North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

Most atheists I know would have their clocked cleaned if they were to argue with any actual theologian

The idea that finding a contradiciton in a book of allegory somehow gives you some special knoweledge is insane.

The basic humanist princpals that so many one here claim to espouse are just Christianity with sort of a libertine twist brought on by the modern comforts of Western life.

See: HoreTore

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I think marriage should be taken out of the law then people can do whatever they please. Then "marriage" should simple be a union contract agreed upon by both parties, whatever their gender might be.

I realise that you're on the "pro-gay" side here Beskar, but really, this is a pointless position to take. The statutory institution of marriage is simply not going to dissappear, not now, not in a hundred years. It's used so often, with so many rights and legal consequenses attached to it, and so utterly ingrained in society that I simply don't see it dissappearing.

I suppose you could re-name the institution as "civil union". Or you could create a new institution with that name that has exactly the same consequenses as marriage but is meant for homosexual couples. Personally I'm more concerned with results than with semantics, so both of these would be okay with me. Apparently the people of North Carolina don't care about semantics either, and simply don't want homosexual couples to have any recognition whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Lemur

Nobody is seriously suggesting that the religious concept be changed, just the legal condition.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yes they are.

People say (and suggest, apparently) the darndest things, don't they?

In any case, since we're talking about the US, forcing a particular church to hold a ceremony when they don't want to would violate the freedom of assembly bit in the first amendment. It might be constitutionally viable for the government to revoke a churches' marriage licence in such a case- I don't know enough about their legal system to be sure, but I'm guessing not.

Oh, and the "historically, marriage means..." or "the dictionary says..." arguments are rubish as far as I'm concerned. Legal terminology follows its own logic that doesn't always sync with reality. See for example legal fiction. As stated before (in response to Beskar) I don't particulary care about semantics, but in that vein I don't understand why other people make such a huge deal out of it.

Agnosticism is the logical conclusion. Nothing we do provides any concrete evidence for or against a God. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But then sketchy allegories aren't evidence of presence.

Christianity shaped and was shaped by the environment it found itself in. Coptic Christianity is very different to Lutherianism, or indeed to what was practised shortly after Jesus's death - which itself varied if anything more widely than versions do now.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Most atheists I know would have their clocked cleaned if they were to argue with any actual theologian

The idea that finding a contradiciton in a book of allegory somehow gives you some special knoweledge is insane.

I also probably couldn´t hold my own in a discussion about Lord of the Rings with someone who reads it obsessionally......both are still just people who know a book really well.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

@PJ: I think that's just a narrow focus, there's plenty of terrible non-christian examples of the things you mention. If christian views of evolution would get laughed out of a 5th grade classroom, the average atheists would get laughed out of an 8th grade classroom (or should). You can see it in this thread if you want. And I don't think most religious people in modern societies believe in the literal truth of that stuff you mention. Non christians accept christians because they like them as people true, but also because they don't believe in myths about rational scientific explanations for the human experience.

As far as I know, no one is being hurt by atheism. I do not know of any kids who have killed themselves because they were told that a nonexistent god hates them or that they are going to a nonexistent hell.

My point was that Christianity needs to be challenged not because it is a nonsensical belief system, but because it is a nonsensical belief system that is actively attacking people in real and damaging ways in the public square. Fire with fire, and all that.

Originally Posted by Ronin

I also probably couldn´t hold my own in a discussion about Lord of the Rings with someone who reads it obsessionally......both are still just people who know a book really well.

But then why would I trust your opinion on Lord of the Rings to be more valid than avid readers?

Regardless of wether there is the christian conception of God, the fact remains on the ground, Christendom has provided the parameters for our morality and continues to do so. Many people who claim that they reject christianity (usually claiming humanism) really only permit luxries or decadance that people in the past could not afford to.

"That book" is the foundation of Western thought. Even our pre-exsisting scholarly works are translated and interpeted within a christian frame. Everything that came after it is colored by it, including Lord Of The Rings.

For me the higher power bit is really irrelavant.

