Non-Traditional Forms of Marriage

PDN

As a Christian I believe that marriage is something that takes place between a man and a woman. However, for many the rejection of a Christian-based morality opens the door to other forms of marriage (eg. between two men, or two women).

But where do we draw the line? If we dismiss gender as an arbitrary barrier to marriage, then why not dismiss species as well? Some of you may remember the case in Sudan where, in 2006, a man caught in a compromising position with a neighbour's goat was forced by the tribal elders to marry the beast. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm

Sadly the goat has now died after attempting to eat a plastic bag, so the poor man is now a widower (although I do understand he still has custody of a kid).

What say ye? If we jettison the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, then why not marry a goat? If we get rid of Bertie Ahern, do you think aggressive secularists will legalise such marriages in Ireland? Will this, in fact, prove to be one area where Athlone has been ahead of the times instead of behind the times? Are there any ethical barriers to such a union? Or will we just go by gut instinct and say that the whole concept is baaaaaaaaad?

[U]Disclaimer - added on 6/5/07[/U]

Please note that this post is an enquiry concerning the standards by which those who reject traditional morality would frame their ethics. As such, it is common to what might be discussed in any ethics class.

The reference to marrying a goat, although a true story, is intended to be humorous. The author of this post has never married a goat, does not intend to marry a goat, is not advocating marriage to goats, and is not intending to offend any of you who may have married a goat.

Please note that, while the poster expresses his own personal opinion of what constitutes marriage, he does not advocate the legal prohibitions of any kind of marriage in a secular state. The reference to Bertie Ahern is a joke and does not imply anything regarding the relationship of Church and State in this benighted little corner of Europe. If you have a preconceived stereotype of Christians as people who are trying to ban homosexual marriage and use silly arguments to support their prejudices, then please do not apply your fantasies to this poster who would prefer to be judged on the merits of what he himself says or does.

Nothing in the above post makes any attempt to equate bestiality to homosexuality. That would be a ludicrous comparison that this poster never has made, nor would ever dream of making. Anyone who maintains that they can read any such implication into the above post would be advised to institute legal action against the State since they have manifestly failed in their Constitutional obligation to provide you with an adequate education.

Any individual who tries to misrepresent what this poster has written should please not that this poster finds it offensive to be called a liar. Any individual who persists in such behaviour needs to be warned that I will pray to God that a giant pink dragon will swoop down on you while you are sleeping and suck all your blood out while shaking your miserable carcase from side to side. (Actually that last sentence is a joke. If you fail to take it as a joke then it should still not cause offence since this is an atheist and agnostic board and atheists and agnostics do not believe in God. Also I am a Christian, and Christians don't believe in giant pink dragons that suck people's blood out while shaking their miserable carcases from side to side. If indeed you do take this as a threat, and thereby get offended, I would suggest your legal action against the State's educational failure addresses your misunderstandings as to biology and the existence of giant pink dragons as well as your lamentable inability to understand the English language).

Crucifix

As far as I'm concerned, consent is the key.

PDN wrote:

although I do understand he still has custody of a kid

Fallen Seraph

Indeed, I would consider the standard to be "Consenting adults of sound mind". Which does kinda rule out the animals; if they could give clear consent that they knew what they were getting into then it's their business. But since animals can't particularly give clear consent it renders them illegible.

Nature Boy

I agree with the previous posts. Animals don't want to marry us. They tend to prefer their own species, and also tend not to tie themselves down to one partner. A man marrying a goat would mean that the man is the only party involved in the decision.

So, does that means that a man can marry also marry a human woman without her consent?

Hivemind187

You are assuming that the civil state of marriage is the same as the religious one.

In a secular society the institution of marriage is almost irrelevant save for a few things like tax breaks, last names and custody rights.

I'm a little offended that you see homosexuals or non-traditional families as equivalent to goats and that being a goat should somehow be a bad thing.

More importantly, if it its not your family unit why should you care? Why should you or your religious beliefs have ANY in put into the decisions other people make on how to live?

As for goat humping middle eastern zooaphiliacs, well, if someone could ask the goat how it felt about the situation and it saiud es then more power to them. But it cant. And as such we assume, for the benefit of the animal, that it is non-consensual and an abuse of the inherent position of trust a goat herd has over his flock.

Is this politically correct? No. Its not perfect. But its the best we can rationally do.

aidan24326

Nature Boy wrote:

So, does that means that a man can also marry a human woman without her consent?

I hope so. I'm sure Kelly Brooke and I will be very happy together!

Sangre

We're all a bunch of goat-fúcking atheists.

Nature Boy

Sangre wrote:

We're all a bunch of goat-fúcking atheists.

No no it's ok to fcuk goats, just not marry them

hairyheretic

As long as they're not harming anyone, what any two (or more ) consenting adults get up to is no ones business but their own.

The 'or more' I stuck in because I recall a story from Holland a year or two back about a man entering a civil partnership with two women, and polygamy does still occasionally come up in the news as well.

Polygamy may be best split off for another topic, but I suppose it could be seen as yet another non traditional form. Probably isn't going to be a common one any time soon, but given the changes in the last few decades, who knows what we'll be seeing 50 years from now.

Sangre

Why buy the goat when you can get the....milk for free?

