"Not a single fuck was given"
User was warned for this post
Forum Index > Closed |
Nyarly
France1030 Posts
"Not a single fuck was given" User was warned for this post | ||
Slaughter
United States20250 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:13 autoexec wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 04:00 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 03:55 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:52 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 03:48 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:40 heroyi wrote: On July 08 2012 03:32 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:25 ImAbstracT wrote: On July 08 2012 03:15 DoubleReed wrote: [quote] So two questions: 1 - Can gay Christians get married in churches if the congregation is cool with it? Because there are plenty of gay Christians and Christians who are for gay marriage. 2 - Are you against non-Christian marriage? For instance, do you think the government should recognize Jewish and Hindu marriages? 1. I would not call that a church. A church is a place where the Word is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. A church must conform to Scripture, not the other way around. 2. My views on marriage have nothing to do with the government. The only reason we have marriage certificates was to keep whites from marrying other races (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/89927.html). Christian marriage is union of two believers; one man and women. The state should play no part of this. The battle of gay marriage is won by the preaching and proclamation of the Gospel, not in court rulings. 1. Who are you to mandate what a church is and not a church isn't? That's pretty damn offensive. I'm not even Christian and that offends me. 2. So if you're not talking about government, then who cares what your views on marriage are? Your views on marriage are your own, and have nothing to do with me. I have my own views on marriage, and you don't get to tell me what to do. If homosexuals want to marry, then the only that matters is their view on marriage, not yours. 1. Is that not a definiton of a church? A place where preaching of its belief is held? 2. Marriage is a religious affair. Government should hold no power or view on such imo. 1 - Churches have different interpretations. It's like Catholics talking about how Protestants aren't "real Christians." Who are you to say who's a real Christian or not a real Christian? Who are you to say what's a church and what's not? It's offensive and divisive. 2 - Then either way, you are (or at least should be) for marriage equality. So I would assume if you were to vote for or against gay marriage, you would vote for it. 1 - He is basing his view of what a church is on the Bible. Which clearly defines the church as a body of believers that fellowships and learns together about God. 2 - That didn't make any sense to me. Rephrase or explain a bit more? 1 - They are still a body of believers that fellowships and learns together about God. That definition has nothing to do with marrying gay people. 2 - If he is saying that the government should have no role in marriage whatsoever, then that implies marriage equality. I don't see how this is confusing. If the government is not going to tell who can or can't get married, and it is a religious object, then that still means the government is not going to tell who can't get married. That point of view is quite possibly the most socially liberal of all. 1- The Bible clearly says homosexuality is wrong. In the New Testament! (1 Corinthians 6 : 9-11. Check it out. Quite well sums up a lot of the Christian belief.) So why would you marry homosexuals if being homosexual is wrong? 2- If the government has no role in marriage, then the church would have all the power. Then that means that no homosexuals would get married. But it wouldn't matter because marriage would have no point unless your Christian because if the government had no part in it there would be no benefits. So there would be no incentive to get married unless you want to follow the Christian teachings about marriage. 1 - The Bible has many interpretations and I would argue that not many Christianity sects exist anymore that are actually literalists. The bible is also written by men who put their own prejudices and bigotry in the bible, and many sects of Christianity recognize this freely. 2 - You are assuming that everyone in the whole wide world is Christian and all Christians have the same beliefs. I am not Christian. I would be free to marry someone of the same sex (you know, if I was gay). Nonchristians and gays are just as sentimental about marriage as Christian people are. 1- Okay. What sects are not literalist and what percentage are they? Also, 2nd Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2- What is the point though if there are no benefits? It's just an extra thing to do. If you're not Christian then there is no logical point to be married in this situation. 2. People get married today because its a commitment to someone they love. That was not always the case. Also benefits for married people is a incentive to have kids (also when this was created usually only the man worked and had income) so it gives people a break so they can have more money to do these things. | ||
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:15 NotAPro wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: On July 08 2012 03:58 Slaughter wrote: On July 08 2012 03:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: I see the thread has devolved into a religion debate. Guess that was inevitable, given TL's history. As far as the OP goes, I get really bored of rehashing all the same stale arguments over and over. I just don't get the point, it's like people getting together to argue that murder is wrong. Yeah, obviously... I've never met someone who was in such a group or who agreed with such a group or who was placed into such a group. I'm sure it has a huge affect on some small number of people but in my life it is a complete nonentity. I think people just like to take some very small minority of extremely bigoted people and then extrapolate that they are somehow a larger percentage of the population. I guess it's a desire for intellectual superiority or something, or they are left and want to believe the core of the right is bigotry and ignorance. I just hope these foregone conclusion threads don't become regular from BillClinton. Arguing is humanities favorite past time Stating something that 99% of people on TL agree with and then bludgeoning the other 1% into submission is not my idea of a debate. That falls more in the realm of ego stroking and psychological masturbation. Well when the "1%" is rallying against human rights I think the argument is worth having. But that is your belief. In the eyes of Christianity you are being ignorant and what not. To them they are not infringing on human rights but instead helping these "poor, damned souls" who have been swayed by the devil... I'm agnostic if anyone cares. | ||
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