As far as I know, no one is being hurt by atheism. I do not know of any kids who have killed themselves because they were told that a nonexistent god hates them or that they are going to a nonexistent hell.

I think there is something to be said for rising depression rates and the sense of a lack of purpose in the Western world. A lack of a God does not beget anything other than just that.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

As far as I know, no one is being hurt by atheism. I do not know of any kids who have killed themselves because they were told that a nonexistent god hates them or that they are going to a nonexistent hell.

So this christian pastor tells parents to smack their kid if he wears a dress, and some progressive parents in canada or something talk about how they are raising a "genderless" child. People raise their kids badly sometimes, people kill themselves for all kinds of reasons. No reason to paint with a broad brush.

My point was that Christianity needs to be challenged not because it is a nonsensical belief system, but because it is a nonsensical belief system that is actively attacking people in real and damaging ways in the public square. Fire with fire, and all that.

Yes but play the fiery ball not the fiery man.

People who have the psychology to be devout passionate christians aren't suddenly going to model secularists if christianity dies out. They will turn to cults and political mass movements.

The contradictions of the bible are unimportant, and so is the supernatural thinking. Wrong focus. Plenty of people ditch those and become atheists with no real improvement. I was given history books in high school ( a liberal place generally) that were far worse than any intelligent design. Science has put forth many nonsensical theories. At least christianity is a known quantity with basically good principles. I'll cut it here because I'm kind of rambling.

Exactly.

Having a religon really means nothing in and of itself. Having a high relgiosity does. There are numbers to prove it.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Married couples who do not intend to have children are still very much the minority, and those that do not intend to have children are basically taking advantage the benefits designed to encourage marriage for procreation (the tax breaks especially).

You have no way whatsoever of knowing what's in the minds of every single married (and unmarried) couple out there.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm sorry. As I said, I was reacting out of emotion and deliberately using a broad brush.

It just seems to me that religion has become a sanctuary for ignorance and hatred in this country, and it wasn't always that way. Nowhere else would the kind of vile rhetoric that I posted in the OP be openly spoken and accepted. (And I could post pages and pages of Christian leaders saying awful things about gay people.) Nowhere else would intelligent design be given any credibility. Nowhere else would abstinence only education, pro-bully anti-bully legislation, censoring teachers, and all the other base stupidity these people push in the education system get any traction.

The absurdities that Christians believe on face value would be laughed out of any fifth grade science class under any other name. These people believe that some Jew two thousand years ago, born from a woman who was essentially raped by their god, rose from the dead and walked around, based on nothing but a consistently contradictory book that sanctions slavery among other things. And these are the people that have appointed themselves the moral arbiters of our society? These are the people who feel confident in judging the worth of other people's lifestyles? People are being denied a sensible, logical extension of civil liberties based on a book of fairy tales.

Why? Why is Christianity given a special dispensation for idiocy? IMO, it is because most of us who do not accept such notions have family or friends that are Christian and do not want to offend. It is just not polite. I remember when I was being taught in Catholic high school by otherwise sane, rational adults that that nasty little wafer and that cheap wine were the body and blood of Christ, not a representation of them, but actual flesh and blood. It seemed so incredibly batshit crazy and so easily disproven, but I kept my mouth shut because I did not want to make anyone uncomfortable. The problem is that Christians have no problem offending. If they want to hold others up in judgment, they should be taken to task for their own views that make far less sense than people acting on a naturally occurring homosexual orientation.

The Bible is not a "book", it is usually bound up in a single codex but it remains a collection of writings organised into what we call "books", or production units. Pointing out the fact that these books contradict each other in their details is somewhat petty, and certainly not a useful observation given that it has caused litterally no problem for gneration after generation of theologians.

A Christian, or indeed Jewish or Muslim worldview includes more than what can be sensed phyiscally, which includes by intruments, so arguing that these "fairytales" are "unscientific" is also a non starter since they do not claim to be that.

