Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

give me a GOOD scientific reason why gay people shouldn't get married.

I don't care, but let's at least be honest about it, this isn't about undying love its about benefits. And its about pushing society's buttons so they aren't thinking about the criminals in government and business. This nonsense is making the gay community nothing but the useful tools of the oligarchs.

For god's sake, just incorporate, do a power of attorney, write your own bylaws and be done with it. You'll not only be legal, you'll have more benefits than any married couple can expect.

frazzle
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

give me a GOOD scientific reason why gay people shouldn't get married.

I don't care, but let's at least be honest about it, this isn't about undying love its about benefits. And its about pushing society's buttons so they aren't thinking about the criminals in government and business. This nonsense is making the gay community nothing but the useful tools of the oligarchs.

For god's sake, just incorporate, do a power of attorney, write your own bylaws and be done with it. You'll not only be legal, you'll have more benefits than any married couple can expect.

So you advocate jumping through all sorts of hoops to make up for the fact that gays don't have access to the easy process of just filing for marriage? You know, just because there is a work around, doesn't mean that it is fair or right.

But at the end of the day, it really is about equality. Sure gays could do what you suggested, but they still wouldn't be considered equal in the eyes of the law. The government would still think they are single.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

societies can be either run on religious values.... Or on what the media portrays as a ''moral'' standard.

It's so obvious. You're so used to getting all your values from one central source [religion] that it's just unfathomable to you it could be any different for non-religious. That's your limitation, not ours.

The issue of ''citizenship'' does not mean people redefine things like marriage and family.

Allowing gay marriage in no way infringes on heterosexual marriage in the States. Or marriages done in Churches or with religious ceremony. Nor does it affect how heterosexuals run their 'family unit'.

Because without heterosexual marriage, humans would go extinct.

You might want to sit down for this... People have sex outside of wedlock.

reply to post by EnPassant

I believe all religion is an echo of truth and contains all the moral guidance we need.

That doesn't work. Religions conflict with each other on their moral principles.

Unless you extract the bits and pieces you find most moral out of them. In which case it's obviously moral relativism.

But all religions have been corrupted

So why follow them now?

Dawkins is motivated by hatred. This should be enough to sound alarm bells.

Where is this coming from? Is this the idea that atheists are constantly in rage. That they are always angry. Seriously what the hell. lol

Earlier I have advocated Buddhism.

Okay and what about Buddhism would you advocate? Mindfulness? Compassion?

Many Christians don't really live by the Bible as if it was literal truth.

And many more do.

Dawkins criticizes fundamentalism but he is as fundamentalist as they are. He is running with the hare and chasing with the hounds. He is a hypocrite. He pretends not to understand that religion is more subtle than the fundamentalist take on it. He understands very well, but he is playing a very sly game.

If you watched his debates with Christians you would know he debates against Christians who do take it very literally. You either are unfamiliar with this, in which case you're not in a position to judge, or you do know and are being a hypocrite yourself. You can watch them for free on Youtube.

Karen Armstrong

I'll check her out. Thanks.

skorpion originally said : Christianty doesn't ''own'' marriage. And atheists getting married would not be ''blasphemous'' to anybody.

@krazyshot.... How is it even If atheists can get married, then why can't two gay people get married? I'm really at a loss for the logical breakdown. If marriage isn't the domain of religion, then religion shouldn't have a say on who can and cannot get married. If it is the domain of religion then religion is being hypocritical by saying that gays cannot get married while giving a free pass to atheists who are non-believers.

Read my original statement. I only said that Christianity doesn't exclusively ''own'' marriage...no religion does. However marriage is within the religious domain, because traditionally people understand that there is a spiritual aspect to marriage which is why a priest or some religious authority presides over the marriage. As long as its male-female, an atheist marriage is as valid as any other heterosexual marriage anywhere in the world.

Science is showing that homosexuality is a natural act of nature.

so if something is found in nature, it should be legalized in human society. If thats going to be your approach, then theres nothing wrong with legalizing every natural act... Predatory behaviour, cannibalism etc. If you see a problem with that then you will know why I see a problem with your ''natural act'' argument.

Also if two gay people can show love for each other, then it is only natural that they'd want to spend a long period of time with each other. Where does living together stop becoming living together and start becoming marriage, especially without religion?

we can't tell. So then theres no real need for them to demand any right to marry, is there?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


"A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome, ancient Mesopotamia, in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history. These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed."

Same sex marriage occurred prior to the modern media. Christians even passed a law to ban it way back in 342 AD.

Looks like Christians changed the tradition of marriage for them!

Again I repeat. If people could accept and embrace same sex marriage prior to the modern media then your argument fails. Since cultures historically have, your argument has failed.