On July 08 2012 03:48 farvacola wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 03:33 ShadeR wrote: On July 08 2012 03:05 farvacola wrote: On July 08 2012 02:57 ShadeR wrote: On July 08 2012 02:31 Mogget wrote: This thread is ridiculous, very few people are actually engaging in proper discussion. The number of fallacies and assumptions flying around are enough to make my head hurt. But i'll try to sort out a few of the irritating little things i've noticed. 1) In that case, can you explain what is wrong about homosexuality? Before you call a group of people immoral or wrong, you have to provide a proper reason. Good job assuming that Religious people are automatically wrong in your attempt to show that they are wrong. If your starting premis is "the bible is not the word of god" i think you might need to establish that a bit before jumping ahead. 2) On July 07 2012 23:41 hzflank wrote: On July 07 2012 23:37 Myles wrote: I love how everyone starts hating on something when apparently a large majority of the group(~70 ministries vs 11)is trying to change for the better. They're no longer going to try and cure 'gay', just help gay Christians who are trying to resolve being gay and being Christian. Mr. Chambers said he was simply trying to restore Exodus to its original purpose when it was founded in 1976: providing spiritual support for Christians who are struggling with homosexual attraction. Some of you guys might want to read shit and think for a second rather than jumping on hate bandwagon - it reminds me of certain extremist ideologies. Yep, this is a step in the right direction. I really think the bible needs amending. Would the US constitution work without amendments? If you think the bible needs amending, then you once again seem to not understand the point of the bible, too many atheists make this mistake. The bible cannot be amended. How exactly, does one improve on the word of God? You cant, therefore if Christians were to amend the bible, they would be saying that it was in-fact NOT the word of god at all, and rather than amend it, might as well just throw the whole damn thing away. 3) On July 08 2012 00:10 ShadeR wrote: On July 08 2012 00:08 Luepert1 wrote: On July 07 2012 23:57 BillClinton wrote: On July 07 2012 23:50 autoexec wrote: On July 07 2012 23:45 ShadeR wrote: [quote] Holy comparison batman! buttsecks and murder! The comparison may sound silly, but it is true. I dont think its good to compare a natural drive, like sexual behavior or hunger with a criminal behavior. If we think in the same categories, an analogy would be: if you eat food x your behavior is bad because you don't comply with norm y. So some humans might become conditioned and think that their behavior is wrong and they require help. Maybe some people have natural drives to kill people? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer It's a false analogy because being a serial killer is detrimental to non-serial killers and being gay does not hurt non gays. This whole discussion was anoying me. Good points were made, and completely ignored. No, it is NOT dis analogous It is a good example of showing how someone can be internally conflicted about their desires, and their beliefs about what is morally correct. This discussion later took a turn with people focusing on the lack of damage caused by homosexuality. THIS DOES NOT MATTER. The point is about autonomous agents being free to chose to not do something they feel is wrong. Does this argument have problems? Yes, is the lack of harm caused by homosexuality one of them? No. 4) Because the Bible said so, clearly. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, so they rely on the Bible to tell them it's bad. Im pretty sure if you believed the bible was the eternal infallible word of God, you would believe what it said as well. Those are the only things I can be bothered to quote at the moment, but there are plenty more in there, on both sides. P.S. Im not a christian. I just cannot stand poor argumentation skills. P.S.S. That reminds me, someone saying science is the way to go? Science and religion are in no way mutually exclusive. Unless you are Using a straw man and talking about a minority of Christians who are extremely fundamentalist. This would be akin to arguing against Islmaic beliefs based on what an extreemist group believes. Correct the bible does not need amending. It needs ignoring. Sensible christians cherry pick. And why do these gay individuals feel homosexuality is morally wrong? Find me a gay atheist who thinks homosexuality is wrong =_= Science and religion are absolutely mutually exclusive Stephen Jay Gould is wrong when he claims that they are non-overlapping magisteria. Religion makes claims that shit in the face of scientific fact. The two are irreconcilable. David Hume on the virgin birth. "What is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?" Are you at all familiar with Christian Existentialism/Absurdism? If not, I'd highly recommend you do some Kierkegaard reading. There are Christians, myself included, that are fully aware of the irrational jump inherent in some sorts of religious faith. In fact, the irrationality of faith becomes a justification in and of itself, as irrational faith falls in line with rational logic and emotional intelligence as a toolset for a thinking, believing Christian, with all existing in a state of prioritative flux. ok wut? prioritative flux???? You need to dumb things down for me because i just googled prioritative flux AND ONLY FOUR RESULTS APPEARED. That's probably because I coined the phrase in a piece of graduate work I'm currently in the process of revising after critique :D What I'm getting at is a specific brand of Christian Existentialism that relegates specific frames of human thought to tools in a toolbox, different means with which to approach different situations. It can be argued fairly easily that faith is patently absurd, therefore religious faith is inarguable on rational grounds, and all attempts to do so ought to be dismissed. Now, one is likely to ask the question, "What constitutes an irrational argument?". Primarily, it is important that we loosen up the definition of "argument" as we are arguing irrational things, and instead think on topics such as music, worship or lifestyle. The motivation that compels righteous living is a sort of argument in and of itself, one predicated on communal celebration, empathy, and self-determined duty for the betterment of ones' self and others. Keeping in mind that these all might boil down to one massive placebo effect, the justification for irrational faith becomes the action and contemplation it motivates. Thanks for expanding. If i understand you correctly then i don't think we have much of a disagreement. I have no desire to seriously argue with anyone about the numinous. I simply make objections regarding factual claims about the natural world. I'll also admit that i am out of my depth debating you because i haven't studied nearly enough philosophy to understand everything you say. | ||
