again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't vote for Bush again.
Then you have a choice. Obama is slightly less Bush than Romney. You're still voting for Bush, though. It's a matter of degree.
As to other assertions, I'll repeat that atheism is a non-belief in a god or gods, or any other cosmic juju, and is therefore not a religion. That straw man is dead before it starts.
|
|
I can't vote for Bush again.Then you have a choice. Obama is slightly less Bush than Romney. You're still voting for Bush, though. It's a matter of degree.
As to other assertions, I'll repeat that atheism is a non-belief in a god or gods, or any other cosmic juju, and is therefore not a religion. That straw man is dead before it starts.
OK, yet so many adherents do treat it much like a fat man in a donut shop. As such to some it is such a lifestyle choice that it might as well be a religion to them being as it is the core of their identity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, yet so many adherents do treat it much like a fat man in a donut shop. As such to some it is such a lifestyle choice that it might as well be a religion to them being as it is the core of their identity.
It's rather convenient to use words like "some" isn't it, when you don't have to provide any evidence?
Even as strong an atheist as I am, I consider my friends, my hobbies, my academic pursuits, my musical and film tastes, all much more important to my self-identity than my atheism and/or irreligion. And even to my close friends, who are almost uniformly atheists, I'm the REALLY atheist one.