I should like to hear a sensible or logical argument for extending the right to marry to homosexuals - so far all the arguments either boil down to either further restricting the franchise to exclude certain heterosexuals, or to fully liberalising it.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I think it's easy enough to just change it to "marriage between one man/woman and one man/woman". Conceptually it's very easy, and as long as we understand why were are doing it (aka, we don't think it's because "tradition is stupid, religion is stupid" etc) it will just stick like that. Arguing for polygamy would be a totally different logic.

There are Polygamous/Ployamorous groupings in many Western countries, including homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals. The current proposition, that we should extend it to homosexuals because they form loving and stable relationships. That same argument can be applied to the variety of other relationships consenting adults enter into.

You cannot say that two men can marry, but not three men and one woman. The only reason it is a pairing currently is the same historical reason for it being a man and a woman, procreation. I consider it profoundly unjust, indeed prejudiced, to advocate homosexual marriage and then demand that only couples wed. There is no practical justifcation and it is purely a prejudice inherrited from our forebears that you can onyl love one person at a time. Have I not been lambasted in this very thread merely because people assumed I don't believe Gay people can have loving relationships?

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Most atheists I know would have their clocked cleaned if they were to argue with any actual theologian

The idea that finding a contradiciton in a book of allegory somehow gives you some special knoweledge is insane.

The basic humanist princpals that so many one here claim to espouse are just Christianity with sort of a libertine twist brought on by the modern comforts of Western life.

See: HoreTore

I came to this conclusion some time ago, no can who uses words like "good" or "evil" or indeed "should" in anything other than a predictive context can call himself an atheist.

Any arbitary division requires an arbiter. If there is an actual line between good and evil then that is because someone put the line there.

Originally Posted by Whacker

You have no way whatsoever of knowing what's in the minds of every single married (and unmarried) couple out there.

No, but as the population is increasing more people are obviously having children than not, ergo deliberately childless couples are a minority, being less than 50% of the married population.

You know as a Christian male that is not afraid to bring that forward in front of face to face groups, I want to bring something up that happens quite a bit in these "Arguments". First off you shouldn't be attacking the Christians on this except for the word "marriage". The real culprit is the legal system and government. As a Christian I "beleive" that gay unions are immoral. However, since I don't want to be judged lest I judge others, I'm fine with gay unions. Please don't use the word "marriage". If homosexuals would concentrate on overturning the LEGAL shortcomings of unions versus marriage, they would have some surprising allies on their side.

I agree that anyone that is willing to spend their life with another is entitled to some benefits of the union. Healthcare, abilities to make decisions for their loved ones, tax benefits I'm all for. The injustice isn't Christians see us as evil, it is that those that are in power are unwilling to see the justice and neccesity of doing away with the "legal" term for marriage. I beleive that each couple that wants to get married be consuled and then once that has happened, a license to marry is given. Those that do this in a Church are given a "marriage" license, those that do it by other legal means have a "union" or "bonding" or whatever name you like license. Means the same, with attached rights and benefits as we currently have for marriage. Just doesn't throw the Christian meaning of "Marriage" up into everyones face.

As for those that despise the lunatic ravings of a madmen in the desert 2000 years ago, sorry Civilization is borne upon his back. If you would rather not have him in the picture, then you should look upon those religons in the East that espouse other ideas. As for anyone from the middle east to the US this is your reality. and if you are an antichrist then you are only hurting what has aloud you to have your temper tantrums.

Greek logic and thought predate the bible...

I am glad people are coming to the conclusion of separate but equal institutions for different people. It's like living in the past. Now if only I can find my time machine.

The Bible is not the legal but moral base for the Western world. From about the 3rd Century to the 9th Century Greek logic and thought were marginalize if remembered at all. The only thing that we still cling to the Greek on would be medicine and the ideas of democracy. Most of our laws come from the Roman Empire and this was held togather by early Roman church and the incorporation of the Germanic ideas on equality no less.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I am glad people are coming to the conclusion of separate but equal institutions for different people. It's like living in the past. Now if only I can find my time machine.

Who is coming to that conclusion?

Greek logic and thought predate the bible...

