Happy Atheist Forum

This place is not a run-of-mill flame war forum. Here is the first sentence of the forum's mission statement (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/portal.php):-

QuoteAt HAF we know that atheists are often happy ethical people just like anyone else. It is our goal to help dissolve negative stereotypes currently held towards atheists and facilitate productive dialogue with those of differing viewpoints.

Let's look at a couple of elements of the mission statement.

'dissolve negative stereotypes currently held towards atheists'
Do we all do this as often as we can, as well as we can? I know I want to try, I know I won't always manage it as I'm human. Could we do it better? That's a question for each person to answer for themselves. I would not presume to tell others how to behave. The only thing I can do is try to lead by example. I will do my best not lose my temper with somebody who is making assertions from their world view that I frankly find abhorrent. I will not rant at a person for the views they hold.

'facilitate productive dialogue with those of differing viewpoints'

I personally have great difficulty not seeing a theist as being as daft as a brush. There I said it, that is my prejudice. I don't necessarily see them as dangerous but I do see them as 'odd'. I see their beliefs before I see the person and I think that is wrong and I should not do it. One can't have a dialogue with an ideal, one has to talk to the person. I would contend that a truly productive dialogue only happens when two people engage with each other and are willing to stand back and try and be as objective as possible about their own world view and accept from the outset that it may stand some modification. If one does not accept that one's world view my not be perfect then one simply becomes a dogmatic individual.

Each of us is a unique combination of Genes and Memes rolled around in one's particular lifetime of experience. I don't think anybody can know everything there is to know as our brains don't have the capacity, and even if they did our lifespan is too short to take in all the information there is. Thus each and every one of us can not say their world view is perfect as it is based on a sub-set of all knowledge and a different unique sub-set. To have a true dialogue each interlocutor must accept their fallibility.

I don't like being told what I think based on the fact I call myself an atheist. I don't like being dealt with as a strawman, yet it happens. So should one Christian be held responsible for Christianity any more than one atheist be held responsible for atheism? Well there is a fundamental difference between atheism and Christianity (or any religion). Atheism has no dogma, it is not a collective world view, it says nothing about a person except they do not think there is a God, any God. To 'buy into' atheism one takes on no other theological baggage. However when one calls oneself a Christian one does inherit a huge load of theological baggage. But should one Christian be held responsible for Christianity?  I say no, they can not be held responsible for the whole of a religion. Like any individual they should only be held responsible for their world view and how their world view incorporates Christianity.

I would contend that when in a dialogue with a person calling themselves a Christian one should not assume how Christian dogma informs that particular individual's world view, one should ask them. By asking them, rather than telling them something one can not know, one sows the seed of dialogue rather than strikes the spark of a flame war.

So I would contend that to support this forum's mission statement people should see other people first and their world view second. We should ask questions about why somebody holds a particular view on a particular subject rather than presume to tell them based on prejudice and past experience with other people as we are unique and should be treated and respected as such. That's what I will try to do, I will of course fail at times as I am simply a fallible ape.

It seems unlikely to me that there are a great deal of atheists who discount Christians as equals because they are Christians. In the same breath, I believe that if you say you are a Christian, one must accept the baggage that comes along with that. I understand your point but Christians should be held accountable for what they believe and that includes all the genocide, rape, God condoned atrocities, and head-scratching dogma. If I said my world view was based in the racial superiority of Blacks and began to babble about how every other race was doomed to oblivion, would you see me as a person first and then consider my world view? You may very well do that but many others would not and they would not be wrong for that. Christianity is a world view in that same context. At it's core lies the fact that it expects all of us to consider it a legitimate way to view the world we live in. Christians take for granted the idea that their world view is accepted as a proper set of beliefs, when the reality is that it is a spiritual and factual scam. Just because a vast majority of Christians are uncritical followers does not mean that they should not be held accountable for the world view they claim to understand and follow.

Is it just me or is it too easy to back Christians into circular logic or contradiction? Before an argument gets to that point, the majority of us skeptics have to deal with the arrogance and ignorance of absolute certainty, that oozes from the uncritical followers of the Christian cult. We all know what horrors can be committed with total absolutism and unquestioning faith. The world view can change very little from being a liberal follower of Christ to picketing the funerals of our nations KIA. Whether we like it or not, it is the job of the informed to combat ignorance in all it's forms. I would say that we could just leave them to their devices but it seems that Christians are not content with occupying one-third of the world with it's fairy tales. The nature of Christianity and all "one true God" cults is to universalize their beliefs. It is the epitome of convincing everyone else of a lie, so that you can further convince yourself. It's dangerous and perversely human to desire such a thing. That is exactly why Christians should all be held accountable for their beliefs.

In making this argument, it is important to note just how frequently Christians try to "evolve" the interpretation of the doctrine to fit the times. That is not a device of Christianity so much as it is a device of Christians. The doctrine is not changing. The Old Testament and the New Testament can no longer be changed without notice. Used to be that if you needed to address a new situation or challenge to the text, you could just create a new epistle and tell everyone that it had always existed. Seems that literacy has done away with that practice. So we are left with documents that can no longer be evolved in definite terms. Christian beliefs, practices, dogma, tradition, and annoying line for line quotations, are all a product of the texts. Now that the text cannot be changed, Christians must continually change their stories to fit the times. Each new discovery of evolution and our solar system makes it necessary for Christians to come up with more elaborate ways to interpret their text. This practice is the sole dominion of lies. They fuel this continued charade. They have an increasingly finite amount of ways to re-imagine their "good books" to fit the facts.

This makes it easy to say that it is not Christianity that needs to be held accountable but Christians. Most Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to believe in. Despite the fact that most semi-rational Christians will admit that many parts of the Bible are antiquated, they find ingenious ways to keep the texts from becoming totally obsolete. Did I say ingenious? I meant irrational. The more excuses they make, the more we should be willing to call them out. It seems that belief for the sake of belief has become the status quo. No one thinks they will go to hell for working on Sunday or even for cheating on their spouses. Christianity has moved past it's prime and atheists can speed along it's demise. I won't go door to door with pamphlets but we need to hold Christians accountable for the illogical ways they continue to keep their religion afloat and in everyone else's lives.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"It seems unlikely to me that there are a great deal of atheists who discount Christians as equals because they are Christians. In the same breath, I believe that if you say you are a Christian, one must accept the baggage that comes along with that. I understand your point but Christians should be held accountable for what they believe and that includes all the genocide, rape, God condoned atrocities, and head-scratching dogma. If I said my world view was based in the racial superiority of Blacks and began to babble about how every other race was doomed to oblivion, would you see me as a person first and then consider my world view? You may very well do that but many others would not and they would not be wrong for that. Christianity is a world view in that same context. At it's core lies the fact that it expects all of us to consider it a legitimate way to view the world we live in. Christians take for granted the idea that their world view is accepted as a proper set of beliefs, when the reality is that it is a spiritual and factual scam. Just because a vast majority of Christians are uncritical followers does not mean that they should not be held accountable for the world view they claim to understand and follow.

Is it just me or is it too easy to back Christians into circular logic or contradiction? Before an argument gets to that point, the majority of us skeptics have to deal with the arrogance and ignorance of absolute certainty, that oozes from the uncritical followers of the Christian cult. We all know what horrors can be committed with total absolutism and unquestioning faith. The world view can change very little from being a liberal follower of Christ to picketing the funerals of our nations KIA. Whether we like it or not, it is the job of the informed to combat ignorance in all it's forms. I would say that we could just leave them to their devices but it seems that Christians are not content with occupying one-third of the world with it's fairy tales. The nature of Christianity and all "one true God" cults is to universalize their beliefs. It is the epitome of convincing everyone else of a lie, so that you can further convince yourself. It's dangerous and perversely human to desire such a thing. That is exactly why Christians should all be held accountable for their beliefs.

In making this argument, it is important to note just how frequently Christians try to "evolve" the interpretation of the doctrine to fit the times. That is not a device of Christianity so much as it is a device of Christians. The doctrine is not changing. The Old Testament and the New Testament can no longer be changed without notice. Used to be that if you needed to address a new situation or challenge to the text, you could just create a new epistle and tell everyone that it had always existed. Seems that literacy has done away with that practice. So we are left with documents that can no longer be evolved in definite terms. Christian beliefs, practices, dogma, tradition, and annoying line for line quotations, are all a product of the texts. Now that the text cannot be changed, Christians must continually change their stories to fit the times. Each new discovery of evolution and our solar system makes it necessary for Christians to come up with more elaborate ways to interpret their text. This practice is the sole dominion of lies. They fuel this continued charade. They have an increasingly finite amount of ways to re-imagine their "good books" to fit the facts.

This makes it easy to say that it is not Christianity that needs to be held accountable but Christians. Most Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to believe in. Despite the fact that most semi-rational Christians will admit that many parts of the Bible are antiquated, they find ingenious ways to keep the texts from becoming totally obsolete. Did I say ingenious? I meant irrational. The more excuses they make, the more we should be willing to call them out. It seems that belief for the sake of belief has become the status quo. No one thinks they will go to hell for working on Sunday or even for cheating on their spouses. Christianity has moved past it's prime and atheists can speed along it's demise. I won't go door to door with pamphlets but we need to hold Christians accountable for the illogical ways they continue to keep their religion afloat and in everyone else's lives.

Thank you for an interesting and detailed response. I still think that a person can only by held responsible for their own actions. One person who calls themselves a Christian is not responsible for the actions of another person who calls themselves a Christian and therefore can not be held responsible for the actions and activities of Christianity as whole. Although I grant that their individual behaviours may well have been influenced by how they have integrated Christian dogma into their particular world view.

And this is the point of entering into a constructive dialogue with any person. One can't expect curious Christians who come here to see how the other half live to have the capability to defend Christianity as a whole, it would be impossible. I therefore contend that on this forum with it's aims, stated above, that we have an obligation to engage each other at the level of the individual. Thus I may ask Denny why he believes 'xyz' to be true or reasonable and what I want to hear is his voice. Not a dogmatic assertion. I want to understand why he believes what he believes. That does not mean I will agree with him or that in due course I won't debate the validity of his belief. However I do want to try and understand what Denny thinks and go from there. I don't think Denny should be held responsible for Christianity and in particular things that he had no control over such as the Crusades or the Inquisition he wasn't even alive then. I think he can be held responsible for actions he takes or opinions he holds that he took from dogma and incorporated into his own world view as he is responsible for his world view. And that is what this place is all about, dialogue between individuals.