Hivemind187

Sangre wrote:

Why buy the goat when you can get the....milk for free?

yuck ... goats milk.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

I'm a little offended that you see homosexuals or non-traditional families as equivalent to goats and that being a goat should somehow be a bad thing.

That's two false assumptions about me in one sentence. Are you trying mind-reading again, or just bad logic?

PDN

Crucifix wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, consent is the key.

Yes, consent does seem to be the common thread in most of the answers.

I admit that it must be hard to know when a goat is saying "No". For example, if this guy in the Sudan was particularly persistent in his advances, did the goat really consent or just reach the end of her tether?

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

That's two false assumptions about me in one sentence. Are you trying mind-reading again, or just bad logic?

Funny you focus on that rather than the argument at hand.

And by your own words "If we jettison the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, then why not marry a goat?" - which suggest that the only reason we dont marry livestock is because the law says men&women only or it suggests that because you feel that way about not marrying homosexuals that their actions reduce them to the level of goats.

You made this suggestion by comparing the outcome of homosexual union to bestiality.

I am not suggesting you are illiberal enough to think that, but you did make the statement and it is an insulting one.

In keeping with your humour, "if you don' t ike homosexuals marrying - DONT MARRY ONE!"

Nature Boy

I don't really get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that if we allow same sex marraige then trans species marraige will follow?

PDN

Nature Boy wrote:

I don't really get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that if we allow same sex marraige then trans species marraige will follow?

I wasn't trying to say anything. I was asking questions to see where people draw the boundaries and why once you move outside traditional morality.

Crucifix

Nature Boy wrote:

Are you saying that if we allow same sex marraige then trans species marraige will follow?

A disaster of biblical proportions:
"dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!" - Dr. Peter Venkman

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

I wasn't trying to say anything. I was asking questions to see where people draw the boundaries and why once you move outside traditional morality.

You might have asked a question, but you also implied that legalising homosexual marriage would lead to people marrying goats.

Are you suprised that people are both confused and offended by this?

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

And by your own words "If we jettison the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, then why not marry a goat?" - which suggest that the only reason we dont marry livestock is because the law says men&women only or it suggests that because you feel that way about not marrying homosexuals that their actions reduce them to the level of goats.

You really have a strange method of reasoning! My words do not imply what you say at all. I am asking if we reject gender as a barrier for marriage, then why not reject species as well? The matter of consent would appear to be a clear enough answer, which is what I was looking for.

In keeping with your humour, "if you don' t ike homosexuals marrying - DONT MARRY ONE!"

I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

You might have asked a question, but you also implied that legalising homosexual marriage would lead to people marrying goats.

Are you suprised that people are both confused and offended by this?

I implied no such thing. I asked if posters thought it might lead to it, that is a very different thing.

No, I am not surprised that people are confused and offended because I have been on boards.ie long enough to realise that some people have a poor grasp of language and a penchant for projecting their own presuppositions and predjudices onto those who hold a different faith stance.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

You really have a strange method of reasoning! My words do not imply what you say at all. I am asking if we reject gender as a barrier for marriage, then why not reject species as well? The matter of consent would appear to be a clear enough answer, which is what I was looking for.


I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

In that case you wont mind me saying that it is a deeply bigoted and interfering attitude you have there.

Your argument suggests that there is no difference between homosexuality or bestiality. That is closed minded.

Your argument is based on religious bias. Your religion.

Your argument also belies the desire to interfere in other people affairs. A kind of prurient interest in what other people put where and the right they have to do it.

I would suggest that you suffer from a similar obsession with sex as most religious people do and that your opposition to "gay-marriage" is based on the idea of homosexuality as a practice not being your cup of tea and a complete ignorance of other human beings and their capability to have an emotional investment in someone of the same gender as easily as they could have with someone of the opposite gender.

And before you get on your "its not natural" soap box like the rest of the close minded bigot-brigade homosexuality is not limited to human beings, it exists throughout nature and is observable in apes, dogs, dolphins, deer, cattle, horses and rodents.

Nature Boy

Hivemind187 wrote:

And before you get on your "its not natural" soap box like the rest of the close minded bigot-brigade homosexuality is not limited to human beings, it exists throughout nature and is observable in apes, dogs, dolphins, deer, cattle, horses and rodents.

Yeah my dog used to hump my cat. My dog and cat both being female coupled with the history between dogs and cats led me to be confused by the matter. But who are we to argue against nature ?

Hivemind187

Nature Boy wrote:

Yeah my dog used to hump my cat. My dog and cat both being female coupled with the history between dogs and cats led me to be confused by the matter. But who are we to argue against nature ?

lol ... Now thats a progressive relationship

Zillah

PDN wrote:

I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

This is such a short sighted comment. In one line you casually toss aside someone's right to marry someone they love. I am SO glad religion is slowly getting wiped out. Seriously, the vast majority of people in my generation are atheists or agnostics, and those that DO call themselves Catholics are hilariously ignorant about what that actually means. They don't go near the Bible, they think Vatican is a flavour of icecream and think "sin" is a nun only word.

But a bit more on topic. Your warped book-based morality aside, would you not agree that "consenting adult humans of sound mind" is not a good basis for marraige?