No where near as important as the bible. A fair bit important but not the cornerstone

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I am glad people are coming to the conclusion of separate but equal institutions for different people. It's like living in the past. Now if only I can find my time machine.

Want to drive a car? Get a driver's liscence.

Want to fly a plane? Get a pilot's liscence.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Want to drive a car? Get a driver's liscence.

Want to fly a plane? Get a pilot's liscence.

Want to eat ice cream? Get some ice cream.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

No where near as important as the bible. A fair bit important but not the cornerstone

Okay. I won't argue that christianity has been influential, and that even for those abandoned it and their descendants there is a lingering effect. But to what extent, and to what effect?

Every functioning society in history has outlawed murder, theft and whatnot. Because if those societies didn't, they would have perished and would only be a footnote in history. So A) what is so special about christianity, and B) what is useful to preserve from that from a secular perspecive?

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Okay. I won't argue that christianity has been influential, and that even for those abandoned it and their descendants there is a lingering effect. But to what extent, and to what effect?

Every functioning society in history has outlawed murder, theft and whatnot. Because if those societies didn't, they would have perished and would only be a footnote in history. So A) what is so special about christianity, and B) what is useful to preserve from that from a secular perspecive?

I haven't figured that part out yet. I AM ONLY A CHILD

I go to school
I work
I try to get the pretty girls to look at me

There is only so much time for musing!

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Okay. I won't argue that christianity has been influential, and that even for those abandoned it and their descendants there is a lingering effect. But to what extent, and to what effect?

Every functioning society in history has outlawed murder, theft and whatnot. Because if those societies didn't, they would have perished and would only be a footnote in history. So A) what is so special about christianity, and B) what is useful to preserve from that from a secular perspecive?

C.S. Lewis' answer to A was "Grace", that God will give you something you don't deserve because he loves you, and humans are called to echo this.

The correct answer to B is "nothing", In believe. The only important part of Christianity is that God loves all his children equally, completely and wihtout reservation - all the rest is just window dressing which is completely shawn of meaning without that central truth.

You want to take something useful from Christianity? Either love God or do what the Muslims did and keep some Christians around to do their thing.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Want to eat ice cream? Get some ice cream.

Puny Troll.

Mine was better.

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

As far as I know, no one is being hurt by atheism. I do not know of any kids who have killed themselves because they were told that a nonexistent god hates them or that they are going to a nonexistent hell.

My point was that Christianity needs to be challenged not because it is a nonsensical belief system, but because it is a nonsensical belief system that is actively attacking people in real and damaging ways in the public square. Fire with fire, and all that.

that is such a non argument... the most horrible acts in history of mankind were committed in the secularised 20th century and with no religious motive. yet ofcourse that was politics, or a freak of nature bladiblabla... people have been killed in the name of reason as well as in the name of god.

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Who is coming to that conclusion?

The argument that is everything is ok as long as we don't call it marriage means that in practice we will have two institutions. One for the heteros and one for the homos. The marriage and the union. You are making a separate but equal case here when you want a change in terminology. This is why the LGBT movement is specifically arguing for marriage, they don't want to potentially suffer under the law for decades like blacks did before things are corrected again.

The evangelical movement is anything but rational here. The sad joke about this whole NC affair is that there was no threat to NC about same sex marriage legalized. The evangelicals took their hate one step further where they could and decided that a statute wasn't enough, it had to be written into the State Constitution. If even the LGBT movement and it's allies were to switch gears and win over middle america by dropping the case for marriage and simply argue for equal civil union that confer the same benefits, how long would it until the Southern Baptists (because lets be honest, they seem to be the most egregious violators here), managed to work the system into their own Jim Crow version targeting LGBT. The inequality won't stop unless you rout out the Christians completely and utterly in government on this issue. Such is the benefit of a Christian nation.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Want to drive a car? Get a driver's liscence.

Want to fly a plane? Get a pilot's liscence.