23 views 2 responses  :D

Most people condemn the worst excesses of fundamentalism.
Some atheists harangue moderate theists for not taking their book literally.
Some atheists are rabid in their attacks, mention any belief and it's out with
the baby eating and paedophilia accusations.
I prefer to leave dogmatic and intolerant attitudes to theists.

The tone of argument here seems reasonable to me.
Religion does harm that I would like to see minimised.
Rabid atheists, fired up by Dawkins words, but with none of his subtlety, are not helping to reduce harm.

After a forum encounter I have seen visiting theists and deists, left thinking Atheists are a bunch of assholes.  
Forum regulars keep the thread going long after driving off the visitor, congratulating themselves like an
adolescent street gang.

I have made posts here lacking in subtlety, I will try to do better.

I will be honest: Religion fascinates me. Just the psychology of it is so interesting to me.  How do people convince themselves that this is true? I used to think that the only possible reason someone could believe such absurdities was that there was something underneath.  Some sort of spiritual goodness at the center of every religion that draws people in.  On some level I still think that religion provides spiritual nourishment, but lately I'm starting to see that there's no intrinsic force drawing people into belief, it's just indoctrination.

People say their morality is based off of wanting to go to heaven, and they are afraid to go to hell. It's pre-conventional morality: Do whatever makes your parents give you a cookie, don't do what makes them give you a spanking. We're supposed to grow out of that mindset around the age of seven! I hear grown people talking as if they were children, and I can't help but think they're somehow less intelligent than me.

And I know all religions have their problems, but I am specifically biased against Christianity.  I have Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and Pagan friends, and their religions seem fine to me.  The most arrogant and hateful set of beliefs I've encountered come from Christianity.  I'm not a Hindu, but I love Hinduism. I'm not a Muslim, but I love Islam.  I used to be a Christian, and I hate Christianity. I get a lot of crap from Christians and Atheists for this, but not all religions are equal, and Christianity belongs at the bottom of the ranking (just above Scientology).

I think Tank is absolutely right.  No one person should be held accountable for Christianity. Everyone believes different things, and it's unfair to judge anyone based on the official dogma of the belief system they belong to.  In the end, it all has to answer to logic, and it will finally fail that test.  but it's just not fair to say: "You're a Christian! You like Rape and Genocide and Stoning People to Death!"  I would never imply something like that in person, It's the anonymity of the internet.  If I get caught putting words in someones mouth, or taking something out of context, I just read a negative comment, make a mental not to do that again for at least an hour, and move on.

I know plenty of very smart Christians, and plenty of those Fred-Phelps-ish nut jobs. It's easy to think we're smarter than them, because we are more logical.  But we're not. Atheists can be just as arrogant as any theist.  I find it disturbing that so many atheists treat atheism as if it were a religion. Proving God doesn't exist is more simple than concluding that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, or that there has never been a Global Flood. The Bible is like a Straw Man that the religion built itself, it's so easy to knock over. But don't let yourself think you've toppled the God argument that way.

I think individual Christians are responsible for the parts of Christianity they support.  I think they also bear some responsibility for the wrongs being currently perpetrated by fellow Christians under the flag of Christianity that they are aware of but don't so much as peep at.  If they are aware of the American Christians urging Ugandans to commit genocide against homosexuals and don't even voice their disapproval then I think they bear a little of the responsibility when that genocide comes to pass.  If they are either actively or passively supportive of anti-gay bigotry, they bear some responsibility.  If they teach their children to be religious bigots they bear even more.

I probably take a harder line about Christianity than most atheists because I've had the full-on American atheist experience.  I know that sounds a lot like "my sister/mother/female canary was raped by a (fill in the race, creed, or ethnicity) person so I now hate that kind of people" but I think there is a distinction.  The things I've faced have been ongoing and often severe.  They are not isolated incidents and Christianity has been used to support them all.

It started with getting beaten when I was outed as the child of an atheist and continued with years of harassment and abuse by adults and schoolmates.  I still bear the physical and emotional scars.  On the streets, I saw the way many Christian missions offer shelter, food, and other assistance with Christian strings attached.  

I listened to the stories of homeless teens and young adults discarded by their parents for religious reasons.  Yet American Christians turn their heads (or yell profanity and plug their ears) at the approximately 400,000 American teens discarded to the streets for religious reasons.  Young adults are discarded for those reasons, too, as are spouses, siblings, and parents.  

I took 17 of those teens and young adults into my home.  I took some of them to the ER for the physical injuries inflicted upon them by their Christian parents.  One boy who came out as Pagan had to get pieces of his mother's fingernails removed from the deep, scarring wounds she made on his cheek before they could get stitches.  Another boy who was suspected of being gay was beaten until he had broken bones and physically pitched into the street.  An actually homosexual boy was kicked out after a beating that left him vulnerable and weakened.  He was raped the same week.  His parents told him he deserved it.  I held him in my arms when he believed it.  A 13 year old girl was discarded because her parents thought she was possessed because she was "willful and disobedient". I had to almost "tame" her of her terror of adults (with food and quiet speech over the course of about five days) to get her to come with me to DHS because her parents had beaten her and she'd been sexually assaulted on the street.  I could go on.  Once you meet one of these kids your life changes forever.

In the trenches you can see that so many innocent lives are destroyed by religion.

I think that Christians who are aware of this and say or do nothing do bear some responsibility.  If they don't show disapproval when members of their family and church discard their children they are supporting it, though through inactivity.  

All that said, I don't think all Christians bear responsibility for the repulsive actions done in the name of Christianity.  I know and love many Christians who are fine people.  I have worked with Christian activists who fight these injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.  I live with a lovely Catholic woman who has many of the same views I do.  

It helps me to put things into perspective to realize that most of the ones who are harmful didn't choose to be indoctrinated.  They were raised with a version of religion that warped them.  I was abused as a child and it has left me screwed up.  They were abused as children and it left them screwed up in a different way.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I think individual Christians are responsible for the parts of Christianity they support.  I think they also bear some responsibility for the wrongs being currently perpetrated by fellow Christians under the flag of Christianity that they are aware of but don't so much as peep at.  If they are aware of the American Christians urging Ugandans to commit genocide against homosexuals and don't even voice their disapproval then I think they bear a little of the responsibility when that genocide comes to pass.  If they are either actively or passively supportive of anti-gay bigotry, they bear some responsibility.  If they teach their children to be religious bigots they bear even more.

First off Kylyssa, that was a very touching post. Heartbreaking to hear and even worst to see. Your quote summarizes a point I should have elaborated on much more. I do not expect contemporary Christians to all refute or accept every aspect of Christianity. It is clear that much of the Biblical issues are not followed closely, let alone practiced. Much of it is outright ignored. Then what is the point? It seems to me that Americans, in particular, are more pseudo-Christians than real ones. They believe in the practice and participation of their religion but do not truly acknowledge it for what it is. This would not bother me one bit if Christians did not try and force their religions down everyone's throats but they do. As soon as you try to make me and my children digest your verbal and political diarrhea I start to have issues.

More to the point, Christians seem okay to violate everyone else's rights and freedoms so long as they are the golden constituents in this country. Gays cannot get married or be treated equally because of religious bigotry. If that wasn't the case Americans would go to the polls and allow homosexuals the same rights as everyone else. While not all Christians are against same sex marriage openly, the majority clearly refuse these people their rights based off of a false premise, that is rooted in their religion. That is the issue though. They have to believe it. They have to treat these people like their are dogs because it is in the Bible. If you are a Christian you cannot openly speak against that because to do so is to speak against God. So be moral and be responsible, is to reject something so vile and inhumane and if you don't you are responsible for the issues that arise from this. It is the same when after WWII everyone was asking how so many people could be complacent in the murder of so many. The typical answer from German soldiers was, "I was just doing what I was told." Well that just isn't a good enough explanation. If you are part of the group that commits these crimes against humanity and you do not speak out against it, you have furthered that cause. Why? Because when you do not speak out you strengthen the group mentality that allows people to siphon responsibility to everyone else but them. No one is responsible and yet horrors are still being committed. We can be polite as skeptics and treat Christians like they are just innocent and confused but to frank I won't do that. The problem today is that we do not have enough atheists willing to take the hard line against this. We should stand firmly and aggressively against such immoral behavior.

I look forward to the day the cross sits discarded beside the swastika as just another reminder of the dangers of blind faith.

^I think that the swastika is actually a pretty cool symbol, and that it's a shame that the nazis ruined it.

This part of KebertX's post resonated with me.

Quote from: "KebertX"{snip}How do people convince themselves that this is true? {snip}

I think people are gullible in that sometimes they want to believe something, so they do. I have never wanted to believe there is a God, so I haven't. When is all is said and done and all the logic is thrown around and all the facts stated some people still have the ability to believe what they want to. The point about the 'pleased parents' and 'super Daddy' is an important one. As children we know no better than to do as our parents tell us and when arguing with siblings who has not made the 'appeal to authority', 'I'll tell Dad/Mum on you!' Thus trumping in one fell swoop the authority of one's sibling?

As we are all different it is reasonable to assert that some people will be more gullible and self delusional than others. It's the famous line 'There's one born every minuet.' but in this case it is the individual fooling themselves because they want to, because the world view they create is the most comfortable for them at the time.

KX also makes the very valid point that if one sees a lot of people saying something is correct it is very, very difficult not to think there is something in what these people are saying. There are classic psychological experiment where you put one person into a group of people (who is the subject of the experiment) and get everybody else (who are part of the experiment) to say something dumb is true, in the vast majority of cases the subject will go along with the group even when they know what is being said is dumb! It's safer to conform and have the protection of the group than to appear different and by ostracised, we are after all a social animal.

I have convinced myself things are true because I disparately wanted them to be true and reality was just to difficult to face up to.

Kylyssa

Thank you for every word of your last post. You have summed up my position perfectly. One should be held responsible for one's own actions, be they active or passive. There should be one hell for those that actively abuse and excuse their behaviours by hiding behind dogma, there should be another for those that stand by and watch and do noting. But one should always remember that the people in both these groups are victims of the lies of religion, that feed on the imperfections of our evolution and upbringing.

