Non-Traditional Forms of Marriage

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 ^_^

dan719

PDN wrote:

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

1. There exists an inverse relationship between intelligence(for this purpose I define intelligence as the score on an IQ test) and religeous belief. i.e the higher you score the less likely you are to believe in a supernatural god. (according to studies carried out by mensa and the royal society)

2. Average iq's are rising, by up to fifteen points every generation.

3. As average iq goes up, religeous belief goes down, which means in general the level of religeous devotion/hypnosis is in fact falling.

Hivemind187

Zillah wrote:

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 ^_^

Ouch, I think I was just zinged.

And what has the boy wonder to do with this?

Zillah

Hivemind187 wrote:

Ouch, I think I was just zinged.

And what has the boy wonder to do with this?

I was merely pointing out that you're fairly new to the forum and that your beliefs or attitudes shouldn't be seen as representative of the regulars. As demonstrated by you missing an in-joke

EDIT: You also remind me of me when I first joined the forum, too much vim, not enough discretion If PDN says he does not equate homosexuality with bestiality then you should accept that and move on with the discussion. Whether he never did, or no longer does, is fairly irrelevant now that he's accepted the point.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

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.

I would not make any argument in favour of banning same sex marriages. Perhaps I need to make my position clear?

As a Christian I believe marriage to be instituted for one man to be joined with one woman. Therefore I do not call any relationship outside of this a "marriage". I was in Egypt recently and a man introduced me to both of his "wives". I was far too polite to say so, but for me that second union is not a marriage.

Now, that is my belief, and I base it on the Bible. You are of course, entitled to disagree with me, or to think I am stupid for believing the Bible. What you are not entitled to do is to use force or coercion to try to stop me so believing. So far, so good?

I do not have the right to try to force non-Christians to abide by my standards of morality. If you wish to contract a union with someone of the same sex then that is your choice. I am entitled to disagree with the morality of such a union, but I am not entitled (nor would I wish to) use force or coercion to stop you.

So it doesn't really make any difference to me whether the State (which I categorically maintain is not a Christian State) chooses to call your union a "civil union" or a "marriage". I would not view it as a marriage within my definition. I'm sorry if that makes you unhappy, but I would be a hypocrite to pretend otherwise.

So, I would not make any argument in favour of banning same sex marriages because I don't advocate such a ban. However, I will personally view such "marriages" as civil unions. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but not everybody is going to think the same way about everything, and a bit of tolerance and diversity never did anyone any harm. Of course if people attempt to enforce their morality on others, then that is a different matter.

I acknowledge my error in referring to you as "she". I won't apologise, because that would imply that there is something wrong with being female, and that would be sexist (which, while not as bad as being homophobic is still considered pretty bad form).

Zillah

PDN wrote:

So, I would not make any argument in favour of banning same sex marriages because I don't advocate such a ban. However, I will personally view such "marriages" as civil unions.

Would they legally be the same institution? I have absolutely no problem with you personally considering them a blasphemous insult to God, as long as its not legally enforced.

Because the "civil unions" proposed by many for same-sex couples are in fact entirely seperate legal institutions, which is clearly discrimination. Those maintaining such a position would essentially be using force to make others abide by their religious standards.

Also, can I conclude that your belief that a marriage can only exist between a man and a woman can indeed be summarised as "because the bible said so" or "I just feel that way"?

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Would they legally be the same institution? I have absolutely no problem with you personally considering them a blasphemous insult to God, as long as its not legally enforced.

Because the "civil unions" proposed by many for same-sex couples are in fact entirely seperate legal institutions, which is clearly discrimination. Those maintaining such a position would essentially be using force to make others abide by their religious standards.

My preferred option (but, again, I suspect I'm in a minority on this) would be to take marriage out of the civic sphere altogether and for the State to simply regularise unions and partnerships in a non-religious ceremony without any allusion to God. This would apply to heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, and non-sexual partnerships.

Our present legal position concerning marriage is an unsatisfactory mishmash. Some churches (eg Catholic and Anglican) are allowed to marry people in a form that is legally recognised by the State. Hundreds of other churches (including my own) are forced to get the couple to contract a civil ceremony in a registry office and then hold the church ceremony later (a religious ceremony to which the State affords no legal status whatsoever). Some immigrants are unable to marry legally because registrars in some areas only conduct a wedding if both parties have a valid visa in their passports. Other registrars make no such requirement. I would prefer a system that provides a level playing field for all. That would allow, for example, humanist and secular societies (but not the State) to conduct marriages.

Also, can I conclude that your belief that a marriage can only exist between a man and a woman can indeed be summarised as "because the bible said so" or "I just feel that way"?

I believe that is the teaching of the Bible. My feelings often say one thing but the Bible says something else.

Zillah

PDN wrote:

My preferred option (but, again, I suspect I'm in a minority on this) would be to take marriage out of the civic sphere altogether and for the State to simply regularise unions and partnerships in a non-religious ceremony without any allusion to God. This would apply to heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, and non-sexual partnerships.

Wow...

I just came to an amiable conclusion with a believer

My feelings often say one thing but the Bible says something else.

Perhaps you should reconsider its usefulness as a guide then.

Dades

PDN wrote:

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 am uncomfortable with the Christian mocking that crops up here. In the interest of not becoming Mod Nazis it's usually let go. A thick skin is a real advantage here.

Also, as alluded to by Zillah, there isn't always a prevailing view on any particular topic here. The fact that you have had "spirited" discussions with a couple of posters in particular here doesn't mean the forum as a whole is against you. In fact I'd say most of them are in the pub. *

BTW Zillah, those "10 Reasons" are so, so good.

*Mental note; expect drunken posts later...*

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

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.

Now I see the problem. Instead of looking at what my words actually say, you interpret them differently because of who I am. Sorry, but I will not conform to your stereotypes. And I will continue to assess your posts on what you actually say, not on my imaginary concept of what an atheist is really thinking when he says something. I came to this board to try to find out more about what atheists believe, particularly in the area of ethics. I felt I was starting to understand better until it descended into a witch hunt. We can post all day & night on this and I suspect that we will never agree, but I am confident that any competent English teacher viewing this thread would confirm that I never made the statements or implications you attributed to me.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Perhaps you should reconsider its usefulness as a guide then.

If I were that confident about the rightness of my feelings then I would. However, the longer I live the more I've discovered that my feelings get me into trouble and the application of biblical principles gets me out of trouble.