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:08 ChriS-X wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:03 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:58 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 03:46 NotAPro wrote: Almost half of marriages end in divorce, I really don't see how allowing Gays to marry will erode the sanctity of marriage, since it's pretty much a joke. Also I'm pretty sure not allowing Gays to marry will be seen as just as big a mistake as race segregation in 50 years or so. Yes, I agree with you, it has already been greatly eroded due to the prevalence of divorce, but we should be looking at ways to preserve it, not erode it further. And by preserving you mean stop people from participating who want to settle down and start families? The entire fight against gay marriage is one of the most harmful things against the family. It has people (even of considerable intellect) reduce marriage down to making babies and the whether your bits dangle or not. Yes, clearly such a view is strengthening marriage. It is the pro-gay-marriage movement who want have a family and settle down. They are the pro-family ones. The anti-gay movement completely based around the idea of stopping them from having families. It is a great example of doublespeak. I myself am still undecided about whether there is a significant effect on children having more social problems/problems maintaining a loving, monogamous relationship with gay parents, since the evidence on that are conflicting at best. I think most of us can agree that the most ideal environment would be to have a stable, loving relationship with their biological parents. I don't see how the word "biological" is as important as "loving" and "stable". Often "biological" parents, atleast my father, won't be ready for a child or not want a child; anyone adopting will atleast want a child. There's no inherent benefit. Not like gays will get pregnant by accident, or not properly talk things over before expecting. | ||
NotAPro
Canada146 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:18 heroyi wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:15 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: On July 08 2012 03:58 Slaughter wrote: On July 08 2012 03:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: I see the thread has devolved into a religion debate. Guess that was inevitable, given TL's history. As far as the OP goes, I get really bored of rehashing all the same stale arguments over and over. I just don't get the point, it's like people getting together to argue that murder is wrong. Yeah, obviously... I've never met someone who was in such a group or who agreed with such a group or who was placed into such a group. I'm sure it has a huge affect on some small number of people but in my life it is a complete nonentity. I think people just like to take some very small minority of extremely bigoted people and then extrapolate that they are somehow a larger percentage of the population. I guess it's a desire for intellectual superiority or something, or they are left and want to believe the core of the right is bigotry and ignorance. I just hope these foregone conclusion threads don't become regular from BillClinton. Arguing is humanities favorite past time Stating something that 99% of people on TL agree with and then bludgeoning the other 1% into submission is not my idea of a debate. That falls more in the realm of ego stroking and psychological masturbation. Well when the "1%" is rallying against human rights I think the argument is worth having. But that is your belief. In the eyes of Christianity you are being ignorant and what not. To them they are not infringing on human rights but instead helping these "poor, damned souls" who have been swayed by the devil... I'm agnostic if anyone cares. Believing the magical sky wizard to which your religion subscribes to should have a say in what everyone on the World can do is incredibly arrogant and illogical.Especially since the majority of the world doesn't subscribe to a single religion so the majority of people are going to Hell anyway no matter what religion you are. | ||
NotAPro
Canada146 Posts
| ||
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
Also I believe that gay parents do make a great family. The process they have to go through to adopt a kid requires a tremendous amount of work. I remember watching the documentary about this issue and one of the gay parents attempting to adopt stated how "...its so easy to get a kid when you are not gay. You just fuck and have a baby. But if you are gay, you have all of these paper works, interviews, payments and check ups its unfair..." If a couple is willing to go through all of that then I would think they would be great parents. in the end the couple adopted a black child and were under heavy scrutiny and fire because they were both white parents fearing they wouldnt know how to handle social issues with a black child...Mind you this film is recent...lol | ||
autoexec
United States530 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:18 DoubleReed wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:13 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 04:00 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 03:55 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:52 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 03:48 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:40 heroyi wrote: On July 08 2012 03:32 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:25 ImAbstracT wrote: [quote] 1. I would not call that a church. A church is a place where the Word is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. A church must conform to Scripture, not the other way around. 2. My views on marriage have nothing to do with the government. The only reason we have marriage certificates was to keep whites from marrying other races (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/89927.html). Christian marriage is union of two believers; one man and women. The state should play no part of this. The battle of gay marriage is won by the preaching and proclamation of the Gospel, not in court rulings. 1. Who are you to mandate what a church is and not a church isn't? That's pretty damn offensive. I'm not even Christian and that offends me. 2. So if you're not talking about government, then who cares what your views on marriage are? Your views on marriage are your own, and have nothing to do with me. I have my own views on marriage, and you don't get to tell me what to do. If homosexuals want to marry, then the only that matters is their view on marriage, not yours. 1. Is that not a definiton of a church? A place where preaching of its belief is held? 2. Marriage is a religious affair. Government should hold no power or view on such imo. 1 - Churches have different interpretations. It's like Catholics talking about how Protestants aren't "real Christians." Who are you to say who's a real Christian or not a real Christian? Who are you to say what's a church and what's not? It's offensive and divisive. 2 - Then either way, you are (or at least should be) for marriage equality. So I would assume if you were to vote for or against gay marriage, you would vote for it. 1 - He is basing his view of what a church is on the Bible. Which clearly defines the church as a body of believers that fellowships and learns together about God. 2 - That didn't make any sense to me. Rephrase or explain a bit more? 1 - They are still a body of believers that fellowships and learns together about God. That definition has nothing to do with marrying gay people. 