North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

But this is ignorant of how people and society work. Change comes slowly in a culture. Everything has to be done in slices over time, or things start turning into social engineering or at least feel like it is.

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

I prefer your clever trolls though.

I did not call your religion monstrous. I am calling the privilege it has monstrous.

Also, my anger (since I live in California) is mostly directly at the Mormon Church (who funded Prop 8) which I am told is actually not considered Christian in many parts of the country.

[Papewaio]

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

Except just like the pagan rituals that were incorporated post the editorial process of the bible so were myths and legend incorporated from the mix available.

Obviously the old testament is the base of this perfume. Throw in some of the other beliefs of the Roman empire such as an anointed one with 12 disciples and a traitor (story format predates Jesus). Etc

Then look at the philosophical traditions of the Church and it never operated in a vacuum. All thought, philosophy and logic did not spring new from that institution. They were widely read scholars too and used idea systems that predate Christain thought.

In the end it is a product of its environment and it used Hebrew, Greek and Roman thought systems to perceive itself. The bible is not the wellspring it is a leaf on the water flows from tributaries that feed into a much bigger environment.

Love thy neighbour is just one form of the golden rule which is found in many other thought systems that predate the bible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So better for Anglicans to have the sole privilege?

More honest at least, more consistant. Anglicanism was the state religion, only letting Anglicans hold office was a political decsion about loyalty - letting in Methodists and Baptists but not Catholics was pure prejudice.

But this is ignorant of how people and society work. Change comes slowly in a culture. Everything has to be done in slices over time, or things start turning into social engineering or at least feel like it is.



I did not call your religion monstrous. I am calling the privilege it has monstrous.

Also, my anger (since I live in California) is mostly directly at the Mormon Church (who funded Prop 8) which I am told is actually not considered Christian in many parts of the country.

We banned slavery in one go.

The point is, allowing homosexual couples to marry and not other intimate grouping is no less prejudiced, you're just letting homosexuals into the prejudiced group. You are extending sexual prejudice by perpetuating the in-out group model of sexual morality.

This is one of the biggest criticisms of the Gay movement since the 1990's, it has become illiberal and essentially as bad as the Conservative movements it critiques.

[Jack50]

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?

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?

[Jack50]

@Papewaio except that in the bible it also doesn't turn around and say, if you don't give me what is mine I have the right to kill you, OR upon the end of your life you may become a bug because you didn't live your life right. The love thy neighbor line is more than that. The actual verse is they are two "rules" if you will that would cover the myriad laws of the jewish torah in compacts made with the Lord. Jesus said the first to to love your Lord God with all your soul, and mind, and strength and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Now so me where in ANY OTHER RELIGON that is what is being spoken. Please, don't go down the rabbit hole, I won't quote Anton LaVey or other "mystics" please refrain from your attempts at Jesus of Nazareth.

[Xiahou]

Your definition of marriage is obsolete.

Ok, and you think it should be redefined. That's fine- just be honest about what you want to do.

The US has been playing fast and loose with marriage for decades now. 50% of marriages end in divorce.

And 50% of statistics are made up.

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.

This is where the "civil rights" argument falls apart for homosexual marriage. On one hand, it what race you were born with, on the other, it's what gender you prefer to have sex with. There's no equivalence.

Edit:
On Obama's announcement... I don't think anyone is surprised to learn the Obama is in favor of homosexual marriage. The timing of his admission is interesting though. I assume that his team did the maths and think this will help his chances. It should rally his base and it will also serve as a distraction to Obama's indefensible economic record.

[CountArach]

Edit:
On Obama's announcement... I don't think anyone is surprised to learn the Obama is in favor of homosexual marriage. The timing of his admission is interesting though. I assume that his team did the maths and think this will help his chances. It should rally his base and it will also serve as a distraction to Obama's indefensible economic record.

In all likelihood, yes. Remember that both sides of politics hate him for the healthcare bill, but this announcement will at least draw back in a lot of his core voters who can perceive some sort of movement on an issue that is immensely important to them. It also means that he could have a mandate for it in his second term, when he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

Keep it rolling. A president in favor of gay marriage and backers who attack Christianity and hate Christians because of a vote in a far away state can't be a bad thing in November.