Sapien

PDN wrote:

I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Oh, that's terribly clever PDN. Gosh, you've got us there.

Oh wait. How about this. Everyone man should share a woman' right to marry a man, and vice versa.

The things one can do with language!

Fallen Seraph

PDN wrote:

I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I might join the quoting conga line and pose the question that if one accepts that there exist people in society who disagree with the word of the bible how can you argue that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed marry? Is it possible to argue against homosexuality in a secular environment? I honestly can't see how...

PDN

My goodness! We're all very poker-faced & politically correct today. Am I the only person who found the goat story funny?

Lighten up guys. I'm just messing with your heads a bit.

Actually I believe that homosexuals should have the right to have civil unions, with the same tax benefits inheritance rights etc as married couples. I also believe the same civil unions should be on offer to other, non-sexual, partnerships. For example, the Salvation Army has many more women clergy than men. Often you get two women who spend a life-time living and working together as ministry partners. They are best friends, share furniture, car etc., but in a non-sexual relationship. They, too, should be able to have their relationship recognised in a civil union. The same should apply to two maiden aunts living together, or a couple of bachelor brothers running a farm.

But marriage, for me, is between a man and a woman. And, while some of you may wish it otherwise, I have a perfect right to believe that and I don't see that my belief is harming anyone else or forcing anything on anyone.

Nature Boy

Ok. Care to explain why same sex marriage is wrong?

PDN

Zillah wrote:

This is such a short sighted comment. In one line you casually toss aside someone's right to marry someone they love. I am SO glad religion is slowly getting wiped out. Seriously, the vast majority of people in my generation are atheists or agnostics, and those that DO call themselves Catholics are hilariously ignorant about what that actually means. They don't go near the Bible, they think Vatican is a flavour of icecream and think "sin" is a nun only word.

But a bit more on topic. Your warped book-based morality aside, would you not agree that "consenting adult humans of sound mind" is not a good basis for marraige?

Well, I'm not a Catholic, so I'll have two Vatican cornets with a chocolate flake stuck in for good measure.

"Consenting adults of a sound mind" is an insufficient basis for marriage, in my opinion. For example, I would not be in favour of two people getting married, even if consenting and of a sound mind, if they are already each married to someone else.

By the way, your impression that religion is dying out is actually well wide of the mark. Fundamentalist Christianity and Islam are actually steadily increasing as a percentage of the world population (predominantly among younger people). Maybe you need to travel more?

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

In that case you wont mind me saying that it is a deeply bigoted and interfering attitude you have there.

I don't mind you saying that at all. I'm happy to know that there are people who hold different opinions to me, and I don't get offended by that fact at all. But I recognise that there are those who cannot tolerate anyone else having a different opinion.

Your argument suggests that there is no difference between homosexuality or bestiality. That is closed minded.

Your argument is based on religious bias. Your religion.

Er, I haven't actually advanced an argument. I asked a few questions. Are you really unable to differentiate between those two concepts?

Your argument also belies the desire to interfere in other people affairs. A kind of prurient interest in what other people put where and the right they have to do it.

Well, I don't think I was interfering in the guy's right to marry a goat. I did find it interesting and strange, funny even, but I don't think my interest is prurient in the slightest. I can assure you that the idea of bestiality arouses no feelings of lust or lasciviousness in me at all.

I would suggest that you suffer from a similar obsession with sex as most religious people do and that your opposition to "gay-marriage" is based on the idea of homosexuality as a practice not being your cup of tea and a complete ignorance of other human beings and their capability to have an emotional investment in someone of the same gender as easily as they could have with someone of the opposite gender.

Maybe when you are a bit older you will learn not to demonise those who hold different opinions to you. Personal abuse is no substitute for rational discussion.

And before you get on your "its not natural" soap box like the rest of the close minded bigot-brigade homosexuality is not limited to human beings, it exists throughout nature and is observable in apes, dogs, dolphins, deer, cattle, horses and rodents.

There you go trying to mind-read again. You really are extraordinarily bad at it. You have a stereotype of what a Christian is and what he believes, and then you project it onto me. You are way wide of the mark. Of course homosexuality occurs in nature. Why would I say otherwise?

However, I'm intrigued by your raising the issue of homosexuality being natural (since I certainly never raised it). Are you arguing that something is morally OK if it occurs in nature? If so, I'm going to sleep in a separate room tonight incase my wife eats me for supper. After all, it's natural. Spiders do it all the time after mating. (And please don't start claiming that I'm comparing homosexuals to spiders, because that would be an incredibly stupid way to twist my words - although very similar to the way you've twisted them already).

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Well, I'm not a Catholic, so I'll have two Vatican cornets with a chocolate flake stuck in for good measure.

"Consenting adults of a sound mind" is an insufficient basis for marriage, in my opinion. For example, I would not be in favour of two people getting married, even if consenting and of a sound mind, if they are already each married to someone else.

By the way, your impression that religion is dying out is actually well wide of the mark. Fundamentalist Christianity and Islam are actually steadily increasing as a percentage of the world population (predominantly among younger people). Maybe you need to travel more?

I'm not going to comment on the anti-catholic remark, I'll put that down to the usual "My god has a bigger d1ck that your god" p1ssing contest that usually starts between 2 different religious sects.

