|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted May 02, 2005 04:33 PM |
|
|
athiests are not people that hate the bible. They are people that don't beleive nor follow any set of religion/sect/cult.
Distinction to be made here with someone that is spiritual. To be spiritual, you don't need religion. Hence, I am an athiest, spiritual person. 
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 02, 2005 05:01 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 2 May 2005
|
You Guys Are Off-Topic
And speaking of you and probably most of the people here in these forums being atheists....You should probably clarify what kind of atheist you are. It's only fair.
E.g. "I am an atheist but not a bolshevik". Atheist is a very broad and general term that does not describe your personal opinion toward many important issues that the religious community takes very seriously such as abortion, stem cell research, and contraception. I was also thinking about the rights of women.
Religious folks do the same thing. e.g. "I am a christian but not a Klu Klux Klan member or an abortion clinic bomber".
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 06:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And speaking of you and probably most of the people here in these forums being atheists....You should probably clarify what kind of atheist you are. It's only fair.
E.g. "I am an atheist but not a bolshevik". Atheist is a very broad and general term that does not describe your personal opinion toward many important issues that the religious community takes very seriously such as abortion, stem cell research, and contraception. I was also thinking about the rights of women.
Religious folks do the same thing. e.g. "I am a christian but not a Klu Klux Klan member or an abortion clinic bomber".
1- I don't beleive we are off topic because you are the one that asked what you call people that group together and speak against the bible. The same sex marriage debate always brings Biblical quotes, so saying that I am atheist is not offtopic. It only shows that I don't beleive any religion therefore giving Biblical quotes as arguments is not valid in my mind.
2- I'm not sure how to define what kind of atheist I am. I don't beleive in any religion - period. And this thread has nothing to do with my personal opinion toward many important issues that the religious community takes very seriously such as abortion, stem cell research, and contraception. That would be considered offtopic. This thread is on same sex marriage only.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It only shows that I don't beleive any religion therefore giving Biblical quotes as arguments is not valid in my mind.
Sure, it may not be valid to you, and thus may not be a very good tool in discussions with you, since it's less than likely that you will be persuaded by Bible-based arguments.
However, this doesn't exclude that she may see the Bible as the justification of her opinions, and I see no reason why she should have to defend this basis for her arguments and more than we gay marriage supporters have to defend ours.
Who are we to say that her religiously based arguments are less valid than our arguments, which are usually based on liberal modern ethics?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:51 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 2 May 2005
|
Because, if a Biblical quote is a good argument and since it is all based on beleif, if you beleive otherwise, it should be a good argument aswell. But it is not. For example, if she gives an argument based on Liviticus (or whatever) and I say "well, I don't beleive in this stuff", then the debate is over. My point is that it aint much of a debate, right?
And I only was reffering to Consis saying we are off topic.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:53 PM |
|
|
Aha, but aren't also ethical arguments based on beliefs? 
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
mithomasMIT
Hired Hero
Neversleeper
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:54 PM |
|
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:56 PM |
|
|
yes, as usual, you have a truely good point.
But what I am getting at is having a good and productive debate. When I debate same-sex marriage, I don't say "I beleive this or that". I base it on facts, discrimination against homosexuals. Not on my own beleifs.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 10:00 PM |
|
|
So, according to you, we should allow gay marriages because they are discriminated against?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 10:02 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 2 May 2005
|
no, we should allow same sex marriage because not doing so is discrimination.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
mithomasMIT
Hired Hero
Neversleeper
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 10:02 PM |
|
|
Some European Countries help samesexmarriage, but I don't beleive the chatolic church will ever agree whit it....
Not until they don't even let the priests marry )
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 10:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
no, we should allow same sex marriage because not doing so is discrimination.
But this implies that gay marriages and heterosexual marriages will have an equal status.
Why should they have that, when the purpose of the straight marriage is to secure the future of their offspring, and the gay marriage is naught but an expression of love?
Do you also accept that gay people should be allowed to adopt chlidren, then?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 10:37 PM |
|
|
IMHO only
For me, marriage has nothing to do with children. I am not married yet I can give my daughter security and a great, full life.
However, I am not sure where I stand when we bring in adoption. That has not been debated enough and I'd like to hear more about it before I decide. For example, studies will have to be done with implications of 2 parents of the same sex.
Marriage, IMHO, is an act between 2 people who want to unite their lifes. Funny you, as a true socialist, would argue this with me.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 02, 2005 10:46 PM |
|
|
Conan,
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and , for argument's sake, agree that banning gay marriage qualifies as "discrimination". I even agree that gay people should be allowed to marry from my personal opinion.
But you have to understand that it is only my opinion that causes me to say such a thing. My opinions can also be translated as a belief. I believe that gay people should be allowed to marry. What I don't believe is ok, is when a gay married couple tells a child they might decide to raise together the truth about where all human being come from; a man and a woman.
And all of that is my opinion and my set of beliefs so you might say I'm a religious person who bases his opinion/beliefs on facts.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 10:47 PM |
|
|
Actually, I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate here, but letting you know earlier would have spolied some of the usefulness...