You can call me a Nihilist all you'd like. There is either a "plan" to the Universe or there is not. I balance both ideas in good measure. If there is a plan, you can seek answers to what it might be and the sources you use should have a logical consistency - or a consistency in line with that plan. If not, you can do whatever you'd like and push whatever issue sounds good at the moment, but it's all smoke and mirrors and just keeps you feeling like you're going somewhere when there is nowhere to go. I'm pretty sure that none of you would disagree with the "to be or not to be" possibilities, so what am I missing?

I have books and tradition which, I believe, shine a light onto meaning and purpose. You laugh at that meaning and purpose and posit others, derived from Hollywood celebrities and the popular culture of the age. I believe in this dynamic struggle.

Shaming people of faith is useless because you shame them with empty morality. I'm not attempting to shame you, I'm trying to make you see that the accepted ideas of "progress" in this vein are illusory. Some ideas are consistent with my own morality; freedom from theocracy, freedom to determine the laws that govern you, freedom from tyranny around the world, elimination of slavery, reduction of drug laws, some correction for majority rule, etc. Others are nonsense and seem absurd to my morality; veganism, gay marriage, gun control, etc.

I'm actually not a **** disgusting man, "I cant see my name" (BTW, I've been flagged for less). I like to oppose ideas which I see as wrongheaded. I won't be shamed into ending my opposition to what I believe is bad policy. I'll compromise, but you guys have no interest in compromising in any real way. It's all or nothing and I won't give in to you. You are free to argue your case and may continue influencing others, but I don't believe you will be successful in the long term because I believe this is a bad push. I am also free to oppose you, that's because we live in a free society.

NC just made it more difficult for court actions to subvert the established law. You can't blame them on procedure.


BTW, Obama still doesn't believe marriage is a "civil right" and neither do I.

[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

[Crazed Rabbit]

Edit:
On Obama's announcement... I don't think anyone is surprised to learn the Obama is in favor of homosexual marriage. The timing of his admission is interesting though. I assume that his team did the maths and think this will help his chances. It should rally his base and it will also serve as a distraction to Obama's indefensible economic record.

I thought it was because Biden pulled a biden a couple days back.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm pretty sure that I'm ok with the idea that he may not be in favor of gay marriage.

Based on... what? I'm just curious. If it's Leviticus, do you live by all the social codes proscribed in that text? If it is from the writings of Paul, do you also support slavery and the oppression of women?

[Papewaio]

@Papewaio except that in the bible it also doesn't turn around and say, if you don't give me what is mine I have the right to kill you, OR upon the end of your life you may become a bug because you didn't live your life right. The love thy neighbor line is more than that. The actual verse is they are two "rules" if you will that would cover the myriad laws of the jewish torah in compacts made with the Lord. Jesus said the first to to love your Lord God with all your soul, and mind, and strength and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Now so me where in ANY OTHER RELIGON that is what is being spoken. Please, don't go down the rabbit hole, I won't quote Anton LaVey or other "mystics" please refrain from your attempts at Jesus of Nazareth.

My argument is that the bible is not the root of all western thought. Even in the bible it refers to the root being Hebrew tradition. Add in most of the Churches beliefs were based on Greek views of the universe and Earths central place in it. The bible was not the orginal reference point for western philosophy.

As for punishment there are a few passages in it. Even Jesus agrees that one can stone others, as long as you are free of sin oneself which kind of rules out everyone. So OT with the NT patch so that an aging God mellows out when his hippy son takes over the business. Main tenants are that you can do more wih less. You summarize the ten commandments into love and obey your god, love thy neighbor. It covers more ground and has less loop holes.

Does not however make it the font of western philosophy. It makes it the cliff notes for the OT, a much easier summary that is easier to follow and understand and open to all not just a select chosen few.

[gaelic cowboy]

It doesn't, at least not in America. In fact, it's the other way around: I know for a fact that a Catholic priest will not perform a marriage ceremony on a couple if they have not obtained a marriage license.

I aint arguing about the ordering of civil and religious ceremonies merely the fact civil marraige shold be scrapped as I see it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I aint arguing about the ordering of civil and religious ceremonies merely the fact civil marraige shold be scrapped as I see it.