2) Nothing should prevent people having a permanent relationship with as many people as they see fit to. In fact there is a biological reason why this is a good thing genetic diversity and all. Bigamy is little more than religious stipulation that makes no sense logically.

3) I agree. There is a sinister pervasiveness in the growth of fundamentalism and religion in general. Perhaps we ought to organise a cull?

Lastly I would point out that asking us to "lighten up" is a little unfair when you started a thread you must have known was going to annoy and upset people and then compounded your error by using either poorly chosen or deliberately inflammatory words. While you have the right you your opinion we equally have the right to tell you what we think of your beliefs and your methods of expressing them.

dan719

Hivemind187 wrote:

2) Nothing should prevent people having a permanent relationship with as many people as they see fit to. In fact there is a biological reason why this is a good thing genetic diversity and all. Bigamy is little more than religious stipulation that makes no sense logically.

But could it not be argued from a purely evolutionary viewpoint that having two commited parents increases a childs survival chances and thus improves 'fitness' of the genes. Rather then a situation where someone is responsible for many different children in different locations.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

I don't mind you saying that at all. I'm happy to know that there are people who hold different opinions to me, and I don't get offended by that fact at all. But I recognise that there are those who cannot tolerate anyone else having a different opinion.



Er, I haven't actually advanced an argument. I asked a few questions. Are you really unable to differentiate between those two concepts?


Well, I don't think I was interfering in the guy's right to marry a goat. I did find it interesting and strange, funny even, but I don't think my interest is prurient in the slightest. I can assure you that the idea of bestiality arouses no feelings of lust or lasciviousness in me at all.


Maybe when you are a bit older you will learn not to demonise those who hold different opinions to you. Personal abuse is no substitute for rational discussion.


There you go trying to mind-read again. You really are extraordinarily bad at it. You have a stereotype of what a Christian is and what he believes, and then you project it onto me. You are way wide of the mark. Of course homosexuality occurs in nature. Why would I say otherwise?

However, I'm intrigued by your raising the issue of homosexuality being natural (since I certainly never raised it). Are you arguing that something is morally OK if it occurs in nature? If so, I'm going to sleep in a separate room tonight incase my wife eats me for supper. After all, it's natural. Spiders do it all the time after mating. (And please don't start claiming that I'm comparing homosexuals to spiders, because that would be an incredibly stupid way to twist my words - although very similar to the way you've twisted them already).

Considering your track record for telling me to grow up I would refer you to your own instruction book "let he without sin cast the first stone".

You do have an argument, it is one you have mentioned. You have also gone out of your way to upset and annoy people here. Showing, if anything, a contempt for those who would post responses you dont like.

I wasnt speaking about interfering in a guys right to marry a goat, I was speaking about your professed belief that people should engage in homosexuality. retracted or not, that was the statement you made.

I didnt demonise you, I was suitable incensed by your remarks which indicated adherence to certain beliefs, beliefs which you have already told us you hold. My argument is based on your chosen standard. If you cant take the opposition to it then perhaps you might consider changing it.

Also, exactly how do you know what age I am? Its not posted on my profile, its not mentioned on boards. So arent you ASSUMING something there?

As for you comment about cannibalism, there is nothing to suggest in human nature that when another source of food is readily available people will indulge in cannibalism, except in the cases of religion and a couple of nutters with a funky appetite.

Hivemind187

dan719 wrote:

But could it not be argued from a purely evolutionary viewpoint that having two commited parents increases a childs survival chances and thus improves 'fitness' of the genes. Rather then a situation where someone is responsible for many different children in different locations.

Actually from an evolutionary stand point its a case of "the more the merrier". I refer you to chimp troupes and meer kat families as a prime example.

Lots a kids, everyone shagging everyone else, everyone looking after everyone elses kids. Works quite well for them really.

As for the "fitness" of genes ... um ... what does that even mean?

Survival of the fittest is not a term that was actually used in The Origin of the Species. Fitness is only a measure of ones adaptation to ones environment NOT a measure of overall health and well being.

Having 2 committed parents has no baring on these things. Children are genetically programmed to learn from authority figures, it doesnt matter if those figures are a male and female parent, two mothers, a single father or a pre-op trans-sexual clown.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

I'm not going to comment on the anti-catholic remark, I'll put that down to the usual "My god has a bigger d1ck that your god" p1ssing contest that usually starts between 2 different religious sects.

Anti-Catholic remark? It was a good-natured response to Zillah's post! She was the one who made the crack about Vatican ice cream. I think you've got a bit of a cheek accusing me of anti-Catholic remarks considering some of the stuff you've posted recently. I know you don't believe in the Bible, but you really ought to read the bit about taking a speck out of your neighbour's eye and ignoring the tree trunk in your own.

Nothing should prevent people having a permanent relationship with as many people as they see fit to. In fact there is a biological reason why this is a good thing genetic diversity and all. Bigamy is little more than religious stipulation that makes no sense logically.

Ah, you see this is what I was trying to find out with my OP. So you are saying that when you reject traditional morality then bigamy (actually, I think you mean polygamy and polyandry) becomes acceptable.

Hang on. So you are equating homosexuality with bigamy? ....
Don't worry, I'm neither silly enough or devious enough to twist your words like that.

