North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"The kids are all right"? Yeah that was surprisingly negative about lesbian parenting, I think it was an independent movie based on people the writer knew though. And could easily be seen as negative about hippie parents. I do think there are some issues with the surrogate type stuff, as people seem to naturally care about genetic links and "real parents" and stuff like that.

I haven't seen it - but the dact it got made is a point in itself. If I were a child with two dads/moms I'd want to know where the other part of me came from, especially as a boy with two moms you'd want to know stuff, like am I going to got bald?

So basically like I was saying. The clear and simple solution (legally) is to have gay marriage. But we shouldn't be fooled into thinking the cultural issues are so simple and clear cut, or that being on the right side of the legal question makes our ideas about the cultural stuff right to.

If you want clear and simple I propse the following:

1. Abolish legal marriage.

2. Allow consenting adults to contract whatever "marriage like" arrangements with whatever gender/number of consenting adults they wish.

3. Abbolish annulment, you contract one of these agreements you either stay together or get a full divorce because defining what is an isn't a conjugal act is a legal nightmare. I had this argument with a Gay man earlier in the wekk, he proposed a list of legally consumating sex-acts, I can't see that working.

As far as I am personally concerned the only logical courses of action are to keep marriage between one man and one woman, or to completely liberalise it.

If we can't proscribe the geneder of the person you marry we can't proscribe anything else about your legal arrangements and I call foul on anyone who supports Gay marriage, dissagrees with this point, then calls me a bigot.

[HoreTore]

...and that is what is meant by gay marriage.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As far as I am personally concerned the only logical courses of action are to keep marriage between one man and one woman, or to completely liberalise it.

If we can't proscribe the geneder of the person you marry we can't proscribe anything else about your legal arrangements and I call foul on anyone who supports Gay marriage, dissagrees with this point, then calls me a bigot.

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.


@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.

[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

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Sarmatian]

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.

Actually, in science it is. Otherwise I could claim that there are dragons and magic in the world and there's absolutely no way for you to prove they don't exist.

I don't get how people can actually buy that reasoning.

[The Stranger]

Actually, in science it is. Otherwise I could claim that there are dragons and magic in the world and there's absolutely no way for you to prove they don't exist.

I don't get how people can actually buy that reasoning.

ehm well you cant. you cant prove that it exists and you cant prove that it doesnt so you ignore it...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wrong focus? That is exactly where the focus should be. Christian intolerance of homosexuality stems directly from a few passages in the bible. Any time someone expounds on the immorality of homosexuality or the 'fact' that traditional marriage is the only one sanctioned by god (and that is the rationale behind opposition to gay marriage, whether the opponents choose to cower behind semantics or not), it should be immediately noted that they also believe a myriad of other crazy things. The problem is that Christian teaching receives way too much undeserved credibility. If you begin to view the story of Jesus as a first effort at zombie fan fiction instead of the sacred words of a very random and contradictory god, it becomes much more difficult to take anything in the bible seriously.

Have you read the Church fathers or later theologians? Wyclif, Luther, Calvin? Pope John Pail II?

The Bible is a foundational document of Christianity, but Christian doctrine is so much more - contrary to what Strike said it has always incorporated Aristotlien and Platonic logic, literary criticism, Judaic and Eastern mystical traditions...

A little Augustine for you

When I was writing about things I began with the warning that attention should be paid solely to the fact that they existed, and not to anything besides themselves that they might signify. Now that I am discussing signs, I must say conversely, that attention should not be paid to the fact that they exist, but rather to the fact that they are signs, or, in other words, that they signify.

Those modern philosophers are gabbing on without realising it has been done by Aristotle, or Augustine, or Epicurus, or Protagoras, or Boethius, or Thomas Aquinas.

If you want to talk about taking people seriously, look at the "Zombie Jesus" claim - it's based on a cult film director's perversion of Zombie lore. Jesus is not a "Zombie" he is, if you want to get technical, a Divine Revenant - a dead body whose soul has returned and has been animated and made to live through the power of God in contravention of natural law. It isn't a common trope, but I think you see it occasionally in Greek myths. Far more common is the spirit occupying a dead body, but Jesus' body is alive, he eats and drinks and his flesh remains uncorrupted.

His wounds remain not because he is dead, he isn't, but because they are a sign that he was dead. The Bible is quite explicit about this, his body is living.

Your understanding couldn't be more twisted. The gay marriage movement has nothing at all to do with the church or changing religious practices. No one is trying to force religious institutions to do... anything. On the other hand, the religious Right preaches anti-gay hatred from the pulpit. They are approaching the issue strictly from the 'church level' and, as usual, cannot seem to comprehend the separation of church and state.