2 - If he is saying that the government should have no role in marriage whatsoever, then that implies marriage equality. I don't see how this is confusing. If the government is not going to tell who can or can't get married, and it is a religious object, then that still means the government is not going to tell who can't get married. That point of view is quite possibly the most socially liberal of all. 1- The Bible clearly says homosexuality is wrong. In the New Testament! (1 Corinthians 6 : 9-11. Check it out. Quite well sums up a lot of the Christian belief.) So why would you marry homosexuals if being homosexual is wrong? 2- If the government has no role in marriage, then the church would have all the power. Then that means that no homosexuals would get married. But it wouldn't matter because marriage would have no point unless your Christian because if the government had no part in it there would be no benefits. So there would be no incentive to get married unless you want to follow the Christian teachings about marriage. 1 - The Bible has many interpretations and I would argue that not many Christianity sects exist anymore that are actually literalists. The bible is also written by men who put their own prejudices and bigotry in the bible, and many sects of Christianity recognize this freely. 2 - You are assuming that everyone in the whole wide world is Christian and all Christians have the same beliefs. I am not Christian. I would be free to marry someone of the same sex (you know, if I was gay). Nonchristians and gays are just as sentimental about marriage as Christian people are. 1- Okay. What sects are not literalist and what percentage are they? Also, 2nd Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2- What is the point though if there are no benefits? It's just an extra thing to do. If you're not Christian then there is no logical point to be married in this situation. You can't quote scripture to show that scripture is inerrant. That's blatantly circular. If anything, that shows that the scripture is errant, because anybody can see that. Again, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, all of these people have marriage and their own beliefs and view on marriage. I have no idea why you seem to think Christianity is the "default marriage." And again, you are acting as if you have no idea what a marriage is, which is a celebration, and it carries a great deal of sentimentality for little girls (and boys) everywhere. They want to be married, regardless of whether they want a husband or they want a wife. 1- Check out this article. Good read I had a while back. Answers about why the Bible is God inspired. http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp | ||
ChriS-X
Malaysia1374 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:17 NotAPro wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:15 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:12 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:08 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:03 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:58 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 03:46 NotAPro wrote: Almost half of marriages end in divorce, I really don't see how allowing Gays to marry will erode the sanctity of marriage, since it's pretty much a joke. Also I'm pretty sure not allowing Gays to marry will be seen as just as big a mistake as race segregation in 50 years or so. Yes, I agree with you, it has already been greatly eroded due to the prevalence of divorce, but we should be looking at ways to preserve it, not erode it further. And by preserving you mean stop people from participating who want to settle down and start families? The entire fight against gay marriage is one of the most harmful things against the family. It has people (even of considerable intellect) reduce marriage down to making babies and the whether your bits dangle or not. Yes, clearly such a view is strengthening marriage. It is the pro-gay-marriage movement who want have a family and settle down. They are the pro-family ones. The anti-gay movement completely based around the idea of stopping them from having families. It is a great example of doublespeak. I myself am still undecided about whether there is a significant effect on children having more social problems/problems maintaining a loving, monogamous relationship with gay parents, since the evidence on that are conflicting at best. I think most of us can agree that the most ideal environment would be to have a stable, loving relationship with their biological parents. There are orphanages full of kids with no biological parents. I think most of us can agree living that living with people who love you and want you as their own is a much more ideal environment than an orphanage. I agree. The emphasis on what I said previously is most ideal. We all know there are many situations that are far from ideal. All a child needs is a good support system that they can rely on at home. Gender play no role in this. A straight Christian couple is just as likely as a Gay couple to raise a child successfully and are just as likely to screw up the child. Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:17 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:15 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: On July 08 2012 03:58 Slaughter wrote: On July 08 2012 03:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: I see the thread has devolved into a religion debate. Guess that was inevitable, given TL's history. As far as the OP goes, I get really bored of rehashing all the same stale arguments over and over. I just don't get the point, it's like people getting together to argue that murder is wrong. Yeah, obviously... I've never met someone who was in such a group or who agreed with such a group or who was placed into such a group. I'm sure it has a huge affect on some small number of people but in my life it is a complete nonentity. I think people just like to take some very small minority of extremely bigoted people and then extrapolate that they are somehow a larger percentage of the population. I guess it's a desire for intellectual superiority or something, or they are left and want to believe the core of the right is bigotry and ignorance. I just hope these foregone conclusion threads don't become regular from BillClinton. Arguing is humanities favorite past time Stating something that 99% of people on TL agree with and then bludgeoning the other 1% into submission is not my idea of a debate. That falls more in the realm of ego stroking and psychological masturbation. Well when the "1%" is rallying against human rights I think the argument is worth having. Has marriage been defined as a human right? It's a right attributed to humans that we are not allowing certain humans to attain. 1. I agree, the support system is the most important. However, what I am still undecided about is whether certain inputs into child development from each gender plays a significant role. 2. How did we decide that it was a fundamentally universal and basic right? | ||