I agree. There is a sinister pervasiveness in the growth of fundamentalism and religion in general. Perhaps we ought to organise a cull?

Well I hope you're joking. But it's already been tried several times. Didn't work then and it won't work now. You don't get rid of us that easy.
I do find it interesting that when I express my views on homosexuality (not in any way trying to stop people coupling up with whoever they want, but choosing not to call it "marriage) that I am bigoted and interfering. But you think it's OK to suggest killing those who hold a strong religious faith.

Lastly I would point out that asking us to "lighten up" is a little unfair when you started a thread you must have known was going to annoy and upset people and then compounded your error by using either poorly chosen or deliberately inflammatory words. While you have the right you your opinion we equally have the right to tell you what we think of your beliefs and your methods of expressing them.

I think any impartial observer would agree that the words you have used in this thread have been far more inflammatory than my gentle prodding.

NotMe

PDN wrote:

If we dismiss gender as an arbitrary barrier to marriage, then why not dismiss species as well?

Or inanimate objects even!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH-G_uaNVB8

Tar.Aldarion

I'll be allowed to marry a black woman following on from inter-species marriage? Yeah? Sweet!

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

Considering your track record for telling me to grow up I would refer you to your own instruction book "let he without sin cast the first stone".

Sorry, I may have missed something here. When did I tell you to grow up?

You do have an argument, it is one you have mentioned. You have also gone out of your way to upset and annoy people here. Showing, if anything, a contempt for those who would post responses you dont like.

What is my argument? As for upsetting and annoying people here, all I have done is asked a few questions and stated a few opinions that show I think a bit differently from the majority who post here. It happens over on the Christianity forum all the time. Are you suggesting this forum should be limited to posts that only support atheism and agnosticism?

I was speaking about your professed belief that people should engage in homosexuality. retracted or not, that was the statement you made.

If I made that statement then quote it. I don't remember making any such statement. I think your nose is getting bigger.

Also, exactly how do you know what age I am? Its not posted on my profile, its not mentioned on boards. So arent you ASSUMING something there?

I noticed you got shirty with another poster when he mentioned your age, and in my experience it's rare for an older person to get worked up over something so inconsequential. By the way, I didn't say I knew what age you were. I just said "when you get older", that could apply to you even if you are 70 years old. If you are 70, then I could be saying that maybe before you reach 80 you will learn not to demonise your opponents. However, if your age is a particularly sensitive subject for you then I will not mention it again.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Anti-Catholic remark? It was a good-natured response to Zillah's post! She was the one who made the crack about Vatican ice cream. I think you've got a bit of a cheek accusing me of anti-Catholic remarks considering some of the stuff you've posted recently. I know you don't believe in the Bible, but you really ought to read the bit about taking a speck out of your neighbour's eye and ignoring the tree trunk in your own.


Ah, you see this is what I was trying to find out with my OP. So you are saying that when you reject traditional morality then bigamy (actually, I think you mean polygamy and polyandry) becomes acceptable.

Hang on. So you are equating homosexuality with bigamy? ....
Don't worry, I'm neither silly enough or devious enough to twist your words like that.


Well I hope you're joking. But it's already been tried several times. Didn't work then and it won't work now. You don't get rid of us that easy.
I do find it interesting that when I express my views on homosexuality (not in any way trying to stop people coupling up with whoever they want, but choosing not to call it "marriage) that I am bigoted and interfering. But you think it's OK to suggest killing those who hold a strong religious faith.


I think any impartial observer would agree that the words you have used in this thread have been far more inflammatory than my gentle prodding.

B0llocks!

You started this thread knowing full well the remarks you were making would upset people. You then made the bigoted remark that homosexuals should have the same rights to marry as everyone else - to marry someone of the opposite sex. Retracting this after the fact or calling it a harmless joke does not make everyone else response automatically invalid.

Bigamy is the crime committed when a married person marries another person without the death or divorce of the former. Polygamy is the state of being married to more than one person at a time. I was making a point about people being with whomever they like, i didn't qualify it by asking leading questions about the moral degradation of society into marrying livestock. Hope that clears up that little mis understanding.

Of course I was joking about culling the fundamentalists. We dont need to, just kick back and let you wipe each other out over a nonsense book and incomprehensible religious differences.

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you seem intent on making personal attack when you run out of space to move or get publically bitch slapped by a lot of people you offended.

As for the tree trunk in the eye business ... well, at least I have eyes to see with.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Sorry, I may have missed something here. When did I tell you to grow up?


What is my argument? As for upsetting and annoying people here, all I have done is asked a few questions and stated a few opinions that show I think a bit differently from the majority who post here. It happens over on the Christianity forum all the time. Are you suggesting this forum should be limited to posts that only support atheism and agnosticism?


If I made that statement then quote it. I don't remember making any such statement. I think your nose is getting bigger.


I noticed you got shirty with another poster when he mentioned your age, and in my experience it's rare for an older person to get worked up over something so inconsequential. By the way, I didn't say I knew what age you were. I just said "when you get older", that could apply to you even if you are 70 years old. If you are 70, then I could be saying that maybe before you reach 80 you will learn not to demonise your opponents. However, if your age is a particularly sensitive subject for you then I will not mention it again.