I do agree that people should be held accountable for their behaviour, I just don't feel it is right to presume a person will always behave in a particular way just because they have stuck a particular label on themselves. I think one should give the benefit of the doubt to new members here until they have shown their own colours and then one should engage with the individual on their individual beliefs.

On a more general point. Going back to the OP and expanding on it a little, I think that to have a useful dialogue one has to limit the discussion to the point at hand. If a person states 'I think xyz is wrong because Chapter 1 verse 16 says blah, blah blah.' it's not productive to ask why they believe in a zombie God. The fact that they believe in a zombie God is daft and may well pull the rug out from under their assertion but it isn't going to promote a healthy dialogue it'll just spark a flame war.

However if a person comes here and asserts 'I think xyz is wrong because Chapter 1 verse 16 says blah, blah blah.' and will not back up their claims in their own words and in the spirit of a constructive dialogue I would see them as a preacher and they should be shown the door pretty damn quick! There is no point in giving air time to arseholes, ones they have shown themselves to be arseholes.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Most people condemn the worst excesses of fundamentalism.
Some atheists harangue moderate theists for not taking their book literally.
Some atheists are rabid in their attacks, mention any belief and it's out with
the baby eating and paedophilia accusations.
I prefer to leave dogmatic and intolerant attitudes to theists.

The tone of argument here seems reasonable to me.
Religion does harm that I would like to see minimised.
Rabid atheists, fired up by Dawkins words, but with none of his subtlety, are not helping to reduce harm.

After a forum encounter I have seen visiting theists and deists, left thinking Atheists are a bunch of assholes.  
Forum regulars keep the thread going long after driving off the visitor, congratulating themselves like an
adolescent street gang.

I have made posts here lacking in subtlety, I will try to do better.

This was a particularly distasteful tribal behaviour at RDF and it is still appears at RationalSkeptisim where the majority of heavy posters at RDF ended up. Theists are referred to as 'chew toys'    I won't say I'm above that sort of behaviour, it's easy to get carried along with the crowd. But in retrospect it's not a good or productive way to behave.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"It started with getting beaten when I was outed as the child of an atheist and continued with years of harassment and abuse by adults and schoolmates.  I still bear the physical and emotional scars.  On the streets, I saw the way many Christian missions offer shelter, food, and other assistance with Christian strings attached.  

I listened to the stories of homeless teens and young adults discarded by their parents for religious reasons.  Yet American Christians turn their heads (or yell profanity and plug their ears) at the approximately 400,000 American teens discarded to the streets for religious reasons.  Young adults are discarded for those reasons, too, as are spouses, siblings, and parents.  

I took 17 of those teens and young adults into my home.  I took some of them to the ER for the physical injuries inflicted upon them by their Christian parents.  One boy who came out as Pagan had to get pieces of his mother's fingernails removed from the deep, scarring wounds she made on his cheek before they could get stitches.  Another boy who was suspected of being gay was beaten until he had broken bones and physically pitched into the street.  An actually homosexual boy was kicked out after a beating that left him vulnerable and weakened.  He was raped the same week.  His parents told him he deserved it.  I held him in my arms when he believed it.  A 13 year old girl was discarded because her parents thought she was possessed because she was "willful and disobedient". I had to almost "tame" her of her terror of adults (with food and quiet speech over the course of about five days) to get her to come with me to DHS because her parents had beaten her and she'd been sexually assaulted on the street.  I could go on.  Once you meet one of these kids your life changes forever.

In the trenches you can see that so many innocent lives are destroyed by religion.

I don't know what to say. This was heart wrenching. I was vaguely aware that things like this happened, but *Opens new tab and s it...* 400,000 is a bigger number than I would have ever thought. It's truly awful.  Thank you for sharing this, it has a certain profound effect to get a dose of reality like this from time to time.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I think that Christians who are aware of this and say or do nothing do bear some responsibility.  If they don't show disapproval when members of their family and church discard their children they are supporting it, though through inactivity.

I'm responding to this with another quote from Bill Maher's Religulous.

QuoteThis is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I think individual Christians are responsible for the parts of Christianity they support.  I think they also bear some responsibility for the wrongs being currently perpetrated by fellow Christians under the flag of Christianity that they are aware of but don't so much as peep at.  If they are aware of the American Christians urging Ugandans to commit genocide against homosexuals and don't even voice their disapproval then I think they bear a little of the responsibility when that genocide comes to pass.  If they are either actively or passively supportive of anti-gay bigotry, they bear some responsibility.  If they teach their children to be religious bigots they bear even more.

This was ever so evident in Rwanda in 1994, when Tutsi minority was nearly wiped out by the Christian majority, and some of the genocide was led by a Catholic Priest and a Bishop.  The Bishop went to Kibeho and told a group of some 95 Tutsi school children that he had brought the police to protect them, three days later those same police slaughtered eighty-two of them.  The Vatican said NOTHING against the actions of the priest nor the bishop, even when the priest was charged with genocide after fleeing to France.  The hero of the Hotel Rwanda story remembers the priest calling his own Tutsi mother a "cockroach" the name the Christians gave to the Tutsis.  The Bishop was never charged, although he was seen as having participated in the genocide, because as one Rwandan Minister of Justice put it, "The Vatican is too strong and too unapologetic for us to go taking on Bishops.  Haven't you heard of infallibility?"  To my knowledge the Vatican has never even made a statement about the slaughter of those children on Mt. Kibeho where the Virgin Mary was supposed to have appeared and started the whole genocide.

This was an interesting discussion that I'd like to add my own thoughts to. I think a lot of important points have been raised so far. The foundational point, I think, is Chris' statement that people are to be held directly accountable for their own actions. He is right. I would take it a tad further and say that people are only held directly accountable for their own actions. We don't imprison parents when their kids grow up to be criminals.

Kylyssa's point about being held accountable for the version of Christianity you support has some obvious merit as well and I think puts on on an important path to answering the genearl question. Underlying it is the very important point that Christianity is not a monolithic religion in which everyone believes the same thing. It's hardly surprising to hear "True Christian" arguments. Unfortunately, most of those arguments are tied to behavior ("real Christians wouldn't do X"), which runs dangerously close to True Scotsman fallacy . . . so her distinction has to be used with some therapy. The sad fact is that there have been some "true Christians" who have done some very heinous things!

The real issue, it seems to me, is whether or not the system to which one adheres requires certain behaviors. A worldview that requires me to kill certain types of people, for instance, is clearly abhorrent. Further, worldviews that promote or allow certain atrocities are suspect. If, for instance, my system of thought promotes, even if it doesn't require, bigotry or rape, or if it simple writes of those things as non-issues and thus allowing people to act out the hatred in their heart with impunity, then the system is abhorrent. Certainly, there have been some forms of Christianity that could fall under these charges. But, again, as Christianity is not a monolithic religion, the important thing is what the system to which a person adheres teaches.

From this, I would extrapolate one more idea before summing up. There is a difference in condemning a system as abhorrent and condemning a person for holding to it. We don't condemn people for their beliefs, however heinous they are. We condemn them for their actions. As a society, we have the right to tell people how they will not behave as it effects the rest of us. In other words, we police actions, not thoughts. It follows then that a person is not responsible for the behavior of others, even within their own belief system; however, the belief system to which they hold may be rejected, and those who openly embrace such views may be rightly held in suspicion by society in general. A practical example here is racism. If I meet a person who declares themselves to be a racist, I don't hold them personally accountable for slavery. I do hold their worldview, at least to a large extent, accountable for it. I don't demand justice from them personally, but I am well within my rights to restrict my interaction with them as much as possible. I'm certainly not going to invite such a person over for dinner! Society as a whole has the same right. As a balance, though, we should recognize that no one is perfectly consistent in their beliefs, and so while a stated worldview will tell you a very great deal about how a person will respond in a given case, we should not assume that necessarily to be the case. Suspicion is fair, but it should be confirmed by inquiry.

In sum, I'd give something of a tiered answer:

People are, at best, only very distantly responsible for the actions of others who claim the same religion, since most religion is not monolithic
People can be treated in certain ways for a worldview which they openly embrace (although, such treatment must be just; this is no grounds for reverse-bigotry)
People are only directly responsible for their own actions.

Your thoughts?

Not all Catholics are responsible for genocide or pedophilia.  All Catholics are responsible for being Catholic and supporting the church that covers up and protects men who commit genocide and pedophilia.  I makes my skin crawl to drive by a Catholic church knowing the corruption of the clerics.  I don't understand how good people can even enter one.

Quote from: "notself"Not all Catholics are responsible for genocide or pedophilia.  All Catholics are responsible for being Catholic and supporting the church that covers up and protects men who commit genocide and pedophilia.  I makes my skin crawl to drive by a Catholic church knowing the corruption of the clerics.  I don't understand how good people can even enter one.

So long as they raise their voice in protest, they are not responsible. Were all Chinese people responsible for Mao's actions? Of course not. There is a difference in being complicit in a crime and being a bystander in it. In the case of Catholicism, they are the only game in town. When a Catholic gives their money and time to their church, they are no more complicit than any member of any institution is complicit in the crimes of its leadership for mishandling the money--especially when there are no other organizations which an individual can join. The people responsible, then, are not Catholic parishioners who tithes and attend mass. The people responsible are the priests who committed the crimes and the individuals who knew about them and helped cover them up, which includes those every day parishioners who directly and intentionally support such priests or other complicit individuals in their crime by either word or deed.

Protest, eh..?

If a kid (a legal child) does something like oh, I don't know, rape the girl next door, the parents are responsible.

If a political party causes major mayhem, every member who failed to leave is responsible - even those who "raise their voises in protest" the loudest.

If a government does something terrible, and it is a democratic government (One not being shoved down your throat - where options to change it or leave are open), every citizen is responsible - much more so if they voted for the government in question.

If I shoot myself in the leg, I, and not the gun, am responsible.

*Insert a thousand more examples where whining about it does not diminish responsibility*

Why should it be any different for religion?