BillClinton
232 Posts
| ||
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:26 heroyi wrote: There are some social problems with gay couples adopting. I mean think about it. You are a little kid, whose mind is still developing, and get bullied in school because you have 2 moms or 2 dads. Gays is not that popular still. The bigger issue is when 2 white gays adopt a black child. NOW that raises a lot of hooplah. Also I believe that gay parents do make a great family. The process they have to go through to adopt a kid requires a tremendous amount of work. I remember watching the documentary about this issue and one of the gay parents attempting to adopt stated how "...its so easy to get a kid when you are not gay. You just fuck and have a baby. But if you are gay, you have all of these paper works, interviews, payments and check ups its unfair..." If a couple is willing to go through all of that then I would think they would be great parents. in the end the couple adopted a black child and were under heavy scrutiny and fire because they were both white parents fearing they wouldnt know how to handle social issues with a black child...Mind you this film is recent...lol Haha. Black child white parents OMG hooooow ^^ I think madonna has black children. And brangelina ^^. I don't think madonna is lesbian, but who knows. Those kids have 1 mother, not 2. Their loss, but, Madonna x) she can support 100 kids. And buy them lots of mommies. I don't think you'd get bullied for being Madonnas child. Because people respect her; and so random children aren't brought up to hate on her kids. This is how a bullying discussion goes. People stigmatizing others for random reasons is not the "victims" fault. If anything, it's the stigmatizing a-holes that should not have children. It's one thing having your own values, and maybe passing those on to your kids. It's quite another to infringe and stick your nose up into other's values, and take it out on their kids; either directly or indirectly. "If you adopt children, I will bully them and make sure everyone I knows bully them, so that it will seem irresponsible to adopt" On one hand we fear that the children of gay parents are bullied, and it is a collective concern. While gay children being bullied is a "selective" concern; not a collective one. It makes no sense | ||
Sinensis
United States2513 Posts
Out of here! Bye crazy thread nice knowing you! | ||
NotAPro
Canada146 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:28 ChriS-X wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:17 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:15 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:12 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:08 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:03 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:58 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 03:46 NotAPro wrote: Almost half of marriages end in divorce, I really don't see how allowing Gays to marry will erode the sanctity of marriage, since it's pretty much a joke. Also I'm pretty sure not allowing Gays to marry will be seen as just as big a mistake as race segregation in 50 years or so. Yes, I agree with you, it has already been greatly eroded due to the prevalence of divorce, but we should be looking at ways to preserve it, not erode it further. And by preserving you mean stop people from participating who want to settle down and start families? The entire fight against gay marriage is one of the most harmful things against the family. It has people (even of considerable intellect) reduce marriage down to making babies and the whether your bits dangle or not. Yes, clearly such a view is strengthening marriage. It is the pro-gay-marriage movement who want have a family and settle down. They are the pro-family ones. The anti-gay movement completely based around the idea of stopping them from having families. It is a great example of doublespeak. I myself am still undecided about whether there is a significant effect on children having more social problems/problems maintaining a loving, monogamous relationship with gay parents, since the evidence on that are conflicting at best. I think most of us can agree that the most ideal environment would be to have a stable, loving relationship with their biological parents. There are orphanages full of kids with no biological parents. I think most of us can agree living that living with people who love you and want you as their own is a much more ideal environment than an orphanage. I agree. The emphasis on what I said previously is most ideal. We all know there are many situations that are far from ideal. All a child needs is a good support system that they can rely on at home. Gender play no role in this. A straight Christian couple is just as likely as a Gay couple to raise a child successfully and are just as likely to screw up the child. On July 08 2012 04:17 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:15 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: On July 08 2012 03:58 Slaughter wrote: On July 08 2012 03:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: I see the thread has devolved into a religion debate. Guess that was inevitable, given TL's history. As far as the OP goes, I get really bored of rehashing all the same stale arguments over and over. I just don't get the point, it's like people getting together to argue that murder is wrong. Yeah, obviously... I've never met someone who was in such a group or who agreed with such a group or who was placed into such a group. I'm sure it has a huge affect on some small number of people but in my life it is a complete nonentity. I think people just like to take some very small minority of extremely bigoted people and then extrapolate that they are somehow a larger percentage of the population. I guess it's a desire for intellectual superiority or something, or they are left and want to believe the core of the right is bigotry and ignorance. I just hope these foregone conclusion threads don't become regular from BillClinton. Arguing is humanities favorite past time Stating something that 99% of people on TL agree with and then bludgeoning the other 1% into submission is not my idea of a debate. That falls more in the realm of ego stroking and psychological masturbation. Well when the "1%" is rallying against human rights I think the argument is worth having. Has marriage been defined as a human right? It's a right attributed to humans that we are not allowing certain humans to attain. 1. I agree, the support system is the most important. However, what I am still undecided about is whether certain inputs into child development from each gender plays a significant role. 2. How did we decide that it was a fundamentally universal and basic right? Marriage provides significant benefits that should not be denied to people for being different. | ||
BillClinton
232 Posts