Sorry, it appears that wasnt you. Its still a stupid thing to say.


Now, as for arguments;

"If we dismiss gender as an arbitrary barrier to marriage, then why not dismiss species as well? Some of you may remember the case in Sudan where, in 2006, a man caught in a compromising position with a neighbour's goat was forced by the tribal elders to marry the beast."

This is a leading question and you cited precedence which indicates a particular point being made.

"If we jettison the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, then why not marry a goat? If we get rid of Bertie Ahern, do you think aggressive secularists will legalise such marriages in Ireland? "


Another leading question clearly implying your belief that "such marriages" are on a par with each other.

"I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex."

This is the major bit that annoyed people. After this you suddenly started retracting everything because people were giving you a hard time - and with good reason. It was a bigoted and stupid thing to say. It implies that homosexuals should hide who they are, it implies that they should be marrying or partnering with members of the opposite sex only, it implies that what they do is somehow wrong ... a lot of things.

As for your various assertions that I am intolerant. Quite the contrary. I am pride myself on my tolerance but thats as far as it goes. Tolerance.

Not acceptance.

Dades

PDN wrote:

What is my argument? As for upsetting and annoying people here, all I have done is asked a few questions and stated a few opinions that show I think a bit differently from the majority who post here. It happens over on the Christianity forum all the time. Are you suggesting this forum should be limited to posts that only support atheism and agnosticism?

I for one am content you made your argument here, rather than have it boil over in the Christianity forum. I'm not going to comment on it, as others have already said what I was thinking.

Rest assured though I'll be keeping an eye on the thread.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

B0llocks!

You started this thread knowing full well the remarks you were making would upset people. You then made the bigoted remark that homosexuals should have the same rights to marry as everyone else - to marry someone of the opposite sex. Retracting this after the fact or calling it a harmless joke does not make everyone else response automatically invalid.

Bigamy is the crime committed when a married person marries another person without the death or divorce of the former. Polygamy is the state of being married to more than one person at a time. I was making a point about people being with whomever they like, i didn't qualify it by asking leading questions about the moral degradation of society into marrying livestock. Hope that clears up that little mis understanding.

Of course I was joking about culling the fundamentalists. We dont need to, just kick back and let you wipe each other out over a nonsense book and incomprehensible religious differences.

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you seem intent on making personal attack when you run out of space to move or get publically bitch slapped by a lot of people you offended.

As for the tree trunk in the eye business ... well, at least I have eyes to see with.

So, when I make a joke about homosexual marriage that is bigoted and offensive. When you make a joke about killing fundamentalists that is OK. That, I think, reveals more about you than it does about me.

I have avoided mocking or being offensive about atheist beliefs (or lack of beliefs) yet you prefer to mock my beliefs and call the Bible a "nonsense book". Very tolerant of you, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

As for your comment about being "bitch slapped", that reminds me of arguments I used to have with my big brother when I was a kid. Once he resorted to those kinds of comments I knew he had lost the argument.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

So, when I make a joke about homosexual marriage that is bigoted and offensive. When you make a joke about killing fundamentalists that is OK. That, I think, reveals more about you than it does about me.

I have avoided mocking or being offensive about atheist beliefs (or lack of beliefs) yet you prefer to mock my beliefs and call the Bible a "nonsense book". Very tolerant of you, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

As for your comment about being "bitch slapped", that reminds me of arguments I used to have with my big brother when I was a kid. Once he resorted to those kinds of comments I knew he had lost the argument.

PDN, do you noticed that you stopped making rational arguments a while ago? Its because you havent any to make.

As for the bible being a nonsense, thats what it is. A Non Sense. It makes no sense. It is massively self contradictory, it has been re-written so often that the parables and words cannot be trusted to adhere to the original words, there are SEVERAL versions all of which are abridged ... should I go on?

I could have been a lot nastier about it but I wasnt.

And you were bitch slapped. You were told off by a large number of people for making a bigotted and, frankly, homophobic remark. Calling it a joke after the fact is not an excuse, nor is what you said technically a joke since it is part of your actual argument.

What I said was a joke but iof you think that I am conspiring, wittingly or unwittingly, to murder another person based on their fanciful convictions - call the police. Thats what people do when they think someone is going to kill someone.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

Sorry, it appears that wasnt you. Its still a stupid thing to say.


Now, as for arguments;

"If we dismiss gender as an arbitrary barrier to marriage, then why not dismiss species as well? Some of you may remember the case in Sudan where, in 2006, a man caught in a compromising position with a neighbour's goat was forced by the tribal elders to marry the beast."

This is a leading question and you cited precedence which indicates a particular point being made.

"If we jettison the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, then why not marry a goat? If we get rid of Bertie Ahern, do you think aggressive secularists will legalise such marriages in Ireland? "


Another leading question clearly implying your belief that "such marriages" are on a par with each other.

"I'm all for homosexuals marrying. I think they should have the exact same rights as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex."

This is the major bit that annoyed people. After this you suddenly started retracting everything because people were giving you a hard time - and with good reason. It was a bigoted and stupid thing to say. It implies that homosexuals should hide who they are, it implies that they should be marrying or partnering with members of the opposite sex only, it implies that what they do is somehow wrong ... a lot of things.