I am oersonally all for both gay marriage and gay adoption.
Like you said, today, marriage has little to nothing to do with children; it's become more of a symbolic union between tow people who love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together (if they doesn't, they shouldn't get married, imo). So why cannot gay people be given this right as well? Isn't it a little far fetched, saying (directly or indirectly) that gay people cannot love their partner as much as a heterosexual person can?
When it comes to adoption, I see it pretty much as the solution of its own problems:
By allowing gay people to adopt children, the stigma connected to being brought up by homosexuals would disappear, at least over time. It's all a question of society getting used to it, but since some elements in society could react badly to it, I think the best way to do this, is the conservative way: Slowly.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
LadyGuenivere
Known Hero
Spam Deep-Fryer Mod-Repellant
|
posted May 03, 2005 12:34 AM |
|
|
What is it really?
Clampden's New Abridged dictionary states marriage as...
Quote:
mar·riage n.
1.The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife
and I agree!!!!
Guen
____________
What happened to Lady Guiniwhere anyway?
- FoG
|
|
LinnielErithil
Tavern Dweller
Guardian of Nature
|
posted May 03, 2005 03:29 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
To LadyGuenivere:
And maybe if you have made the effort to read the whole topic, you would see some quite well-rounded concerns as to how meaningful is basing opinion on dictionary references... to sum it up for you... dictionary is a book that states commonly accepted meaning assigned to a word by society at a given point of time. In truth, this doesn't prove anything at all... Change the way society accepts marriage, make society accept same-sex couples getting married, and you will witness *miraculous* change in this neat little reference you provided.
As for all the Biblical arguments, I am sorry, but with all my respect, I find them hypocritical at best. The Bible states my father can sell me in slavery, and enlists me among the belongings of my future husband, does this mean I should hold this true? Do you, Guen? If this is the book that will provide us with Great Truths (TM) then maybe you and I both, Guen, as well as all other women out there, should accept to be equal to our husbands' donkey? (or random other property)
(Disclaimer: In regard to religion, I fall into Conan's group of "spiritual atheists". While I am highly spiritual individual, most things related to organized religion I find highly... um, unsatisfactory, to put it as mildly as possible)
Now, to the real topic of the thread, same-sex marriages... I am all for the idea. IMHO people are free to do as they please, as long as they don't encroach onto others' rights and freedoms. The "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face" principle of lifestyle. Even more, denying the rights stemming from the legal recognition of their union to homosexual people is encroaching onto their freedom... and that is, in my opinion, what can flat-out be named wrong. All people have equal rights, civil rights are to be protected by the law, and the decision whom to marry is one of the basic such rights. This is what state and institutions are for, this is what democracy stands for.
Now, some people like Consis, it seems, find the idea of same-sex marriages wounding their personal worlds. It is really hard to me to fathom why. At some point it boiled down to the word... marriage. Why is this word so important? Why is important to distinguish between same sex unions, and different sex unions? Why is it so important to pinpoint that they are different? Are they?
In my opinion, one of a heterosexual female, feeling no appeal for the same sex, they are not, and stating anything else is undermining homosexuals as second-rate people... which starts to feel somehow incredibly familiar... Here, I have nothing to say that haven't been already stated, in some wonderful posts by Bort, Khaelo, and Peacemaker...
So, again, why is it so important? What would so much threaten the institution of marriage if it is equally open to all human beings without prejudice?! I really cannot understand how one can possibly state that. On the contrary, I can say that bigotry, and inability to adjust to the present is what is the real threat to this institution. If we should create a different institution to reflect open-mindedness and tolerance, because the institution we have is unable to adjust and accept the different values of our time, then I, as an heterosexual individual, would opt for stepping into union with my future male partner through this type of... whatever you call it... superglue if you want. Because I do not wish to unite for life to the my love through an institution promoting discrimination. There is no place for bigotry in love. And come to think of it, maybe, if enough individuals were to think like me, then the old-fashioned institution of marriage would be the one to die out... hmmm, intriguing thought...
Of course, here some people might jump to point moral degradation. So be it, then, I am proudly morally degrading. But pray tell, how is tolerance more immoral than intolerance? How is accepting that the person against you is different human being entitled to the same rights as you are more wrong that denying the person this right on the basis of a book stating that women are property and people should be stoned for planting two different types of crops in a field?
Quote:
What I don't believe is ok, is when a gay married couple tells a child they might decide to raise together the truth about where all human being come from; a man and a woman.
Um... and now you really lost me. I mean, I was left with the impression that the problem was the word marriage... then I was left with the impression that they are not going to tell the kid how people are created, and thus the kid will become one very confused individual with no idea how to procreate should he/she want to (!?! on that point... how is this possible? Is the kid assumed to live in some kind of social vacuum, or what? How it is supposed to -not- become aware of where human being come from??? I mean, come on, we are no longer in the Dark Ages, people tend to talk openly about this stuff. And with all this sex in the movies...)