At times I can be quite aggressive towards some of the more outspoken and dogmatic theists who frequent various forums, especially when they do nothing but preach right from the start. I am a little more careful these days, though I admit to still making occasional mistakes, and this is due in no small part to one particular Christian. Many people here will be aware of the username "jerome"*, whose good humour and sheer common sense made him one of the most popular members of the old RDF forum. Encountering people like him taught me the wisdom of not jumping too quickly to conclusions (although I sometimes still do, and feel guilty about it afterwards!)

*I don't think he's a member here, does anyone know if he's been invited?

Quote from: "DaveD"At times I can be quite aggressive towards some of the more outspoken and dogmatic theists who frequent various forums, especially when they do nothing but preach right from the start. I am a little more careful these days, though I admit to still making occasional mistakes, and this is due in no small part to one particular Christian. Many people here will be aware of the username "jerome"*, whose good humour and sheer common sense made him one of the most popular members of the old RDF forum. Encountering people like him taught me the wisdom of not jumping too quickly to conclusions (although I sometimes still do, and feel guilty about it afterwards!)

*I don't think he's a member here, does anyone know if he's been invited?

Jerome is not a member here as far as I know, if he is it's under a different user name. Would you drop him a PM and see if he wants to join? I think he would fit in rather well.

We can has a nice theist?!  :D

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "DaveD"At times I can be quite aggressive towards some of the more outspoken and dogmatic theists who frequent various forums, especially when they do nothing but preach right from the start. I am a little more careful these days, though I admit to still making occasional mistakes, and this is due in no small part to one particular Christian. Many people here will be aware of the username "jerome"*, whose good humour and sheer common sense made him one of the most popular members of the old RDF forum. Encountering people like him taught me the wisdom of not jumping too quickly to conclusions (although I sometimes still do, and feel guilty about it afterwards!)

*I don't think he's a member here, does anyone know if he's been invited?

Jerome is not a member here as far as I know, if he is it's under a different user name. Would you drop him a PM and see if he wants to join? I think he would fit in rather well.

Will do.

EDIT: PM sent, just waiting for him to get on-line.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Protest, eh..?

If a kid (a legal child) does something like oh, I don't know, rape the girl next door, the parents are responsible.

In some sense yes but one can not keep kids under 100% supervision all the time, it's bad for the kids. The issue would be the definition of criminal responsibility, which in the UK is 10!

Quote from: "Asmodean"If a political party causes major mayhem, every member who failed to leave is responsible - even those who "raise their voises in protest" the loudest.

In the sense of the Nazi party in late '30s Germany I would agree, you wear the armband you take some responsibility for the behaviour of the party. However if there happened to be a murderer who was a Nazi party member who killed for their own gain under cover of the armband would the party be responsible? I would not say so, in this case the murderer is exploiting the party.

Quote from: "Asmodean"If a government does something terrible, and it is a democratic government (One not being shoved down your throat - where options to change it or leave are open), every citizen is responsible - much more so if they voted for the government in question.

I voted Labour and disagreed with the invasion of Iraq. Where does that put me?

Quote from: "Asmodean"If I shoot myself in the leg, I, and not the gun, am responsible.

True. That's why you're not allowed to have a gun  

Quote from: "Asmodean"Why should it be any different for religion?

Any organisation is a collection of individuals. If any of those individuals wish to disagree with the organisation they are part of then they should. However in the case of religions speaking out and leaving can have disastrous personal consequences for example shunning by JW's. Any organisation that punishes dissent of it's members has a vicarious responsibility for those member's behaviour, if the behaviour is part of the organisation's mandated behaviour. Again a good example would be the JW's dogmatic aversion to blood transfusions. When a child of a JW dies as a result of dogma against blood transfusions all JWs must share in the responsibility for that child's death.

However the Catholic Church does not mandate paedophilia to be part of it's dogma. There are Catholics that have put what they felt were the best interests of their Church ahead of that of the children who attend those churches. It is those individuals that should be sanctioned, not the organisation, as it did not mandate the behaviour of those individuals. This would be an example of an individual exploiting a position of trust.

I was once told by a very wise chap that unless my life were at stake or that of another human being I was always, always able to say no. And in most cases he would be right. However I would contend that the emotional hold some religious organisations hold over there members trumps that argument, particularly when the emotional threat is an eternity in Hell. This is why religious organisations may well have to be perceived in a different manner to non-religious ones.

Of course, Tank. All good points and fair.

However, I was answering the point about voicing a protest somehow making one less responsible. It usually just doesn't. If you are a part of a label, you share the responsibility for its shineyness with every other person similarly labeled. It does not mean, however, that you should or even can be held accountable. What it does mean though, if something bad happens, is that in maintaining the label and selecting labelmates where applicable, something or someone failed. Then it's up to everyone else in the group in question to make amends wherever possible - or leave. Doing nothing is, of course, an option, however that does diminish your right to wear the label with pride, does it not?

Quote from: "Asmodean"Of course, Tank. All good points and fair.

However, I was answering the point about voicing a protest somehow making one less responsible. It usually just doesn't. If you are a part of a label, you share the responsibility for its shineyness with every other person similarly labeled. It does not mean, however, that you should or even can be held accountable. What it does mean though, if something bad happens, is that in maintaining the label and selecting labelmates where applicable, something or someone failed. Then it's up to everyone else in the group in question to make amends wherever possible - or leave. Doing nothing is, of course, an option, however that does diminish your right to wear the label with pride, does it not?

I think I get what you mean. So if a Catholic priest abuses a child it is incumbent on all Catholics, involved or not, to do their very best to ensure that such a thing is not done again by a Catholic priest because that would reflect badly on all people labelled Catholic? Is that what you are getting at?

Precisely.

I can thoroughly endorse everything Chris said to each of the points raised. My mentioning of protest wasn't that if you protest, you are thereby removed from any and all negative association. A simple fact of life is that we are judged by our associations, and not without reason. Such judgment, though, must be practice with the utmost care and caution. Take Chris' vote on Labour yet opposition to the invasion of Iraq. On one hand, he helped put the party in power that brought about the very course of events he disagreed with. And yet, his vote, I'm sure, was hardly built on a single issue. When you are talking about complex things like organizations, it is very possible to endorse the whole while disagreeing with parts. The same is possible in terms of worldviews. In my own case, theologically, I am a dispensationalist, but there are some aspects of the system with which I disagree. So, when I hear a fellow dispensationalist saying, as most classical dispensationalists do, that the seven churches of the Revelation represent the seven ages of the Church, I roll my eyes and move on.

What protest does is let others know that you, as an individual, do not support that particular thing. Obviously, we can go further and distinguish between active and passive protests, protest in word or deed, etc., and the relative value of each. There can be, after all, a difference in mere dissent and active opposition, and the value of each is relative to the issue at hand. My point was simply that if a Catholic (or any member of any group) stands by and allows atrocities to be committed in his own church (or organization) without raising any protest, then his silence could be interpreted as assent, or at least neutrality. His protest, though, should be sufficient to exonerate him in any normal situation, given the simple fact that the typical parishioner doesn't have the authority or resources to do anything. Beyond that, it is a case by case issue, but goes to my general point that people can only be held directly responsible for their own actions, and what is important, with reference to belief systems, is what they require or allow as part of their essence.

Misunderstanding cleared up. Thank you  

I judge a man as he himself behaves.  If he supports atrocity, then he is indeed partially responsible for it (at least insofar as creating a climate where atrocity is more likely), but this is not a black-and-white issue; down that path lies broad-brushed stereotyping.

I prefer the more nuanced view of understanding that all humans are flawed, and that some flaws are tolerable, some are in need of correcting, and some are so atrocious they deserve my opprobrium, or society's legal sanctions.  It's not always easy, and it sure doesn't make for a very satisfying post to write (or read, I imagine), but there it is.

In short, I agree with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn when he wrote:

QuoteThe line between good and evil runs down the middle of every man's heart.

This reply comes from the discussion in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482)
Should one Christian be responsible for Christianity?
Yes. "I was only following orders" doesn't hold in world court crimes against humanity cases these days. As long as one person propagates whatever version of Christianity, he is responsible for it...and is responsible for his personal views of Christianity, however they may differ from other Christian views as well....no matter if there is direct or indirect involvement of the dogma or other denominations...AND responsible for those Christians that differ from his own.

Consider Westboro Baptist - the "God hates fags" Christian group. It is my opinion that every Christian is responsible for this lunatic fringe group until all Christians stand up and do something about them. Westboro is in a US Supreme Court free speech case at this time and I think the court will side with Westboro. They have no choice really. What Westboro does may be immoral or unethical, but is not illegal. Recently Westboro won a case started by a family of a fallen soldier - they picketed the funeral. The family also has to pay the $90,000+ Westboro legal fees. Twist the knife in a  bit further to add that the Westboro main family are all attorneys and it didn't cost them a cent.

Granted, Westboro is an extreme view of Christianity. They are responsible for their 'world view'. But as long as Christians can be lumped together not unlike ice cream; ice cream comes in many flavours, they are responsible for each others world views.....all the way down to the last believer.

So, when an atheist on this board makes a comment that Christians, Jews or Muslims spout "nonsensical drivel"...well, to be fair, they do; every one of them does it. After all, some liberal Christians say the minimum requirement for a Christian is to believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected to "save" everyone. To most of us, this is nonsensical drivel.

I have more to say and no time to say it.

Later.

My view is this:

If most Christians spent half as much time speaking out against homophobia promoted by groups like Westboro Baptists as they did talking about the sins of homosexuality then they would have a better case for themselves. The problem is that a lot of Christians don't speak up against homophobia until it starts to give them too sinister an image. Are they responsible for it? Well, they've contributed to an atmosphere where hate and hostility can grow. If they are for what they say they're for they need to start preaching against the real sins.

Quote from: "Gawen"This reply comes from the discussion in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482)
Should one Christian be responsible for Christianity?
Yes. "I was only following orders" doesn't hold in world court crimes against humanity cases these days. As long as one person propagates whatever version of Christianity, he is responsible for it...and is responsible for his personal views of Christianity, however they may differ from other Christian views as well....no matter if there is direct or indirect involvement of the dogma or other denominations...AND responsible for those Christians that differ from his own.