Dumb argument. Same as the one you threw at me about your depression. One has a test that doesn't reject based on arbitrary factors, if you pass the test, you pass the test. No one asked me if I was gay when they gave me my provisional. And the DMV wouldn't reject me based on those grounds because I have shown to be a good test taker err driver. Gay couples have shown to be loving couples, and loving parents. They pass the test, let them have what is theirs.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Dumb argument. Same as the one you threw at me about your depression. One has a test that doesn't reject based on arbitrary factors, if you pass the test, you pass the test. No one asked me if I was gay when they gave me my provisional. And the DMV wouldn't reject me based on those grounds because I have shown to be a good test taker err driver. Gay couples have shown to be loving couples, and loving parents. They pass the test, let them have what is theirs.

It's not about "being" Gay, it's about what you want to do. Marriage discriminates in terms of who you can contract the marriage with, but it doesn't dicriminate between people. All people are allowed to contract the same kind of marriage - some Gay people even do this in order to have children together.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

It's not about "being" Gay, it's about what you want to do. Marriage discriminates in terms of who you can contract the marriage with, but it doesn't dicriminate between people. All people are allowed to contract the same kind of marriage - some Gay people even do this in order to have children together.

Your definition of marriage is obsolete. I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to break it to you. People do not think that marriage is about children, or some functionality unless they are super religious like you.

The US has been playing fast and loose with marriage for decades now. 50% of marriages end in divorce. If we all had the mentality of "this is to promote childbearing" our cultural attitudes to such frivolous making and breaking of marriages would be radically different.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Your definition of marriage is obsolete. I'm sorry, I really don't know how else to break it to you. People do not think that marriage is about children, or some functionality unless they are super religious like you.

The US has been playing fast and loose with marriage for decades now. 50% of marriages end in divorce. If we all had the mentality of "this is to promote childbearing" our cultural attitudes to such frivolous making and breaking of marriages would be radically different.

If my definition of marriage is actually obsolete, then marriage is obsolete. In which case, I'm right and the only just thing is to abolish it by completely liberalising it.

What's wrong with that? Why just two people in a "marriage"?

So I'm sorry to break it to you, but your argument is not logically consistant.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If my definition of marriage is actually obsolete, then marriage is obsolete. In which case, I'm right and the only just thing is to abolish it by completely liberalising it.

What's wrong with that? Why just two people in a "marriage"?

So I'm sorry to break it to you, but your argument is not logically consistant.

A. Nice false dichotomy.

But more importantly

B. If I could I would deconstruct marriage. The benefits of marriage should be given to any two or three or whatever people who file the paperwork with the gov.

Look. Ideally, I am a libertarian about this. Religious "Marriages" should be something that churches provide at their discretion everyone who actually wants their partnership to be recognized by the government fills out the same confusingly titled paperwork and are labelled the same as "Married".

But this isn't the world that any of us are going to live in. It's too big a change. The best thing to do is to start the deconstruction of this monstrosity of judeo-christian privilege by making gay partnerships equal.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

A. Nice false dichotomy.

But more importantly

B. If I could I would deconstruct marriage. The benefits of marriage should be given to any two or three or whatever people who file the paperwork with the gov.

Look. Ideally, I am a libertarian about this. Religious "Marriages" should be something that churches provide at their discretion everyone who actually wants their partnership to be recognized by the government fills out the same confusingly titled paperwork and are labelled the same as "Married".

But this isn't the world that any of us are going to live in. It's too big a change. The best thing to do is to start the deconstruction of this monstrosity of judeo-christian privilege by making gay partnerships equal.

Abolishing sexual prejudice by slices?

No, I don't accept that. If it's wrong it's wrong, preferencing homosexuals because they have a big media lobby against polyamorous groups, who potentially need the protection more because their living arrangements produce children naturally, is just even more wrong.

It's much more wrong than the current situation. It's like letting Methodists vote in England, but not Catholics.

Oh, and nice sideswipe at my "monstrous" religion.

I prefer your clever trolls though.

It's like letting Methodists vote in England, but not Catholics.

So better for Anglicans to have the sole privilege?