On July 08 2012 03:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: I see the thread has devolved into a religion debate. Guess that was inevitable, given TL's history. As far as the OP goes, I get really bored of rehashing all the same stale arguments over and over. I just don't get the point, it's like people getting together to argue that murder is wrong. Yeah, obviously... I've never met someone who was in such a group or who agreed with such a group or who was placed into such a group. I'm sure it has a huge affect on some small number of people but in my life it is a complete nonentity. I think people just like to take some very small minority of extremely bigoted people and then extrapolate that they are somehow a larger percentage of the population. I guess it's a desire for intellectual superiority or something, or they are left and want to believe the core of the right is bigotry and ignorance. I just hope these foregone conclusion threads don't become regular from BillClinton. Hope you realize that your post is a conclusion in itself. If the resolution of this controversial issue is that obvious to you, then projecting a false intention on others is more or less a reflection of oneself's. | ||
Smat
United States301 Posts
| ||
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:28 ChriS-X wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:17 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:15 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:12 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:08 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:03 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:58 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 03:46 NotAPro wrote: Almost half of marriages end in divorce, I really don't see how allowing Gays to marry will erode the sanctity of marriage, since it's pretty much a joke. Also I'm pretty sure not allowing Gays to marry will be seen as just as big a mistake as race segregation in 50 years or so. Yes, I agree with you, it has already been greatly eroded due to the prevalence of divorce, but we should be looking at ways to preserve it, not erode it further. And by preserving you mean stop people from participating who want to settle down and start families? The entire fight against gay marriage is one of the most harmful things against the family. It has people (even of considerable intellect) reduce marriage down to making babies and the whether your bits dangle or not. Yes, clearly such a view is strengthening marriage. It is the pro-gay-marriage movement who want have a family and settle down. They are the pro-family ones. The anti-gay movement completely based around the idea of stopping them from having families. It is a great example of doublespeak. I myself am still undecided about whether there is a significant effect on children having more social problems/problems maintaining a loving, monogamous relationship with gay parents, since the evidence on that are conflicting at best. I think most of us can agree that the most ideal environment would be to have a stable, loving relationship with their biological parents. There are orphanages full of kids with no biological parents. I think most of us can agree living that living with people who love you and want you as their own is a much more ideal environment than an orphanage. I agree. The emphasis on what I said previously is most ideal. We all know there are many situations that are far from ideal. All a child needs is a good support system that they can rely on at home. Gender play no role in this. A straight Christian couple is just as likely as a Gay couple to raise a child successfully and are just as likely to screw up the child. On July 08 2012 04:17 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:15 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: On July 08 2012 03:58 Slaughter wrote: On July 08 2012 03:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: I see the thread has devolved into a religion debate. Guess that was inevitable, given TL's history. As far as the OP goes, I get really bored of rehashing all the same stale arguments over and over. I just don't get the point, it's like people getting together to argue that murder is wrong. Yeah, obviously... I've never met someone who was in such a group or who agreed with such a group or who was placed into such a group. I'm sure it has a huge affect on some small number of people but in my life it is a complete nonentity. I think people just like to take some very small minority of extremely bigoted people and then extrapolate that they are somehow a larger percentage of the population. I guess it's a desire for intellectual superiority or something, or they are left and want to believe the core of the right is bigotry and ignorance. I just hope these foregone conclusion threads don't become regular from BillClinton. Arguing is humanities favorite past time Stating something that 99% of people on TL agree with and then bludgeoning the other 1% into submission is not my idea of a debate. That falls more in the realm of ego stroking and psychological masturbation. Well when the "1%" is rallying against human rights I think the argument is worth having. Has marriage been defined as a human right? It's a right attributed to humans that we are not allowing certain humans to attain. 1. I agree, the support system is the most important. However, what I am still undecided about is whether certain inputs into child development from each gender plays a significant role. 2. How did we decide that it was a fundamentally universal and basic right? (2)) By giving it legal benefits based on relationship status, and then excluding a certain group of people from attaining this status. Also marriage was never a "global" issue until its status was given special benefits. If you think you're effectively denying someone the spiritual aspects of a marriage by denying them the "status" of marriage then you are mistaken. The only thing you take away from these people is equal rights in the eye of the law; and possible distress when you try to remind them of how others might not respect their union/relationship. Good on you man. Good on you. | ||
ChriS-X
Malaysia1374 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:47 Cutlery wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:28 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:17 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:15 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:12 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:08 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:03 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:58 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 03:46 NotAPro wrote: Almost half of marriages end in divorce, I really don't see how allowing Gays to marry will erode the sanctity of marriage, since it's pretty much a joke. Also I'm pretty sure not allowing Gays to marry will be seen as just as big a mistake as race segregation in 50 years or so. Yes, I agree with you, it has already been greatly eroded due to the prevalence of divorce, but we should be looking at ways to preserve it, not erode it further. And by preserving you mean stop people from participating who want to settle down and start families? The entire fight against