Consider Westboro Baptist - the "God hates fags" Christian group. It is my opinion that every Christian is responsible for this lunatic fringe group until all Christians stand up and do something about them. Westboro is in a US Supreme Court free speech case at this time and I think the court will side with Westboro. They have no choice really. What Westboro does may be immoral or unethical, but is not illegal. Recently Westboro won a case started by a family of a fallen soldier - they picketed the funeral. The family also has to pay the $90,000+ Westboro legal fees. Twist the knife in a  bit further to add that the Westboro main family are all attorneys and it didn't cost them a cent.

Granted, Westboro is an extreme view of Christianity. They are responsible for their 'world view'. But as long as Christians can be lumped together not unlike ice cream; ice cream comes in many flavours, they are responsible for each others world views.....all the way down to the last believer.

So, when an atheist on this board makes a comment that Christians, Jews or Muslims spout "nonsensical drivel"...well, to be fair, they do; every one of them does it. After all, some liberal Christians say the minimum requirement for a Christian is to believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected to "save" everyone. To most of us, this is nonsensical drivel.

I have more to say and no time to say it.

Later.

One Christian group has often tried to impose there will on another group.
It's not easy, however many you burn or behead another batch will spring up elsewhere.
Nonsensical drivel, how do you approach that?  Ask dog for patience?
Down here leaders don't have to declare their devotion to dog,
I really don't know how I would cope with a land where this was the norm.

QuoteYes. "I was only following orders" doesn't hold in world court crimes against humanity cases these days.

I believe males who are sent to jail are likely to be sodomised.
It's accepted in popular culture that this happens
I've heard of programs where old cons talk to the young and warn them this is the case.
I feel it is wrong the state condones/ignores rape, but I haven't done a thing about it.

1. You're ignoring the role of the secular media. A moderate church's condemnation of Westboro Baptist makes it to the moderate church's newsletter and no further. Anyone, theist or atheist, can write to media urging them to stop publicizing Westboro.

2. Most people understand that Westboro and the like don't speak for Christianity as a whole, so there's not a real need for moderate Christians to try to shut them up (not sure how we could do that anyway - see point 1). Remember, atheists who lump us all together are extremists among the secular, just like Westboro is extreme within Christianity.

Quote from: "Voter"1. You're ignoring the role of the secular media. A moderate church's condemnation of Westboro Baptist makes it to the moderate church's newsletter and no further. Anyone, theist or atheist, can write to media urging them to stop publicizing Westboro.

2. Most people understand that Westboro and the like don't speak for Christianity as a whole, so there's not a real need for moderate Christians to try to shut them up (not sure how we could do that anyway - see point 1). Remember, atheists who lump us all together are extremists among the secular, just like Westboro is extreme within Christianity.

They could also be thoughtless but that's far too nice a word to use isn't it?

I don't see that "thoughtless" is nice. Substitute it if you like.

Quote from: "Voter"I don't see that "thoughtless" is nice. Substitute it if you like.

The sin of omission rather than commission. The result can be the same but the intent is different.

OK, make it thoughtless or extremist....

Quote from: "Voter"2. Most people understand that Westboro and the like don't speak for Christianity as a whole, so there's not a real need for moderate Christians to try to shut them up (not sure how we could do that anyway - see point 1). Remember, atheists who lump us all together are extremists among the secular, just like Westboro is extreme within Christianity.

Of course not, which is why I avoid using the word "all" and instead use phrases like "many" or "some". However, as I also said, a great deal of Christians in the US, and even televangelists like Pat Robertson who is more mainstream than Westboro, frequently bash gays for simply being gay. There is no excuse for investing so much time and energy in badmouthing innocent gay people, but only groaning about Westboro when it starts to give all of Christianity a bad image and otherwise doing nothing positive for gay folks.

Quote from: "Sophus"Of course not, which is why I avoid using the word "all" and instead use phrases like "many" or "some". However, as I also said, a great deal of Christians in the US, and even televangelists like Pat Robertson who is more mainstream than Westboro, frequently bash gays for simply being gay.

I don't watch televangelists, so I can't speak to that. Otherwise, it's not my experience that Christians "frequently bash gays for simply being gay." Can you support that? In my experience, homosexuality typically comes up in the context of rights, whether in the church or in society. If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all.

Quote from: "Voter"If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all.

...So why am I not allowed to discriminate against oh, I don't know... Jews, for example, and yet Christians seem to get away with discriminating against gays..?  

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Voter"If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all.

...So why am I not allowed to discriminate against oh, I don't know... Jews, for example, and yet Christians seem to get away with discriminating against gays..?  

Oh, you'll find a lot of discrimination against Jews by Christians.  Ironic.  The truth is, Christians shouldn't discriminate against the homosexuals as they do.  What they are doing is making sin into a heirarchy system where one sin is worse than another.  It goes 100% against the biblical teaching of there being only ONE sin that cannot be pardoned.  But we are humans and as humans do, we discriminate against that which we do not agree with.  Similar to Atheists against Christians...as some do.

Quote from: "Asmodean"...So why am I not allowed to discriminate against oh, I don't know... Jews, for example, and yet Christians seem to get away with discriminating against gays..?  

Because the people behind the civil rights laws didn't include sexual orientation as a protected status. Actually, some places have local laws which do ban certain discrimination against gays.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Oh, you'll find a lot of discrimination against Jews by Christians.  Ironic.  The truth is, Christians shouldn't discriminate against the homosexuals as they do.  What they are doing is making sin into a heirarchy system where one sin is worse than another.  It goes 100% against the biblical teaching of there being only ONE sin that cannot be pardoned.  But we are humans and as humans do, we discriminate against that which we do not agree with.  Similar to Atheists against Christians...as some do.

A fair answer. Still, it seems to be easier to get away with discriminating against gays or atheists than it is with discriminating against jews or women.

Quote from: "Voter"If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all.

What does that mean? If the gays learn their place and stop demanding equal rights the Christians wouldn't have to fight for their "right" to bigotry discrimination?

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Oh, you'll find a lot of discrimination against Jews by Christians.  Ironic.  The truth is, Christians shouldn't discriminate against the homosexuals as they do.  What they are doing is making sin into a heirarchy system where one sin is worse than another.  It goes 100% against the biblical teaching of there being only ONE sin that cannot be pardoned.  But we are humans and as humans do, we discriminate against that which we do not agree with.  Similar to Atheists against Christians...as some do.

A fair answer. Still, it seems to be easier to get away with discriminating against gays or atheists than it is with discriminating against jews or women.

As I said, they do discriminate against Jews...AND women.  How many ordained women do you see around?  The trend is slowly changing, but the majority still have a difficult time in doing so.  There is a good number of ordained women, but in comparison to the number of ordained men...

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Voter"If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all.

What does that mean?

It means it's easier "to get away with" discrimination that is not illegal. The point is so obvious I'm surprised he even asked the question.

QuoteIf the gays learn their place and stop demanding equal rights the Christians wouldn't have to fight for their "right" to bigotry discrimination?

Aside from the loaded wording, yes, that's the point. Few Christians go about "bash[ing] gays for simply being gay."

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"As I said, they do discriminate against Jews...AND women.

Answered from my local perspective

QuoteHow many ordained women do you see around?

Quite a lot. Some are openly homosexual too. They tend to get a lot of shit for being gay, yet only a tiny little bit for being a priest... Or a woman. Or a woman priest.

QuoteThe trend is slowly changing, but the majority still have a difficult time in doing so.

I don't have the exact statistics for my country, but I think there are quite a lot of female priests.

QuoteThere is a good number of ordained women, but in comparison to the number of ordained men...

Here, women are just as welcome as men to study theology and get ordained. Whether or not they do is more a matter of tradition and personal choice than discrimination. Also, pretty much the only ones who would dare discriminate against a jew are people like me, who simply don't care, and the neo-nazis, who DO care, only... the wrong way.

In any case, my point is that, from a local perspective, that being gay you get three-four times the crap you get for being something else, and religious types are usually the first to discriminate against sexual orientations other than mainstream heterosexuality.

Quote from: "Asmodean"In any case, my point is that, from a local perspective, that being gay you get three-four times the crap you get for being something else, and religious types are usually the first to discriminate against sexual orientations other than mainstream heterosexuality.

Agreed.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteIf the gays learn their place and stop demanding equal rights the Christians wouldn't have to fight for their "right" to bigotry discrimination?

Aside from the loaded wording, yes, that's the point. Few Christians go about "bash[ing] gays for simply being gay."

The loaded wording is more to the point than you know. What you've stated is, essentially, that if only christians could freely discriminate against gays with impunity and without all the complaints, there wouldn't be so much "bashing". For my part, I'd rather take the bashing, then; at least I can "bash" back. And will. And have.

Quote from: "elliebean"The loaded wording is more to the point than you know.

So enlighten me. I can only go by what I know. Unless there's a gay marriage vote or court case coming up, the topic doesn't come up in my circle.

QuoteWhat you've stated is, essentially, that if only christians could freely discriminate against gays with impunity and without all the complaints, there wouldn't be so much "bashing". For my part, I'd rather take the bashing, then; at least I can "bash" back. And will. And have.

And some on your side proactively bash Christians. Sites like this are an example, and this one is much calmer than most. So what's the problem?

Quote from: "Voter"And some on your side proactively bash Christians.

It would only be proactive if they hadn't yet done something to deserve it...most fundamentalists did/said something to deserve it.  Most of us think jews, pagans, hindus etc are just as silly yet we don't worry about them having odd beliefs because they don't evangelize or cry about their beliefs not being ingrained in all aspects of private and government life.

IMO, it's very hateful to bash someone simply because they want equal rights.  That's what people did to blacks when they asked for equal rights...

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "elliebean"The loaded wording is more to the point than you know.

So enlighten me. I can only go by what I know. Unless there's a gay marriage vote or court case coming up, the topic doesn't come up in my circle.

QuoteWhat you've stated is, essentially, that if only christians could freely discriminate against gays with impunity and without all the complaints, there wouldn't be so much "bashing". For my part, I'd rather take the bashing, then; at least I can "bash" back. And will. And have.

And some on your side proactively bash Christians. Sites like this are an example, and this one is much calmer than most. So what's the problem?

Voter

Your world view is your world view. If you keep it to yourself then I don't really care what it is. Trouble is you won't keep it to yourself and that's fine too. But if you won't keep your beliefs to yourself you have no right, no right whatsoever, not to have your world view bashed. You make your world view public and debate it then you will get it bashed or supported or ignored. But once a world view is in the public domain, and Christianity is very much in the public domain, it becomes fair game for criticism. I'm sure you realise this. You can't play the 'special pleading' card anymore because Christianity has lost it's grip on the law, which is a good thing as theocracies are bad.