Of course you were already given the example of the Native Americans and the 'two-spirited' people, so I doubt anything is sinking in yet.


Sources:
Lahey, Kathleen A. Kevin Alderson. Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political.
Dynes, Wayne R. and Stephen Donaldson. Homosexuality in the Ancient World.
Hinsch, Bret. Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China.
Kuefler, Mathew. The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law.

Lucid Lunacy....

Again I repeat. If people could accept and embrace same sex marriage prior to the modern media then your argument fails. Since cultures historically have, your argument has failed.

Of course you were already given the example of the Native Americans and the 'two-spirited' people, so I doubt anything is sinking in yet.

I thought I made it clear that I acknowledged that homosexuality existed before the mass media. What your saying is the fallacious ''X should be acceptable because those guys over there are doing it'' argument.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n




With that I bow out of discussion with you. It's pointless.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


ahh the religion of science, the belief that math is the infallible word that nature speaks to us with. that nature and the universe are one force with the sole purpose to squander life, and that life is this rarity of a counterbalance meant to offset the destructive and intense examples of nature. this is wrong, if the universe wasn't infinite, even if its only as big as what we have discovered so far, it is still so large in scope that math and certainty are failed. if science and math are 99.99% certain, in a universe as large as ours .01% is a lot of wiggle room. .01% of our "known" universe is larger than a million of our Milkyway Galaxies - thats really big. thats soooo big that it means that there is a possibility for almost anything right here in our own universe. for example there exists a planet with only pink elephants living on it - it is a mathematical certainty, not only that... there will be a planet right next to it with with only blue elephants, it is a certainty because that is how big the universe really is. it is so big that it is highly possible that anything you can imagine really does exists somewhere within it. and this is if it is a finite universe, imagine if its infinite.

reply to post by raj3822

for example there exists a planet with only pink elephants living on it - it is a mathematical certainty

it is so big that it is highly possible that anything you can imagine really does exists somewhere within it.

You're saying the existence of the god I described earlier who supports secular humanism, and is anti religion, is a mathematical certainty. Sweet

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant

 

I believe all religion is an echo of truth and contains all the moral guidance we need.

That doesn't work. Religions conflict with each other on their moral principles.

Unless you extract the bits and pieces you find most moral out of them. In which case it's obviously moral relativism.

But all religions have been corrupted

So why follow them now?

Dawkins is motivated by hatred. This should be enough to sound alarm bells.

Where is this coming from? Is this the idea that atheists are constantly in rage. That they are always angry. Seriously what the hell. lol

Earlier I have advocated Buddhism.

Okay and what about Buddhism would you advocate? Mindfulness? Compassion?

Many Christians don't really live by the Bible as if it was literal truth.

And many more do.

Dawkins criticizes fundamentalism but he is as fundamentalist as they are. He is running with the hare and chasing with the hounds. He is a hypocrite. He pretends not to understand that religion is more subtle than the fundamentalist take on it. He understands very well, but he is playing a very sly game.

If you watched his debates with Christians you would know he debates against Christians who do take it very literally. You either are unfamiliar with this, in which case you're not in a position to judge, or you do know and are being a hypocrite yourself. You can watch them for free on Youtube.

Karen Armstrong

I'll check her out. Thanks.

The essence of religion is "Do unto others" and "Right living" as the Buddhists call it. All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience. I believe the essence of Judaism is from God.

Literalism in religion did not always exist in the fundamental way it does today. Modern fundamentalism is a knee-jerk reaction against the challanges of science, scientism, and materialistic atheism. It is a recent phenomena.

Dawkins talks to fundamentalists because he wants to keep the debate on a base fundamentalist level. He knows well that the real debate is more sophisticated than this but he does not want to enter into it. The fundamentalists are playing into h is hands because he wants to make them seem representative of religion. Most Christians don't go around looking for a witch to burn or spit on gentiles. Most Moslems are horrified by terrorism.

I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins i motivated by hatred. Hitchens was proud and bitter.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by raj3822

 

for example there exists a planet with only pink elephants living on it - it is a mathematical certainty

it is so big that it is highly possible that anything you can imagine really does exists somewhere within it.

You're saying the existence of the god I described earlier who supports secular humanism, and is anti religion, is a mathematical certainty. Sweet

edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

The multiverse is a scientistic phantasmagoria that has no real evidence going for it. It grew out of a wilful misinterpretation of Heisenberg's principle.

reply to post by EnPassant

All true religions share these things. I don't 'follow' what is false in religion. I acknowledge what is good in them and live by conscience.

You acknowledge what is good in them and dismiss what is bad in them. You do so by the discernment of your own conscience.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of what we've been saying. We decide what is moral.

Conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

And because we do, we don't depend on religion for morality.