gay marriage is one of the most harmful things against the family. It has people (even of considerable intellect) reduce marriage down to making babies and the whether your bits dangle or not. Yes, clearly such a view is strengthening marriage. It is the pro-gay-marriage movement who want have a family and settle down. They are the pro-family ones. The anti-gay movement completely based around the idea of stopping them from having families. It is a great example of doublespeak. I myself am still undecided about whether there is a significant effect on children having more social problems/problems maintaining a loving, monogamous relationship with gay parents, since the evidence on that are conflicting at best. I think most of us can agree that the most ideal environment would be to have a stable, loving relationship with their biological parents. There are orphanages full of kids with no biological parents. I think most of us can agree living that living with people who love you and want you as their own is a much more ideal environment than an orphanage. I agree. The emphasis on what I said previously is most ideal. We all know there are many situations that are far from ideal. All a child needs is a good support system that they can rely on at home. Gender play no role in this. A straight Christian couple is just as likely as a Gay couple to raise a child successfully and are just as likely to screw up the child. On July 08 2012 04:17 ChriS-X wrote: On July 08 2012 04:15 NotAPro wrote: On July 08 2012 04:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: On July 08 2012 03:58 Slaughter wrote: On July 08 2012 03:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: I see the thread has devolved into a religion debate. Guess that was inevitable, given TL's history. As far as the OP goes, I get really bored of rehashing all the same stale arguments over and over. I just don't get the point, it's like people getting together to argue that murder is wrong. Yeah, obviously... I've never met someone who was in such a group or who agreed with such a group or who was placed into such a group. I'm sure it has a huge affect on some small number of people but in my life it is a complete nonentity. I think people just like to take some very small minority of extremely bigoted people and then extrapolate that they are somehow a larger percentage of the population. I guess it's a desire for intellectual superiority or something, or they are left and want to believe the core of the right is bigotry and ignorance. I just hope these foregone conclusion threads don't become regular from BillClinton. Arguing is humanities favorite past time Stating something that 99% of people on TL agree with and then bludgeoning the other 1% into submission is not my idea of a debate. That falls more in the realm of ego stroking and psychological masturbation. Well when the "1%" is rallying against human rights I think the argument is worth having. Has marriage been defined as a human right? It's a right attributed to humans that we are not allowing certain humans to attain. 1. I agree, the support system is the most important. However, what I am still undecided about is whether certain inputs into child development from each gender plays a significant role. 2. How did we decide that it was a fundamentally universal and basic right? (2)) By giving it legal benefits based on relationship status, and then excluding a certain group of people. Also marriage was never a "global" issue until its status was given special benefits. If you think you're effectively denying someone the spiritual aspects of a marriage by denying them the "status" of marriage then you are mistaken. The only thing you take away from these people is equal rights in the eye of the law; and possible distress when you try to remind them of how others might not respect their union/relationship. Good on you man. Good on you. Fair enough, since in Australia marriage and 'de facto' relationships have basically the same legal and economical rights. What if it were changed so that people in homosexual 'de facto' relationships are given the same legal and economic rights as married people? EDIT: gonna be my last one for the night (or morning) since I should have been asleep hours ago. Keep it civil guys | ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:27 autoexec wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:18 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 04:13 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 04:00 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 03:55 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:52 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 03:48 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:40 heroyi wrote: On July 08 2012 03:32 DoubleReed wrote: [quote] 1. Who are you to mandate what a church is and not a church isn't? That's pretty damn offensive. I'm not even Christian and that offends me. 2. So if you're not talking about government, then who cares what your views on marriage are? Your views on marriage are your own, and have nothing to do with me. I have my own views on marriage, and you don't get to tell me what to do. If homosexuals want to marry, then the only that matters is their view on marriage, not yours. 1. Is that not a definiton of a church? A place where preaching of its belief is held? 2. Marriage is a religious affair. Government should hold no power or view on such imo. 1 - Churches have different interpretations. It's like Catholics talking about how Protestants aren't "real Christians." Who are you to say who's a real Christian or not a real Christian? Who are you to say what's a church and what's not? It's offensive and divisive. 2 - Then either way, you are (or at least should be) for marriage equality. So I would assume if you were to vote for or against gay marriage, you would vote for it. 1 - He is basing his view of what a church is on the Bible. Which clearly defines the church as a body of believers that fellowships and learns together about God. 2 - That didn't make any sense to me. Rephrase or explain a bit more? 1 - They are still a body of believers that fellowships and learns together about God. That definition has nothing to do with marrying gay people. 2 - If he is saying that the government should have no role in marriage whatsoever, then that implies marriage equality. I don't see how this is confusing. If the government is not going to tell who can or can't get married, and it is a religious object, then that still means the government is not going to tell who can't get married. That point of view is quite possibly the most socially liberal of all. 1- The Bible clearly says homosexuality is wrong. In the New Testament! (1 Corinthians 6 : 9-11. Check it out. Quite well sums up a lot of the Christian belief.) So why would you marry homosexuals if being homosexual is wrong? 2- If the government has no role in marriage, then the church would have all the power. Then that means that no homosexuals would get married. But it wouldn't matter because marriage would have no point unless your Christian because if the government had no part in it there would be no benefits. So there would be no incentive to get married unless you want to follow the Christian teachings about marriage. 