Come now PJ - a large part of the Gay-marriage lobby are Gay Christians who want to have Church weddings. The European Court of Human Rights, in a review of proposed changes to marriage law in the UK said that if Civil Marriage was extended to Gay people it would be illegal for Churches to refuse to perform their weddings.

It is also currently illegal to have any religious content in a Civil Wedding in the UK - no hymms, no Bible readings, so that Gay couples who want a religious wedding must do so in a Church.

What is at stake here is the definition of marriage, not just the legal institution. If it were just the legal institution then they would be happy with "Civil Partnership" in most cases.

Actually, in science it is. Otherwise I could claim that there are dragons and magic in the world and there's absolutely no way for you to prove they don't exist.

I don't get how people can actually buy that reasoning.

ehm well you cant. you cant prove that it exists and you cant prove that it doesnt so you ignore it...

You are applying the scientific method outside science - that's why it doesn't make sense. The scientific method deals exclusively with the phyisical world and the natural Laws - religion is not abou the natural world, and when it interacts with the natural world it explicitely violates natural Law.

[Andres]

One of the principles of our western legal systems is equal treatment or, put "negative", non discrimination.

If there exists a certain legal framework for couples to chose for if they decide to go live together, then that legal framework should be accessible for all couples, gay or straight. Even if that legal framework is called "mariage". If you're going to exclude certain couples, e.g. gay couples, then you are discriminating. A discrimination which is based on nothing else but sexual orientation. It's up to those opposing gay marriage to give convincing arguments as to why gays should not be allowed to marry. But I, for one, fail to see what can justify such discrimination. The arguments against gay mariage are usually religiously inspired, sometims people refer to history, culture, tradition, which is all utterly irrelevant. Of course, that's valid for the legal framework, the mariage for the law.

The legal mariage should be seen strictly seperated from religious mariage. It should be like this: everybody is allowed to marry for a civil servant. That's your legal union/mariage. After you're married before the law, the same couple can marry again, for the church/religion of their choice. When it comes to the religious mariage, the rules of the religion must be respected, since religion is not the state's business; it's a private affair. So, a gay couple should be allowed to marry for the law, mariage concluded by a civil servant, but not before let's say their local Catholic priest. Relgious mariage should carry no legal weight whatsoever. This means that if you marry for God, but don't go to the civil servant first, you'll be married for God, but without any legal consequence: for the law, you're not married then.

Agnosticism is the logical conclusion. Nothing we do provides any concrete evidence for or against a God.

Why does the atheist have to provide concrete evidence. The atheist doesn't claim the existence of a supreme being, he merely says he doesn't believe in it. It's the believer who says there exists a God who carries the burden of proof. I never understood atheists who try their best to prove there is no God; why would you have to do that?

Agnosticism is not the "logical conclusion", it's just a euphemism for not being able to make up your mind Either God exists or he doesn't. And you believe or you don't. The agnosticist is a coward who's too afraid to have faith and too afraid to accept all the consequences of atheism, namely that there won't be an afterlife.

[Lemur]

Agnosticism is not the "logical conclusion", it's just a euphemism for not being able to make up your mind Either God exists or he doesn't. And you believe or you don't. The agnosticist is a coward who's too afraid to have faith and too afraid to accept all the consequences of atheism, namely that there won't be an afterlife.

Seems a little harsh on our brother and sister agnostics. Allow me to step in for them:

Is it so "cowardly" to assert that questions of supreme beings (or lack thereof) are unknowable? Is not the assertion that you know the existence (or absence) of an unimaginably powerful and vast intelligence that does (or does not) guide the universe a bit hubristic? Is the admission of "I don't know" truly the cowardly act, or is the assertion of ultimate truth sans evidence a form of insanity?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I protest your postulation

I said it incorperated those things colored by a christian lens

THIS IS WHY NO ONE LOVES YOU, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH

I'm sooooory!

One of the principles of our western legal systems is equal treatment or, put "negative", non discrimination.

If there exists a certain legal framework for couples to chose for if they decide to go live together, then that legal framework should be accessible for all couples, gay or straight. Even if that legal framework is called "mariage". If you're going to exclude certain couples, e.g. gay couples, then you are discriminating. A discrimination which is based on nothing else but sexual orientation. It's up to those opposing gay marriage to give convincing arguments as to why gays should not be allowed to marry. But I, for one, fail to see what can justify such discrimination. The arguments against gay mariage are usually religiously inspired, sometims people refer to history, culture, tradition, which is all utterly irrelevant. Of course, that's valid for the legal framework, the mariage for the law.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy this. You are arguing that couples are discriminated against, but that's surely bizare because the law doesn't recnise "couples" at all, what it recognises is sexual couplings, and it allows all individuals to engage in those couplings on exactly the same basis. There may be valid arguments for allowing Gay marriage but the discrimination argument doesn't really hold water - it includes far to many nebulous concepts, indeed didn't the ECHR recently determine that not allowing a Gay couple to marry was not discrimination?