As for your various assertions that I am intolerant. Quite the contrary. I am pride myself on my tolerance but thats as far as it goes. Tolerance.

Not acceptance.

Your pride concerning your tolerance is misplaced.

You have made two false statements about me.
You accused me of equating homosexuality with bestiality. I have not done so. That is a blatant lie.

You also accused me of saying that people should engage in homosexuality. (I think you actually omitted the word "not"?) Either way, I have not made such a statement. That is also a lie.

I asked a question concerning gender and species as barriers to marriage. Most posters were able to respond with a sensible answer - that the principle of consent is paramount. I accepted those answers because they make perfect sense, therefore my question was answered.

You, however, have continually made false statements about me, accusing me of saying stuff I never said. That either betrays malice or an incredible ignorance of the English language and of logic. This is the second thread in which you have done this.

I am sorry that my joke about homsexual marriage caused offence. (Several of my gay friends thought it was funny, but maybe it comes across better in the flesh than on a message board). Next time I will try to use more acceptable humour, pehaps suggesting that atheists or Jews should be culled?

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

PDN, do you noticed that you stopped making rational arguments a while ago? Its because you havent any to make.

I wasn't making an argument. I was asking a question. The only argument I have made is that you are misrepresenting my post.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Your pride concerning your tolerance is misplaced.

You have made two false statements about me.
You accused me of equating homosexuality with bestiality. I have not done so. That is a blatant lie.

You also accused me of saying that people should engage in homosexuality. (I think you actually omitted the word "not"?) Either way, I have not made such a statement. That is also a lie.

I asked a question concerning gender and species as barriers to marriage. Most posters were able to respond with a sensible answer - that the principle of consent is paramount. I accepted those answers because they make perfect sense, therefore my question was answered.

You, however, have continually made false statements about me, accusing me of saying stuff I never said. That either betrays malice or an incredible ignorance of the English language and of logic. This is the second thread in which you have done this.

I am sorry that my joke about homsexual marriage caused offence. (Several of my gay friends thought it was funny, but maybe it comes across better in the flesh than on a message board). Next time I will try to use more acceptable humour, pehaps suggesting that atheists or Jews should be culled?

You're right, I am intolerant. I havent the tolerance i should have for small minded zealots.

I showed you where you said those things. You have chosen to ignore that. It doesnt make you right anymore than saying "its in the bible so it must be right" is a good enough reason to deny people the right to be with WHOEVER the hell they want to be.

The fact remains that you said it. It is written there for all to see and attacking my grasp of the English language is not a way out of the mess you have landed yourself in. As for the other posters, quite a number of them told you off - you can ignore it but you wont convince anyone that it didnt happen. Retracting a statement or calling it a joke afterwards when it has been misconstrued in the way you have presented it DOES NOT get you out of it.

And yes ... I did drop the "not". My bad.

Zillah

I thought this was quite an interesting list: http://bligbi.com/2006/06/30/10-reasons-gay-marriage-will-ruin-society/


10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans ™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


So, with that in mind, can you make a credible argument as to why same sex marriages are wrong? (and "the bible says so" is not a good argument) Civil union is a bullshit term that is essentially a second class marriage. Why should same sex couples be denied a full blown marriage?

And do not tell us to lighten up. Either make an argument and stick to it or commit to taking the piss. If you mix the two you can just go "Ah I'm only joking" when someone crushes your argument.

While your biblical knowledge seems to be thorough, I am in fact a he.

As for the rise/fall of religion, I think you'll find that its a polarisation effect. Sure, fundamentalism is growing, but moderate religion (which makes up the vast majority) is becoming so moderate so as to be virtually irrelevant. And once moderate religion declines enough, there will be no societal niche for the intolerant wackos to hide in.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

You're right, I am intolerant. I havent the tolerance i should have for small minded zealots.

I showed you where you said those things. You have chosen to ignore that. It doesnt make you right anymore than saying "its in the bible so it must be right" is a good enough reason to deny people the right to be with WHOEVER the hell they want to be.

The fact remains that you said it. It is written there for all to see and attacking my grasp of the English language is not a way out of the mess you have landed yourself in. As for the other posters, quite a number of them told you off - you can ignore it but you wont convince anyone that it didnt happen. Retracting a statement or calling it a joke afterwards when it has been misconstrued in the way you have presented it DOES NOT get you out of it.

And yes ... I did drop the "not". My bad.

If I misunderstood something you posted, but you subsequently explained that you had not meant what I thought, I would extend you the courtesy of accepting that I had misunderstood your intent. I might admit that the problem lay with my understanding or, if I was in a particularly contrary mood, I might say something snarky along the lines of, "OK, I accept that you didn't mean that. Please be more careful in how you phrase your posts."

One thing I would not do is to insist, despite your repeated protestations to the contrary, that you did say what I thought and you meant it. Neither would I assume, because you are an atheist, that you must therefore think in a certain way or hold certain positions.

I have not stated that homosexuality is to be equated with bestiality, nor did I imply it. I have repeated that many times. I had already posted a previous thread concerning medical experimentation and what ethical grounds atheists would have for distinguishing between experimentation on different species (animals) but not the same species (humans). I was very interested by some of the responses and thought this thread could explore similar issues.