1 - The Bible has many interpretations and I would argue that not many Christianity sects exist anymore that are actually literalists. The bible is also written by men who put their own prejudices and bigotry in the bible, and many sects of Christianity recognize this freely. 2 - You are assuming that everyone in the whole wide world is Christian and all Christians have the same beliefs. I am not Christian. I would be free to marry someone of the same sex (you know, if I was gay). Nonchristians and gays are just as sentimental about marriage as Christian people are. 1- Okay. What sects are not literalist and what percentage are they? Also, 2nd Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2- What is the point though if there are no benefits? It's just an extra thing to do. If you're not Christian then there is no logical point to be married in this situation. You can't quote scripture to show that scripture is inerrant. That's blatantly circular. If anything, that shows that the scripture is errant, because anybody can see that. Again, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, all of these people have marriage and their own beliefs and view on marriage. I have no idea why you seem to think Christianity is the "default marriage." And again, you are acting as if you have no idea what a marriage is, which is a celebration, and it carries a great deal of sentimentality for little girls (and boys) everywhere. They want to be married, regardless of whether they want a husband or they want a wife. 1- Check out this article. Good read I had a while back. Answers about why the Bible is God inspired. http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp LOL Good read, I nearly cried. It's not like you can easily google and find comprehensive lists of historical, physical, and internal inconsistencies in the bible. Oh man. You really gave it to me good there. Woo! | ||
autoexec
United States530 Posts
On July 08 2012 04:51 DoubleReed wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2012 04:27 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 04:18 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 04:13 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 04:00 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 03:55 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:52 autoexec wrote: On July 08 2012 03:48 DoubleReed wrote: On July 08 2012 03:40 heroyi wrote: [quote] 1. Is that not a definiton of a church? A place where preaching of its belief is held? 2. Marriage is a religious affair. Government should hold no power or view on such imo. 1 - Churches have different interpretations. It's like Catholics talking about how Protestants aren't "real Christians." Who are you to say who's a real Christian or not a real Christian? Who are you to say what's a church and what's not? It's offensive and divisive. 2 - Then either way, you are (or at least should be) for marriage equality. So I would assume if you were to vote for or against gay marriage, you would vote for it. 1 - He is basing his view of what a church is on the Bible. Which clearly defines the church as a body of believers that fellowships and learns together about God. 2 - That didn't make any sense to me. Rephrase or explain a bit more? 1 - They are still a body of believers that fellowships and learns together about God. That definition has nothing to do with marrying gay people. 2 - If he is saying that the government should have no role in marriage whatsoever, then that implies marriage equality. I don't see how this is confusing. If the government is not going to tell who can or can't get married, and it is a religious object, then that still means the government is not going to tell who can't get married. That point of view is quite possibly the most socially liberal of all. 1- The Bible clearly says homosexuality is wrong. In the New Testament! (1 Corinthians 6 : 9-11. Check it out. Quite well sums up a lot of the Christian belief.) So why would you marry homosexuals if being homosexual is wrong? 2- If the government has no role in marriage, then the church would have all the power. Then that means that no homosexuals would get married. But it wouldn't matter because marriage would have no point unless your Christian because if the government had no part in it there would be no benefits. So there would be no incentive to get married unless you want to follow the Christian teachings about marriage. 1 - The Bible has many interpretations and I would argue that not many Christianity sects exist anymore that are actually literalists. The bible is also written by men who put their own prejudices and bigotry in the bible, and many sects of Christianity recognize this freely. 2 - You are assuming that everyone in the whole wide world is Christian and all Christians have the same beliefs. I am not Christian. I would be free to marry someone of the same sex (you know, if I was gay). Nonchristians and gays are just as sentimental about marriage as Christian people are. 1- Okay. What sects are not literalist and what percentage are they? Also, 2nd Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2- What is the point though if there are no benefits? It's just an extra thing to do. If you're not Christian then there is no logical point to be married in this situation. You can't quote scripture to show that scripture is inerrant. That's blatantly circular. If anything, that shows that the scripture is errant, because anybody can see that. Again, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, all of these people have marriage and their own beliefs and view on marriage. I have no idea why you seem to think Christianity is the "default marriage." And again, you are acting as if you have no idea what a marriage is, which is a celebration, and it carries a great deal of sentimentality for little girls (and boys) everywhere. They want to be married, regardless of whether they want a husband or they want a wife. 1- Check out this article. Good read I had a while back. Answers about why the Bible is God inspired. http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp LOL Good read, I nearly cried. It's not like you can easily google and find comprehensive lists of historical, physical, and internal inconsistencies in the bible. Oh man. You really gave it to me good there. Woo! Dazzle me | ||
| ||
Next event in 1h 24m
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft: Brood War Sea 5560 Dota 2Britney 3974 Pusan 739 Bisu 520 Larva 483 firebathero 276 Leta 141 BeSt 138 Aegong 107 hero 76 [ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games Organizations
StarCraft 2 • aXEnki StarCraft: Brood War• intothetv • Gussbus • Kozan • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamez Trovo • Laughngamez YouTube • Migwel • Poblha League of Legends |
WardiTV Korean Royale
Kung Fu Cup
H.4.0.S
GSL Code S
herO vs Reynor
soO vs GuMiho
World Team League
Korean StarCraft League
Replay Cast
World Team League
Chat StarLeague
H.4.0.S
[ Show More ] BSL
Chat StarLeague
Sparkling Tuna Cup
World Team League
BSL
ForJumy Cup
|
|