Why does the atheist have to provide concrete evidence. The atheist doesn't claim the existence of a supreme being, he merely says he doesn't believe in it. It's the believer who says there exists a God who carries the burden of proof. I never understood atheists who try their best to prove there is no God; why would you have to do that?

Agnosticism is not the "logical conclusion", it's just a euphemism for not being able to make up your mind Either God exists or he doesn't. And you believe or you don't. The agnosticist is a coward who's too afraid to have faith and too afraid to accept all the consequences of atheism, namely that there won't be an afterlife.

I have always felt that atheists are trying to convince themselves by converting others to their views.

Seems a little harsh on our brother and sister agnostics. Allow me to step in for them:

Is it so "cowardly" to assert that questions of supreme beings (or lack thereof) are unknowable? Is not the assertion that you know the existence (or absence) of an unimaginably powerful and vast intelligence that does (or does not) guide the universe a bit hubristic? Is the admission of "I don't know" truly the cowardly act, or is the assertion of ultimate truth sans evidence a form of insanity?

That depends - I'm both an agnostic and an Christian. I believe my uncertainty is a reflection of my own human frailty, not evidence that God might not exist.

[The Stranger]

Why does the atheist have to provide concrete evidence. The atheist doesn't claim the existence of a supreme being, he merely says he doesn't believe in it. It's the believer who says there exists a God who carries the burden of proof. I never understood atheists who try their best to prove there is no God; why would you have to do that?

the burden of proof lies solely with the scientist... I never understood why any christian (or insert deity) who truly belies would try to defend his faith on scientific terms...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why does the atheist have to provide concrete evidence. The atheist doesn't claim the existence of a supreme being, he merely says he doesn't believe in it. It's the believer who says there exists a God who carries the burden of proof. I never understood atheists who try their best to prove there is no God; why would you have to do that?

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. That's why they try to prove there is no God. It's an opinion that can't be supported by science.

Anyways, NC is on the wrong side of history. I happened to read some comments on the Daily Caller site, calling gay marriage immoral, saying the reason for acceptance by the younger generation is a lack of morality, etc., etc.

Well, no. Younger people are just less likely to hate simply because their parents did. A generation from now this won't be an issue, and those bitter old crones will be looked on as those who oppose interracial marriage are today.

I opposed gay marriage once, but I don't think I ever hated gay people as so many anti-gay marriage people seem to.

I believe God is love, and the core of being a good person is to love others and act accordingly. And if two people love each other, they ought to be able to spend the rest of their lives together.

CR

[HoreTore]

An opinion that can't be supported by science? What?

There is no scientific proof of gods existence, which means that there is no god.

[Fragony]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. That's why they try to prove there is no God. It's an opinion that can't be supported by science.

Anyways, NC is on the wrong side of history. I happened to read some comments on the Daily Caller site, calling gay marriage immoral, saying the reason for acceptance by the younger generation is a lack of morality, etc., etc.

Well, no. Younger people are just less likely to hate simply because their parents did. A generation from now this won't be an issue, and those bitter old crones will be looked on as those who oppose interracial marriage are today.

I opposed gay marriage once, but I don't think I ever hated gay people as so many anti-gay marriage people seem to.

I believe God is love, and the core of being a good person is to love others and act accordingly. And if two people love each other, they ought to be able to spend the rest of their lives together.

CR

No, atheism is simply not believing anything. There is no god to not believe in.

[Ronin]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

@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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

[Strike For The South]

Exactly.

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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?

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

Wrong focus? That is exactly where the focus should be. Christian intolerance of homosexuality stems directly from a few passages in the bible. Any time someone expounds on the immorality of homosexuality or the 'fact' that traditional marriage is the only one sanctioned by god (and that is the rationale behind opposition to gay marriage, whether the opponents choose to cower behind semantics or not), it should be immediately noted that they also believe a myriad of other crazy things. The problem is that Christian teaching receives way too much undeserved credibility. If you begin to view the story of Jesus as a first effort at zombie fan fiction instead of the sacred words of a very random and contradictory god, it becomes much more difficult to take anything in the bible seriously.

Best start working on the Islamist then, I hear that in some parts of the world they kill homosexuals. Where is the hue and cry for justice from the LGBT comunity on the NBC or BBC or FOX news channels for that matter. As I stated earlier the more you push against something ingrained in Western society the more push back you have. To blantantly say "That can't work" for pushing the idea of unions that contain all the elements of"marriage" shows how it isn't about "rights" it's about abolishing judeo-christian "beliefs". Again, I ask where is the uproar over the death of homosxuals in the middle east? Seems marriage can be trival when you have to worry about that?