Chris

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"f the gays learn their place and stop demanding equal rights the Christians wouldn't have to fight for their "right" to bigotry discrimination?

Aside from the loaded wording, yes, that's the point. Few Christians go about "bash[ing] gays for simply being gay."

That's disgusting and vile. It just so obviously happens that treating these people differently because of their orientation is doing so on the sole basis that they are gay. Yes, how dare they demand equal rights... How dare they say "enough" to being treated like second class citizens or worse....

I can't continue this conversation less I break the civility rules.  

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"f the gays learn their place and stop demanding equal rights the Christians wouldn't have to fight for their "right" to bigotry discrimination?

Aside from the loaded wording, yes, that's the point. Few Christians go about "bash[ing] gays for simply being gay."

That's disgusting and vile. It just so obviously happens that treating these people differently because of their orientation is doing so on the sole basis that they are gay. Yes, how dare they demand equal rights... How dare they say "enough" to being treated like second class citizens or worse....

I can't continue this conversation less I break the civility rules.  

I think you miss the point and I do understand your frustration.  I share in that frustration.
Granted it is very difficult to convey through wording, but I'll try.

I believe what Voter is saying is that Christians don't "bash" homosexuals because they are homosexuals.  They "bash" them (wrongly) for their apparent disregard for what God (for the Christian) says is wrong.  It's not wrong to BE homosexual it's wrong to participate in homosexual acts with regard to sex.  Now, I'll admit that Christians do take the high road and simply bash the homosexual community.  I don't agree with that at all.  They tell them they are going to hell...and so on.  These are the Christians that make sin a heirarchy and put weight on different sins, where the Bible explicitly states that sin is sin no matter if it is murder by definintion or evil thoughts...adultery in action or thoughts of lust that are equal to adultery.  I hope you understand what I mean.  It's delicate.  I support the homosexual civil right movement and believe the homosexual to have no greater sin than I do.  Some of my Christian friends take it too far and out of Christian AND human context.

Voter if my interpretation is wrong on what you mean, then correct me.  But this is basically how I feel on the matter.

Quote from: "Whitney"It would only be proactive if they hadn't yet done something to deserve it...most fundamentalists did/said something to deserve it.  Most of us think jews, pagans, hindus etc are just as silly yet we don't worry about them having odd beliefs because they don't evangelize or cry about their beliefs not being ingrained in all aspects of private and government life.

My point exactly. Most Christians don't care about the sexual practices of non-Christians unless those people are crying about their lifestyle not being officially validated by society.

QuoteIMO, it's very hateful to bash someone simply because they want equal rights.  That's what people did to blacks when they asked for equal rights...

IMO, it's very disrespectful to compare the discrimination against blacks for their skin color to discrimination against someone for who they want to have sex with...

Quote from: "Tank"Your world view is your world view. If you keep it to yourself then I don't really care what it is. Trouble is you won't keep it to yourself and that's fine too. But if you won't keep your beliefs to yourself you have no right, no right whatsoever, not to have your world view bashed. You make your world view public and debate it then you will get it bashed or supported or ignored.

BINGO! Have a cigar!

This is exactly what I'm saying about homosexuality.

QuoteBut once a world view is in the public domain, and Christianity is very much in the public domain, it becomes fair game for criticism. I'm sure you realise this. You can't play the 'special pleading' card anymore because Christianity has lost it's grip on the law, which is a good thing as theocracies are bad.

Chris

I'm not asking for any different treatment. I completely agree with you. I thought that was clear when I said, "What's the problem?" If I had a problem with people bashing Christianity, I wouldn't hang out at atheist sites! In societies with some sort of democracy, this is how it works. Some are for taxation of churches and gay marriage, some are against, we butt heads - what's the problem?

Quote from: "Sophus"That's disgusting and vile. It just so obviously happens that treating these people differently because of their orientation is doing so on the sole basis that they are gay.

No it isn't. They're not a different color or something. I don't know they're gay unless they tell me. I can't treat someone differently on the sole basis of being gay when I don't even know they're gay.

QuoteYes, how dare they demand equal rights... How dare they say "enough" to being treated like second class citizens or worse....

How dare I have a different opinion than you!

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Voter if my interpretation is wrong on what you mean, then correct me.  But this is basically how I feel on the matter.

It's wrong. I basically have two points:

1. Most Christians don't bash gays simply for being gay. I.e., there's usually a topical reason that homosexuality is addressed.

2. That Christians do speak their mind when homosexuality is topical for whatever reason is normal and an acceptable part of a democratic society.

Quote from: "Voter"IMO, it's very disrespectful to compare the discrimination against blacks for their skin color to discrimination against someone for who they want to have sex with...

Both can't control how they were born.  I don't' care if I or anyone else here is disrespectful of bigoted views.

Quote from: "Voter"IMO, it's very disrespectful to compare the discrimination against blacks for their skin color to discrimination against someone for who they want to have sex with...

If you focus less on sex and more on love you may start to understand the other side.e.g discrimination against someone for who they love. With this in mind Christianity become an antilove organisation. antilove = hate. Hence Christianity becomes a hate organisation, spreading the message that its member should hate people that love if that love is deemed inappropriate by the church.

In my opinion hate is very ugly, the atheist view is to be tolerant of others especially if it does not impact you. People that find themselves in love with someone of the same sex are in my book, lucky to have found a special someone and lucky to have found mutual love. This should be encouraged and glorified not vilified and driven underground.

It is not my place to tell a person whom the can and cant fall in love with.

Quote from: "Whitney"Both can't control how they were born.  I don't' care if I or anyone else here is disrespectful of bigoted views.

No one knows how nature and nurture combine to produce sexuality.

No one knows how many self-identified homosexuals are really bisexuals.

You can't tell me which infants are gay. You can tell me which infants are black.

There are significant differences between the two.

Quote from: "Stevil"If you focus less on sex and more on love you may start to understand the other side.e.g discrimination against someone for who they love. With this in mind Christianity become an antilove organisation. antilove = hate. Hence Christianity becomes a hate organisation, spreading the message that its member should hate people that love if that love is deemed inappropriate by the church.

If you focus on love rather than sex, then there's no need for homosexuality.  Consider a man who loves another man with a traditionally feminine personality. If sex isn't a major component, then he could have fallen in love with a woman. Further, there are men with feminine personalities and vice-versa. Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

Quote from: "Voter"Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

It is not about sex! Love is much more important, significant and defining than sex, love is an emotion and state of being, sex is a momentary action.

If you are happy for two people to fall in love regardless of their respective genders then at least you are close to acceptance and tolerance. My next question for you is this
Why are you interested in the sexual habbits of two people (strangers to you)?

Quote from: "Voter"If you focus on love rather than sex, then there's no need for homosexuality.  Consider a man who loves another man with a traditionally feminine personality. If sex isn't a major component, then he could have fallen in love with a woman. Further, there are men with feminine personalities and vice-versa. Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

I'm not quite certain what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you do, I think we just may've parted ways on this matter.

Maybe you could clarify for me before I pass judgment.  

Quote from: "Stevil"It is not about sex! Love is much more important, significant and defining than sex, love is an emotion and state of being, sex is a momentary action.

I agree.  However, within the Christian viewpoint, sex is the natural "ultimate" expression that seals love between two (presumably, male and female).  

Quote from: "Stevil"If you are happy for two people to fall in love regardless of their respective genders then at least you are close to acceptance and tolerance. My next question for you is this
Why are you interested in the sexual habbits of two people (strangers to you)?

I'm not...and this is me talking for myself.  (Not assuming Voter shares my belief here.)

Where Christians (traditional) and Homosexual Christians part ways and where the arguments begin, is when the Homosexual tries to reconcile their SEXUAL preference (I'm not speaking about who or what gender a person chooses to love) as "ok" or better put, as not sin.  Therein lies the quarrel.  What I'm saying is that the Christians you one sees protesting against homosexuality are those that have made BEING homosexual a sin to a greater degree than simply being human...where as Christians with an ounce of reason would realize that we are born, check that, we are conceived in sin and LOST prior to exiting the birth canal, whether or not the individual is heterosexual or homosexual.  There is no difference in that regard.  The difference is whether the ACT of homosexual SEX is acceptable to God as right or if it, as He apparently states in scripture, is wicked.

Again, I'm trying to best put this into words as I can.  I hope I'm not failing miserably.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Voter"If you focus on love rather than sex, then there's no need for homosexuality.  Consider a man who loves another man with a traditionally feminine personality. If sex isn't a major component, then he could have fallen in love with a woman. Further, there are men with feminine personalities and vice-versa. Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

I'm not quite certain what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you do, I think we just may've parted ways on this matter.

Maybe you could clarify for me before I pass judgment.  

If you take sex out of the equation, what is the love based on? It must be personality.

There is no set of personality characteristics that is exclusive to either men or women.

Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.

If that doesn't explain it, post what you think I mean and I'll address.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Voter"If you focus on love rather than sex, then there's no need for homosexuality.  Consider a man who loves another man with a traditionally feminine personality. If sex isn't a major component, then he could have fallen in love with a woman. Further, there are men with feminine personalities and vice-versa. Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

I'm not quite certain what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you do, I think we just may've parted ways on this matter.

Maybe you could clarify for me before I pass judgment.  

If you take sex out of the equation, what is the love based on? It must be personality.

There is no set of personality characteristics that is exclusive to either men or women.

Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.

If that doesn't explain it, post what you think I mean and I'll address.

I have lost any respect for you I once had.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I have lost any respect for you I once had.

I never had respect for you, so I guess we're even. Now that that's settled, is there a particular flaw you see in my logic?

Quote from: "Stevil"It is not about sex!

Yes it is! Exclamation points don't change that! If it's not about sex, then date people of the opposite sex. They have the same spectrum of personality.

QuoteWhy are you interested in the sexual habbits of two people (strangers to you)?

Generally they're not, as I've mentioned. See my signature.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Voter"If you focus on love rather than sex, then there's no need for homosexuality.  Consider a man who loves another man with a traditionally feminine personality. If sex isn't a major component, then he could have fallen in love with a woman. Further, there are men with feminine personalities and vice-versa. Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

I'm not quite certain what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you do, I think we just may've parted ways on this matter.