As for you bit about fundamentalism and Dawkins. I think you're confused on what Christian fundamentalism is. When the term originated it had five fundamentals:

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Jesus
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Many Christians on ATS alone hold all those to be true and would be deemed fundamentalists as the term was originally intended.

The majority of Christendom appears to hold those views as well. At least that's been my experience. So holding it against Dawkins that he only debates with those kinds of Christians seems absurd to me. Additionally, you make it sound like Dawkins picks and chooses who he debates every time. Would you say the same of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitches [RIP]? You realize these atheists get invited from the other side of the fence to debate right?

I didn't say atheists are motivated by rage, I said Dawkins is motivated by hatred

What does that even mean? Elaborate.

Krazysh0t

frazzle
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

give me a GOOD scientific reason why gay people shouldn't get married.

I don't care, but let's at least be honest about it, this isn't about undying love its about benefits. And its about pushing society's buttons so they aren't thinking about the criminals in government and business. This nonsense is making the gay community nothing but the useful tools of the oligarchs.

For god's sake, just incorporate, do a power of attorney, write your own bylaws and be done with it. You'll not only be legal, you'll have more benefits than any married couple can expect.

So you advocate jumping through all sorts of hoops to make up for the fact that gays don't have access to the easy process of just filing for marriage? You know, just because there is a work around, doesn't mean that it is fair or right.

But at the end of the day, it really is about equality. Sure gays could do what you suggested, but they still wouldn't be considered equal in the eyes of the law. The government would still think they are single.

Do you realize how childish that sounds? You don't want the contract with government that's available to you and gives you more authority over your life, you want this OTHER kind of contract with government that isn't available to you without upsetting societal norms and will reduce everyone's authority over their lives. Its tantamount to a two year old banging his spoon on the tray of his highchair because he doesn't want the cookie you're offering him, he wants YOUR cookie. It isn't fair that he can't have your cookie.

The major difference here is there is some hope that the "acting up" child in the highchair will eventually grow out of his terrible twos, unfortunately some children just grow big, not up.

Some hints:
life isn't fair
life is full of workarounds (that's why God ((or maybe it was the flying spaghetti monster)) gave us functional brains)
there is no such thing as equality
the law is not on your side
sometimes you will regret tomorrow what you insist on having today

and the biggie:
the government doesn't give two flying hoots about you or what you want, they just use your childish demands to get what they want ~ more laws, more control, more cookies

reply to post by frazzle

(that's why God ((or maybe it was the flying spaghetti monster)) gave us functional brains)

I think you reducing Gay Rights to a cookie analogy is a little insensitive… to say the least.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I think you reducing Gay Rights to a cookie analogy is a little insensitive… to say the least.

I can't hold a candle to the government when it comes to insensitive, but I do try my best. And actually, life without cookies would probably have more of a negative impact on the world than life without gay rights activists. I don't know anyone who doesn't love cookies.

frazzle
Do you realize how childish that sounds? You don't want the contract with government that's available to you and gives you more authority over your life, you want this OTHER kind of contract with government that isn't available to you without upsetting societal norms and will reduce everyone's authority over their lives.

And those who don't want societal norms upset are doing what?

Maybe you can share your hints with them as well.

daskakik

frazzle
Do you realize how childish that sounds? You don't want the contract with government that's available to you and gives you more authority over your life, you want this OTHER kind of contract with government that isn't available to you without upsetting societal norms and will reduce everyone's authority over their lives.

And those who don't want societal norms upset are doing what?

Maybe you can share your hints with them as well.

Oh, never fear, I'm sure there's nothing "they" can do to stop this freight train to hell. The chapel bells are ringing and the loud and proud crowd will get their marriage contracts with the government along with all the "equal benefits" they demand and everybody will live happily ever after.

Nothing could possibly go wrong, after all, heterosexual marriage contracts and joint tax returns and divorce lawyers and the attendant court custody battles, not to mention CPS ripping kids out of their homes for failure to live up to some unelected government agency's definition of good parenting are so beneficial for families. I don't think there are any such downsides to incorporation, but that's just my take on it.

reply to post by frazzle

So?

What's it to you?

daskakik
reply to post by frazzle

 

So?

What's it to you?

Are you in second grade?

It means nothing to me personally since I won't have to live with the consequences of other people's lousy choices, but I do have kids and grandkids who will. I have been pretty disgusted with this country and the world they will be inheriting for a long time now where base instincts and desires increasingly rule over common sense and decency, and not only with regard to homosexual issues. You don't have to be a "bible thumper" to recognize human devolution on a grand scale when it waves what should be its private issues and private parts in your face. But then considering all the naked selfies gracing the internet, I guess people aren't as concerned about privacy as Snowden thought. Let it all hang out.