You do realize that the LGBT community and human rights activists speak out all the time about the persecution of homosexuals in the Middle East, right?

In any event, could this effort in diversion be more obvious? 'Why should American gays complain, at least we don't stone them?' I don't know about you, but I have higher standards for the United States than I do for Saudi Arabia.

The LGBT community has one thing right, if they love their partner then they should have the same rights as what a traditional "marriage" entails. But you need to be fighting it at the legal level not the church level. I would rightly blame the politicians for using this as a stump talk. It should be how to "include" not "exclude". But then the radicals on both sides wouldn't like that would they?

Your understanding couldn't be more twisted. The gay marriage movement has nothing at all to do with the church or changing religious practices. No one is trying to force religious institutions to do... anything. On the other hand, the religious Right preaches anti-gay hatred from the pulpit. They are approaching the issue strictly from the 'church level' and, as usual, cannot seem to comprehend the separation of church and state.

[Jack50]

My point was that you don't hear about these in our daily news cycle. The LGBT movement is so caught up in trying to make what is a legal matter into the bogeyman of Judeo-Christian principles that the bigger picture isn't there. Most true Christians as myself have no problem with the status of union between people. It is the LGBT community that won't step down the Rhetoric and actually work to the betterment of all LGBT's. That was my point about the middle east. You should hold Saudia Arabia to the same standard as you keep decrying religion, religion and it is the Islamic law that states to stone them, won't find it in the bible. You sir are the one who has it twisted. Try to make your arguement on the basis of law and forego the religious element. Then you will find a large middle ground of secular and christian people who have cause with you. If you need to see how it would work in a few yeas rather than the way things are going now, look to Dr. King and how blacks and whites religious and secular came togather to remove a vile stain on america's history.

Those against them shout the same things heard now. We need to tear down the societal fabric of Western civilization because we want our share(meaning the largest share) right now and we get to decide how it will look and function and be. This is why a state like NC doesn't want to see this in their state. I don't agree with the way they went about it but then maybe the LGBT can take some of that blame, seems there is enough to go around. At least this brings out the Christian bashers. Allows me to d othe Lord's work that way

[ICantSpellDawg]

Us Christians believe in a number of crazy things. Most of our religion is predicated on crazy things that require faith. There are enough passages in the bible to suggest that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Church. You are arguing against the Christian religion to say "do away with the crazy stuff". You are fine with doing that, but don't be surprised when Christians dismiss you as just being anti-Christian. You are by your own admission. God knows that burning bushes and talking through them to people in the wilderness is crazy, but so is a the idea that there is a God who cares about what we do to one another. I like the crazier aspects of my faith, especially the ones about transubstantiation and the Virgin Birth. Or how about the one where Jesus rises from the dead, or tells people that he will come to give them eternal life on the last day, or the one where he tells everyone that he is the son of God and no one will get to heaven except through him. I'm pretty sure that I'm ok with the idea that he may not be in favor of gay marriage. That is one of the least crazy things in the Bible.

You offer emptiness and there is no convincing reason, from a religious or secular perspective, to be in favor of equalizing homosexual relationships with heterosexual marital relationships. But maybe that's just me, or arguably 50% of the population of the United States.

I'm off to bed, to dream of amending state constitutions to ban recognition of same-sex marriages as special relationships, equal to male female marriage and above all other types of relationships.


"An argument made by philosopher Hilary Putnam, among others, states that some forms of relativism make it impossible to believe one is in error. If there is no truth beyond an individual's belief that something is true, then an individual cannot hold their own beliefs to be false or mistaken. A related criticism is that relativizing truth to individuals destroys the distinction between truth and belief."

We come to an impasse, therefore, we settle with a duel and history moves on without one of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

I love canned wikilosophy

[Ironside]

And 50% of statistics are made up.

That's a good one. Now, going with the much better divorces/1000 marriages, Sweden is notably more faithful than the US.

My point was that you don't hear about these in our daily news cycle. The LGBT movement is so caught up in trying to make what is a legal matter into the bogeyman of Judeo-Christian principles that the bigger picture isn't there. Most true Christians as myself have no problem with the status of union between people. It is the LGBT community that won't step down the Rhetoric and actually work to the betterment of all LGBT's.

For curiousity, how much of the most aggressive rethoric is actually coming from the LGBT community and not from those "false" Christians?

For example, anyone sing "hen" (a gender neutral personal pronoun) on for example forum posters are feminazis who are trying to destroy all forms of gender and replace all use of han (he) and hon (she) with a single pronoun.
Yet even the most aggressive gender neutral user are keeping this as a secret agenda, since they've never suggested it.

[The Stranger]

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.