Maybe you could clarify for me before I pass judgment.  

If you take sex out of the equation, what is the love based on? It must be personality.

There is no set of personality characteristics that is exclusive to either men or women.

Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.

If that doesn't explain it, post what you think I mean and I'll address.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I have lost any respect for you I once had.

Why so? Voter's view seems perfectly valid to me. Emotions are at the base of relationships. Physicality is what one is born with. Whom one loves is what matters not the respective genders of the individuals concerned. Which is what I think Voter is getting at.

Voter, the only thing you've demonstrated here so far is your own appalling degree of ignorance wrt the following subjects:

Sex
Sexuality
Gender
Identity
Personality
Tolerance
Acceptace
Discrimination
Bigotry
Harrassment
Persecution
Privilege
Race
Genetics
Socialisation
Civil Rights
Human Rights
Dignity
Respect
Justice
Logic


Also, I take it you could fall in love with someone regardless of their gender, is that accurate? Do you identify as pansexual, or queer?

Quote from: "elliebean"Voter, the only thing you've demonstrated here so far is your own appalling degree of ignorance wrt the following subjects:

Sex
Sexuality
Gender
Identity
Personality
Tolerance
Acceptace
Discrimination
Bigotry
Harrassment
Persecution
Privilege
Race
Genetics
Socialisation
Civil Rights
Human Rights
Dignity
Respect
Justice
Logic

Please, if you don't have a real argument, don't bother posting.

QuoteAlso, I take it you could fall in love with someone regardless of their gender, is that accurate?

Probably not. How did you come to that conclusion? I'm not the one trying to take sex out of the love equation. I'm arguing against that position.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Voter"If you take sex out of the equation, what is the love based on? It must be personality.

There is no set of personality characteristics that is exclusive to either men or women.

Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.

If that doesn't explain it, post what you think I mean and I'll address.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I have lost any respect for you I once had.

Why so? Voter's view seems perfectly valid to me. Emotions are at the base of relationships. Physicality is what one is born with. Whom one loves is what matters not the respective genders of the individuals concerned. Which is what I think Voter is getting at.

On its own, I don't see much wrong with it, other than the fact that sex IS part of the equation, because sex is a part of love.

However, he's trying to use this argument to say that if being gay isn't about sex then they should just date members of the opposite sex to gain society's/"God's" approval, and if it is about sex then it's okay to discriminate against them since it isn't the same thing at all as discriminating against people based on their skin color (I think...tell me if I've gotten your position wrong).

Hopefully,  I don't need to explain how wrong this argument is.

Quote from: "Voter"Please, if you don't have a real argument, don't bother posting.

Why not? You do. Anyway, I'll reserve the real arguments for those who've shown they can understand them.
The purpose of that list was to illustrate how many layers of stupidity I'd have to cut through just to educate you to a level sufficient for even beginning a proper argument with you.

Quote

QuoteAlso, I take it you could fall in love with someone regardless of their gender, is that accurate?

Probably not. How did you come to that conclusion?

Quote from: "Voter"Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.

Quote from: "Voter"I'm not the one trying to take sex out of the love equation. I'm arguing against that position.

I agree. Sex is a part of love.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Stevil"It is not about sex!

Yes it is! Exclamation points don't change that! If it's not about sex, then date people of the opposite sex. They have the same spectrum of personality.

QuoteWhy are you interested in the sexual habbits of two people (strangers to you)?

Generally they're not, as I've mentioned. See my signature.

Poor Voter, I see other people are getting confused between your stance and your argument against me.

I see sex and love as two different things however sex can be a result of love or can be affected by love. But sex can also be void of love.
I was certainly trying to gain clarity on the Christian point of view (through Voter and his assumed alignment with Christian POV) and whether the issue they have with homosexuality is based on love or simply sex. Voter has made a personal statement that the issue as he sees it is simply Sex and not love. Hence I think Voter is stating that if love were based on personality that same gender people could fall in love. However Voter would go on to suggest that people should then avoid situations where same gender relationships develop and progress and should simply put themselves into situations where opposite gender relationships develop.

There are a couple of obvious issues with this stance:
1. Why should they? If a person is developing a loving relationship with a person of the same gender, then why should they cease and decist? For whose sake would this benefit? Simply because it would make Christians feel more at ease?
2. The assumption that (given sex is taken out of the equation) people can equally fall in love with people regardless of gender. This is a more difficult thing to think through as it is hard to know why people are attracted to each other. Is it personality?, is it physical attraction? (e.g. they think someone looks pretty), is it a desire to have sex? In my case, sex is secondary, I don't really think about it until I really get to know and like a person and admire them and adore them, slowly it feels natural to allow my personal space to be invaided by this person. Touch suddenly becomes desired and enjoyable. Sorry I am giving too much information here (TMI).

Quote from: "Voter"No it isn't. They're not a different color or something. I don't know they're gay unless they tell me. I can't treat someone differently on the sole basis of being gay when I don't even know they're gay.

I didn't know prejudice could only exist toward colors. I was also unaware no one is ever suspected of even possibly being gay or accused of it for acting more like the opposite sex.
 

QuoteHow dare I have a different opinion than you!

What if I were to respond, "How dare you desire the right marry! I don't think Christians should be allowed to. After all, by your logic it's not discrimination because I only know you're a Christian if you tell me." In which case I would hope you would respond "how dare you think that!" So, yes, I am proudly intolerant of some opinions.

Quote from: "Sophus"So, yes, I am proudly intolerant of some opinions.

What do you mean by "intolerant"? Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to have certain opinions?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Sophus"So, yes, I am proudly intolerant of some opinions.

What do you mean by "intolerant"? Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to have certain opinions?

I have never gotten the impression that Sophus is anti freedom of speech.  I think he means intolerant in that he isn't going to sit aside and not say something about it because some opinions are not only wrong but bad.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Sophus"So, yes, I am proudly intolerant of some opinions.

What do you mean by "intolerant"? Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to have certain opinions?

I have never gotten the impression that Sophus is anti freedom of speech.  I think he means intolerant in that he isn't going to sit aside and not say something about it because some opinions are not only wrong but bad.

Oh, I agree, though I still respect their right to have those opinions.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Oh, I agree, though I still respect their right to have those opinions.

The problem of course with regards to people having opinions is that some of these become law or are used to persecute others. e.g. It was against the law to be homosexual once. It is currently against the law for homosexuals to be married in many places.

Christian churches and faiths instill a value into their followers that homosexuals are immoral and hence promote persecution and non tolerance. These opinions are dangerous and have victims.

In my opionion it is peculiar to see that the faith followers don't really seem to have opinions of their own. Their opinions are that of their church, which they unquestionly adopt, follow, defend and use to excuse what I would term as unacceptable behaviour.

Intolerance should be questioned and discouraged. I simply won't tolerate it (LOL)

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Oh, I agree, though I still respect their right to have those opinions.

The problem of course with regards to people having opinions is that some of these become law or are used to persecute others. e.g. It was against the law to be homosexual once. It is currently against the law for homosexuals to be married in many places.

Christian churches and faiths instill a value into their followers that homosexuals are immoral and hence promote persecution and non tolerance. These opinions are dangerous and have victims.

In my opionion it is peculiar to see that the faith followers don't really seem to have opinions of their own. Their opinions are that of their church, which they unquestionly adopt, follow, defend and use to excuse what I would term as unacceptable behaviour.

Intolerance should be questioned and discouraged. I simply won't tolerate it (LOL)

Yes, but you can't just say "you can't hold these opinions I view as dangerous and immoral". You can discourage and ridicule them, but that's where I draw the line.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yes, but you can't just say "you can't hold these opinions I view as dangerous and immoral". You can discourage and ridicule them, but that's where I draw the line.

If it were simply an individual, I would just ignore these opinions but when it is being taught and championed by a group of large organisations e.g. Christianity and is impacting laws then it needs to be talked through, clarified, understood and hopefully the offender can learn the error of their ways and hence stop helping to promote the opinion.

Quote from: "Stevil"If it were simply an individual, I would just ignore these opinions but when it is being taught and championed by a group of large organisations e.g. Christianity and is impacting laws then it needs to be talked through, clarified, understood and hopefully the offender can learn the error of their ways and hence stop helping to promote the opinion.

I think the main problem there, and largely why the OP exists, is because smaller groups of crazy chrsitians claim to be speaking for all Christians.  In my experience most Christians just live their lives and pretty much aren't that religious unless asked about what they believe or don't involve themselves with the various churches....they just don't care about organized religion and so they don't speak up when others act like idiots.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Voter"If you take sex out of the equation, what is the love based on? It must be personality.

There is no set of personality characteristics that is exclusive to either men or women.

Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.

If that doesn't explain it, post what you think I mean and I'll address.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I have lost any respect for you I once had.

Why so? Voter's view seems perfectly valid to me. Emotions are at the base of relationships. Physicality is what one is born with. Whom one loves is what matters not the respective genders of the individuals concerned. Which is what I think Voter is getting at.

On its own, I don't see much wrong with it, other than the fact that sex IS part of the equation, because sex is a part of love.

By sex I assume you mean intercourse, mutual masturbation, sodomy, kissing etc. etc. Well sex is not required in a loving relationship. I love my kids but I don't have sex with them. Sorry for the rather blunt example. But sex and love are not immutably bound.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"However, he's trying to use this argument to say that if being gay isn't about sex then they should just date members of the opposite sex to gain society's/"God's" approval, and if it is about sex then it's okay to discriminate against them since it isn't the same thing at all as discriminating against people based on their skin color (I think...tell me if I've gotten your position wrong).

Hopefully,  I don't need to explain how wrong this argument is.

Well if Voter is saying that homosexuality and homosexuals are Okay as long as they don't have sex, then I would not agree. What two consenting adults do with their own bodies and to each others bodies is entirely up to them. Saying one adult is better than another because of their consensual sexual habits is simply a personal perception.

Quote from: "Tank"By sex I assume you mean intercourse, mutual masturbation, sodomy, kissing etc. etc.

That, and also physical attraction, which I would count under "sex".

QuoteWell sex is not required in a loving relationship. I love my kids but I don't have sex with them. Sorry for the rather blunt example. But sex and love are not immutably bound.