I come from a post-communist society where most people have really hard time accepting such things as homesexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, sex without marriage, PDA (public displays of affection), drug-addiction treatment... you name it. I come from a family where my parents believe that homosexuals are dirty sinful perverts, that are sick, and possibly mad, and that try to turn their children into similar perverts as well. Condemnation without even an attempt for understanding. My sister, a graduated and practising psychologist, and I have tried several thousand times to drive in the point that homosexuality is just as legal, right and normal as heterosexuality, that it is just as much a matter of choice as is heterosexuality, that homosexuals are just normal people who happen to feel attracted to the same sex... and it simply doesn't sink in. I have given up (well, not exactly, I am still trying, but not really expecting to achieve anything... if, however, someday I do, will be a pleasant surprise). And have to also unwillingly accept that much time will pass before my society is ready to accept the idea of same-sex marriages.
Which takes me to the point where I have to agree with the opinion voiced first by Milena. Trying to legalize same sex-marriage into such societies, where the prevailing opinion is so intolerant, is dangerous at best. What is first to be done is to make people understand and accept. But by all means, that should be the goal. Because accepting intolerance to be prevailing just because it is in the moment is not the way of progress. Propositions of slavery and male supremacy were also prevailing at different points in history. However, by not accepting them was how progress was achieved.
Oh, and by the way, I have very much to say about the marriage as it is defined now, between male and female, an institution to ensure stable environment for raising kids. My own family can be described best by the word broken, and is the source of most of the instability in my life. I think I have seen my father about 50 times in the last 9 years, and honestly have no memories of living with him save for once when he came back drunk... ugly story... does this count as loving parent? Given the right to choose, I would 100% opt for same-sex loving parents over the one I had. Because maybe they would manage to teach me what my family failed to... what is stability, what is to be able to count on one's family for support, what is love, what is the meaning of marriage... yes, this last one as well. I believe they would understand it far better than my two heterosexual parents who were threatening each other that with having to take the responsibility for my upbringing. Oh, yeah, and they are still married, by the way...
I hope that in no point have I sounded flaming, condemning or whatever... if it was so, then I apologize. I do feel very strongly for the issue, not only for this one, but for any issue of intolerance... comes with being open-minded individual brought up in a society still lost in bigotry.
Woah, that turned longer than I intended... perhaps because I tried to comment on 19 pages of a thread... Sorry for that.
Linniel
____________
"They say a little knowledge
is a dangerous thing, but
it's not one half so bad as a
lot of ignorance."
Terry Pratchett
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted May 03, 2005 07:29 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 3 May 2005
|
I Give Up
I do completely. I can't argue with what LinnielErithil said. I found absolutely no faults with her post. I disagree but only from my heart. I have no other argument to a post such as hers. She has all the points covered from A to Z. That's just great, really it is. Thanks for coming out, God bless, goodnight, the end.
In a world like today things simply don't work that way. When you have kids like I do, you want to teach them the ability to survive. Idealism never kept anyone alive in my opinion. It's all very nice in theory but practical application leaves much to the imagination.
What's the point of me even trying to figure this subject out anymore? It's pointless. I have an endless supply of barrage arguments to counter my own on this very subject but none of them are applied to real life. So that's just fine by me. I'll let the sleeping idealism lay quiet while real people go to real jobs and make a real living for their real kids who were created by a real woman and a real man in a real marriage.
~lovely
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2005 03:23 PM |
|
|
what a wonderful post
wow. I log on this morning thinking about what Terje wrote last night and I find this wonderful well-written post that just hooked me.
I had to read it in 2 parts as I thought a good cup of coffee would fit nicely in my matinal reading.
Linniel,
how wonderful of you to share your experiences and your clarity of thought. I must admit that I liked your post so much because I agree with it. Yeah, I biased. So be it.
I guess the only thing I have to say is about having kids under a same-sex marriage. As you saw, I am not against it, but not sure about it. Yes, in your case, it would have been better. But I would like to see psychological tests done on kids issued from such unions to see the affects it might have. Remember that it's not because it would have been better for you that it should be applied to everyone (I know you did not say that, just thought I'd say it).
I don't know where you come from and where you got your ideals, but I find you very strong to hold to your principals even in the face of such adversity. I congratulate you. You see, it's easy for me here in Canada, a very liberal country, to say the things I say. You however show much more independent thought in the face of such conservative ideals.
Consis,
Here in Canada, there is this Bill C-38 in the House of commons that is being debated to change the traditionnal definition of marriage. I say the ideal is very much become a reality. As it stands now, the bill will receive second reading and it will get a very close vote. It is producing alot of debate in the House and people all over are talking about it. This issue in Canada is more than an ideal. It is our way of doing things and going to work, as you say. Soon (hopefully), we will hear kids playing with other kids that have 2 moms or 2 daddies. To me this ideal you speak of will become reality in less than 5 years.
And I do appreciate you reading all this even if you might not agree with everything that is written. It shows alot of intellectual curiosity and openness. Bravo.
Terje,
I knew you were playing the devils advocate, I just thought I'd say that to have you admit it
Nonetheless, thank you for making me realize the position I hold towards kids with same-sex parents.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 03, 2005 10:26 PM |
|
|
How 'bout we just agree : gay marriage for some, small copies of the bible for others.
This way, we can always keep twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