Here is a man who can be reasoned with.

With regard to slavery, do I believe that the idea of slavery - as it existed the time - contravene's God's law/natural law? No. The Bible writes about regulating relationships between slave and master, Paul calls on slaves to be treated as "brothers" by their master. Do I believe that slavery as we were practicing it was, as a race based institution, an affront to natural law? Yes. Just because the Bible allows something doesn't mean it favors it - but when it specifically condemns something, as a believer my obligation to condemn that thing is greater than my obligation to fit in with popular culture.

The Bible has reference to a specific abolition of slavery as part of God's will too, as you may recall. Just because something exists as it did in the Bible doesn't meant that we cannot deviate from a practice, we have free will and choice in how we live our lives and I think our system works better without slavery, but you may suggest that global working conditions are no better than slavery, so we have a long way to go.

But when the Bible, old and new, refers to something as abomination I heed that. The "surely shall be put to death part" seems to have been scrubbed in the new testament, and I'm ok with that because I believe that we are called not to kill. I'll take my revelations on biblical interpretation from the second coming, rather than funny or die, Bill Maher, or Brad Pit and Angleine Jolie, for example.

My understanding of Natural Law comes partly from my faith, partly from my perceived innate human characteristics, but I have numerous arguments for and against something when I think about it long enough.

In summary, abolishing the civil institution of marriage is not against my Religion, but recognizing homosexual unions as equal to male/female marriage is, and it flies in the face of the things that I believe about natural order. There is an option that establishes civil fairness that is agreeable to me and winnable to you, but you don't push that one because it would be harder to convince people to give up tax breaks than it would be to confuse them about their Religion. That is a cynical move if I've ever heard one.

[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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[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?

[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...

[Lemur]

Welp, Obama just came out in favor of Same-Sex marriage.

Yup, and apparently the timing was not planned. Maybe it's good to have a VP who says things when he isn't supposed to?

The declaration was not supposed to come this week. Instead, the White House had planned to dramatically unveil the shift shortly before the Democratic convention. But Obama had been agitated by Vice President Joe Biden’s own endorsement of gay marriage on Sunday, which knocked the White House off what was supposed to be its message this week—student loans and economic issues.

The president expressed his frustration to West Wing officials—some of whom questioned whether Biden had wandered off script or was trying to foster a change in policy—but Obama didn’t take up the issue with his No. 2. Asked about Biden's role in prodding him, Obama acknowledged to ABC "that I would have preferred to do it in my own time, on my own terms."

[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.

[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.

[ajaxfetish]

Also, my anger (since I live in California) is mostly directly at the Mormon Church (who funded Prop 8)

Sorry about that

We banned slavery in one go.

I think a few people died in the process, though, at least in America. I wouldn't mind taking this one a little slower.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry about that



I think a few people died in the process, though, at least in America. I wouldn't mind taking this one a little slower.

Ajax

Then maybe it's not worth making any change, eh?

Either it's a great injustice or it isn't.

[Lemur]

House Armed Services vote bans gay marriage on military bases

On the same day that President Obama threw the weight of the White House in support of gay marriage, defense lawmakers in the House banned the practice from taking place on U.S. military bases.

Members of the House Armed Services committee voted to include the measure by Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-Miss.) into the panel's version of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill late Wednesday night.

The measure, which prevents "marriage or marriage-like ceremonies" between same-sex couples from taking place at American military bases, was approved by a 37 to 24 vote along party lines.

Republican panel members also approved language to protect military personnel from reprisals for expressing "their moral principles and religious beliefs... concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality."

That amendment, sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) was approved by a straight party-line vote of 36 to 25.

[ajaxfetish]

Then maybe it's not worth making any change, eh?

Either it's a great injustice or it isn't.

I'm afraid I don't think the world is that simple. I think there's more to it than, on the one hand, issues of great injustice that can only be changed by catastrophic action, and on the other things that aren't worth changing at all. In many cases, gradual advances in keeping with the progress of culture can accomplish a lot of good, in situations where a sudden revolution would either fail or come with significant and undesired side-effects. Just because the revolutionary change could be bad doesn't make any change bad.

Ajax