I tried to introduce the thread in a humorous way by referring to the Sudanese man who married a goat. This is a topical story (BBC Five Live carried the report of the goat's demise yesterday) and this forum can be a bit po-faced at times.

I apologise if my joke about gays being allowed to marry caused offence. I reject that it was homophobic, but accept it was clumsy. I do have problems with the idea that it is OK to make jokes mocking Christians, but not to make a joke about homosexuality, but if that it is the standard on this board then I, as a guest here, would try to respect that.

I don't expect people here to agree with my beliefs. I would expect most of you to disagree with me and am able to argue robustly when required. I would not expect, as a Christian, any special protection on an Atheist & Agnostic Board. If I want to make an unpopular statement I will make it and stand over it.

What I do object strongly to is that when I explain that I made no statement equating homosexuality with bestiality that I am continually told that I did. I hold firm beliefs, I will defend those beliefs. But I am not a liar, and I am saddened that implication has been repeatedly made.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

If I misunderstood something you posted, but you subsequently explained that you had not meant what I thought, I would extend you the courtesy of accepting that I had misunderstood your intent. I might admit that the problem lay with my understanding or, if I was in a particularly contrary mood, I might say something snarky along the lines of, "OK, I accept that you didn't mean that. Please be more careful in how you phrase your posts."

One thing I would not do is to insist, despite your repeated protestations to the contrary, that you did say what I thought and you meant it. Neither would I assume, because you are an atheist, that you must therefore think in a certain way or hold certain positions.

I have not stated that homosexuality is to be equated with bestiality, nor did I imply it. I have repeated that many times. I had already posted a previous thread concerning medical experimentation and what ethical grounds atheists would have for distinguishing between experimentation on different species (animals) but not the same species (humans). I was very interested by some of the responses and thought this thread could explore similar issues.

I tried to introduce the thread in a humorous way by referring to the Sudanese man who married a goat. This is a topical story (BBC Five Live carried the report of the goat's demise yesterday) and this forum can be a bit po-faced at times.

I apologise if my joke about gays being allowed to marry caused offence. I reject that it was homophobic, but accept it was clumsy. I do have problems with the idea that it is OK to make jokes mocking Christians, but not to make a joke about homosexuality, but if that it is the standard on this board then I, as a guest here, would try to respect that.

I don't expect people here to agree with my beliefs. I would expect most of you to disagree with me and am able to argue robustly when required. I would not expect, as a Christian, any special protection on an Atheist & Agnostic Board. If I want to make an unpopular statement I will make it and stand over it.

What I do object strongly to is that when I explain that I made no statement equating homosexuality with bestiality that I am continually told that I did. I hold firm beliefs, I will defend those beliefs. But I am not a liar, and I am saddened that implication has been repeatedly made.

Eloquent but it does not change the facts PDN.

I showed where you made the remarks. If you wish to say that these are all to be taken with a pinch of salt or were errors thats fine, do so. You will find most atheists, agnostics etc to be a lot more prepared to accept change than you might believe.

What is wrong though is to say you didn't say something when it is right there. If you feel that your words, as you have written them, given the context and your known Christian status (I actually cant remember but I think you said you are an evangelical?) and declared conservative views regarding gay marriage - have been misinterpreted then you need to say so and re-phrase, but you cant foist the responsibility on to everyone else.

Hivemind187

Zillah wrote:

I thought this was quite an interesting list: http://bligbi.com/2006/06/30/10-reasons-gay-marriage-will-ruin-society/


10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans ™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


So, with that in mind, can you make a credible argument as to why same sex marriages are wrong? (and "the bible says so" is not a good argument) Civil union is a bullshit term that is essentially a second class marriage. Why should same sex couples be denied a full blown marriage?

And do not tell us to lighten up. Either make an argument and stick to it or commit to taking the piss. If you mix the two you can just go "Ah I'm only joking" when someone crushes your argument.

While your biblical knowledge seems to be thorough, I am in fact a he.

As for the rise/fall of religion, I think you'll find that its a polarisation effect. Sure, fundamentalism is growing, but moderate religion (which makes up the vast majority) is becoming so moderate so as to be virtually irrelevant. And once moderate religion declines enough, there will be no societal niche for the intolerant wackos to hide in.

Lol, I have to remember that list. It sums it up nicely doesnt it.

I also like the "Drawn Together" take. "If gays get married then society will collapse and Nazis will roam the streets riding dinosaurs!"

Zillah

PDN wrote:

I apologise if my joke about gays being allowed to marry caused offence. I reject that it was homophobic, but accept it was clumsy. I do have problems with the idea that it is OK to make jokes mocking Christians, but not to make a joke about homosexuality, but if that it is the standard on this board then I, as a guest here, would try to respect that.

For the record I don't think anyone should be given any special protection here. I make plenty of fag jokes. I never thought your initial post implied that Homosexuality and Bestiality were the same thing, but the post was constructed in a manner that was inviting dissent. What I do expect from you is to make a credible argument, which you have yet to make in favour of banning same sex marriages.

Also, Hivemind isn't neccessarily a good choice for gauging the ethos* of the A&A forum.


*Haha, take it Robin ^_^