I course. I didn't mean to imply that all love requires sex. Nonetheless, I think it's an important part of romantic relationships. Can you have a romantic relationship without sex (including physical attraction)? Maybe, but I'd be skeptical, and I'd think the couple was lacking.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Tank"By sex I assume you mean intercourse, mutual masturbation, sodomy, kissing etc. etc.

That, and also physical attraction, which I would count under "sex".

No dispute with that. And of course it is equally possible to have a physical sexual attraction without love, that's how porn works.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteWell sex is not required in a loving relationship. I love my kids but I don't have sex with them. Sorry for the rather blunt example. But sex and love are not immutably bound.

I course. I didn't mean to imply that all love requires sex. Nonetheless, I think it's an important part of romantic relationships. Can you have a romantic relationship without sex (including physical attraction)? Maybe, but I'd be skeptical, and I'd think the couple was lacking.

You can definitely have a romantic relationship without sex. It's rare but it does happen. One can be infatuated with somebody but not in a physically sexual way. Whether a relationship turns physical depends on a number of factors, but that's for the 'When Harry met Sally' thread  

Quote from: "Tank"Well if Voter is saying that homosexuality and homosexuals are Okay as long as they don't have sex, then I would not agree. What two consenting adults do with their own bodies and to each others bodies is entirely up to them. Saying one adult is better than another because of their consensual sexual habits is simply a personal perception.

The clarification I would like from Voter would be the following:
1. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to fall romantically in love with each other? If not, why not?
2. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to have sexual intercourse with each other? If not, why not?
3. Do you think it is OK for people to discriminate against people doing 1 or 2 or both of the above? If it is OK, please explain?

BTW My intent on these questions is to understand your position better, not to judge you (although other people on this forum might). I may however make an attempt to try and change your mind  

Good grief...this thread could use a major split.

Per the OP...after two days since I posted here I've pretty much lost my train of thought and I'm not going back to read the first three pages to get it back.

So yes, every single christian is responsible for Christianity, as a whole - speaking of the dogma/doctrine directly. Not only that, they are responsible for their particular tangent of Christianity. It doesn't matter one way or the other, because we discuss the whole or the 'finer' points here. As long as at least one person propagates the doctrine of "Jesus" regardless if he/she holds placards that say "God hates Fags" or sits at home and never goes to church, he/she is responsible.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"However, he's trying to use this argument to say that if being gay isn't about sex then they should just date members of the opposite sex to gain society's/"God's" approval,

That part's correct. The love argument sounds cute and cuddly but it doesn't stand to examination.

Quoteand if it is about sex then it's okay to discriminate against them since it isn't the same thing at all as discriminating against people based on their skin color (I think...tell me if I've gotten your position wrong).

No, this isn't my position, although some would take it that way as we have different ideas of discrimination. Some of my opponents seem to think it's discrimination if you don't roll over and give gays everything they ask for. I disagree. I think the existing legislative processes are suitable for defining marriage, for example.

Quote from: "Stevil"I see sex and love as two different things however sex can be a result of love or can be affected by love. But sex can also be void of love.
I was certainly trying to gain clarity on the Christian point of view (through Voter and his assumed alignment with Christian POV) and whether the issue they have with homosexuality is based on love or simply sex. Voter has made a personal statement that the issue as he sees it is simply Sex and not love. Hence I think Voter is stating that if love were based on personality that same gender people could fall in love. However Voter would go on to suggest that people should then avoid situations where same gender relationships develop and progress and should simply put themselves into situations where opposite gender relationships develop.

Actually, no, I've pointed out that if you play the it's about love, not sex card the argument above counters it easily. My personal statement has been that it's a complex issue.

Quote from: "Sophus"I didn't know prejudice could only exist toward colors. I was also unaware no one is ever suspected of even possibly being gay or accused of it for acting more like the opposite sex.

Prejudice exists toward much more than color. SOme people are prejudiced against religion in general, or specific religions, for example.
 

QuoteWhat if I were to respond, "How dare you desire the right marry! I don't think Christians should be allowed to. After all, by your logic it's not discrimination because I only know you're a Christian if you tell me." In which case I would hope you would respond "how dare you think that!" So, yes, I am proudly intolerant of some opinions.

Think whatever you like. That's part of why I go to atheist rather than Christian forums. I'm not outraged by alternative opinions. Not many, anyway.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Tank"Well if Voter is saying that homosexuality and homosexuals are Okay as long as they don't have sex, then I would not agree. What two consenting adults do with their own bodies and to each others bodies is entirely up to them. Saying one adult is better than another because of their consensual sexual habits is simply a personal perception.

The clarification I would like from Voter would be the following:
1. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to fall romantically in love with each other? If not, why not?
2. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to have sexual intercourse with each other? If not, why not?
3. Do you think it is OK for people to discriminate against people doing 1 or 2 or both of the above? If it is OK, please explain?

BTW My intent on these questions is to understand your position better, not to judge you (although other people on this forum might). I may however make an attempt to try and change your mind  

First I need clarification on the questions, as OK and discriminate are ambiguous.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"What do you mean by "intolerant"? Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to have certain opinions?

I'm not anti-free speech, no.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Most people condemn the worst excesses of fundamentalism.
Some atheists harangue moderate theists for not taking their book literally.
Some atheists are rabid in their attacks, mention any belief and it's out with
the baby eating and paedophilia accusations.
I prefer to leave dogmatic and intolerant attitudes to theists.

The tone of argument here seems reasonable to me.
Religion does harm that I would like to see minimised.
Rabid atheists, fired up by Dawkins words, but with none of his subtlety, are not helping to reduce harm.

After a forum encounter I have seen visiting theists and deists, left thinking Atheists are a bunch of assholes.  
Forum regulars keep the thread going long after driving off the visitor, congratulating themselves like an
adolescent street gang.

I have made posts here lacking in subtlety, I will try to do better.

However, I see a lot of theists leave thinking we are assholes because we simply argue rationally and logically while holding them to that standard. It is rare that a theist will stay on those terms btw because they contradict much of what is the basis of their belief system. It really comes down to the fact that anything against their ideological beliefs or constructs is somehow offensive on some level to where it would be irrelevant how you engage them. They know circular arguments, deflections, and avoidance games are not tolerable by many atheists, and yet they choose to engage in dishonest discourse on a regular basis. These are common fundamental problems when they come here to discuss various topics, and this ultimately leads to them leaving thinking many of us are assholes simply because their beliefs and opinions are not shared or even taken into consideration in some or all respects. It's kind of like when a theist comes here and claims there are no transitional fossils to prove evolution, and then they leave pissed off when proven completely incorrect while still rejecting and denying the reality that there are. I've seen the same person go from one forum to another with the same argument and repeatedly get owned on the subject. It makes you wonder how many are phishing for ignorance and how many are here for actual honest discourse.

I personally don't care what someone believes, but if they come here looking for discourse on various subjects, they ought to know what they are about to engage in. And that includes view points that reject the base of their ideological dogmas, and beliefs. However if you are a Christian and come here with the intent on a rational and honest debate, I don't think anyone here is going to treat them poorly.

At any rate, I take it one person at a time. I don't agree with equivocating all Christians to other Christians even if the religious ideological construct is inherently destructive or manipulative.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Tank"Well if Voter is saying that homosexuality and homosexuals are Okay as long as they don't have sex, then I would not agree. What two consenting adults do with their own bodies and to each others bodies is entirely up to them. Saying one adult is better than another because of their consensual sexual habits is simply a personal perception.

The clarification I would like from Voter would be the following:
1. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to fall romantically in love with each other? If not, why not?
2. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to have sexual intercourse with each other? If not, why not?
3. Do you think it is OK for people to discriminate against people doing 1 or 2 or both of the above? If it is OK, please explain?

BTW My intent on these questions is to understand your position better, not to judge you (although other people on this forum might). I may however make an attempt to try and change your mind  

First I need clarification on the questions, as OK and discriminate are ambiguous.

Hmmm.
Lets say that OK means that you as an individual would not protest against, would not give any dissapproving comments or dissapproving looks towards these people, would not talk behind their backs and pass judgment as to the morality or sinful nature of these people or their actions with regards to the items in question. You would not support a referendum that would look to outlaw this situation. OK means any of these items, not necessarily all.
Lets say discriminate would meant that you think these people should be treated in all ways equally to people in the same situation who were from opposite gender. e.g. same rights to be have feelings of love, same rights to be displaying affection, same rights to be celebrating love (e.g. marriage, child adoption), same rights to hold job positions (e.g. early childcare provider, school teacher, doctor, preist, any position in the army)

Quote from: "TheJackel"At any rate, I take it one person at a time. I don't agree with equivocating all Christians to other Christians even if the religious ideological construct is inherently destructive or manipulative.

The strange thing though is that it seems the vast majority hold on to similar thoughts taught by their faith, e.g. disapproval of same gender relationships. These issues are almost a given. Even moderately religious people hold some truely worring ideas, we have some friends who have said all the poverty and starvation and disease in Africa is gods punishment. It seems to me Christians take on most of what they are taught within their Faith based circles propogating, promoting and living these wrongs however never taking personal responsibility. Never wanting to better the Church or faith, never wanting to rise above, they simply look for guidance and accept unquestionly what they are told. They then deliver this message without consideration to others outside their faith circles. There are often victims but the Christians don't seem to care, they possibly feel if they are doing god's will then they are operating righteously and that can never be wrong, regardless.
Note how predictably Voter and AnimatedDirt (more silent on this matter) are against same gender romantic relationships.

BTW. Voter, AnimatedDirt and others please feel free to change my opinion on this.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "TheJackel"At any rate, I take it one person at a time. I don't agree with equivocating all Christians to other Christians even if the religious ideological construct is inherently destructive or manipulative.

The strange thing though is that it seems the vast majority hold on to similar thoughts taught by their faith, e.g. disapproval of same gender relationships. These issues are almost a given. Even moderately religious people hold some truely worring ideas, we have some friends who have said all the poverty and starvation and disease in Africa is gods punishment. It seems to me Christians take on most of what they are taught within their Faith based circles propogating, promoting and living these wrongs however never taking personal responsibility. Never wanting to better the Church or faith, never wanting to rise above, they simply look for guidance and accept unquestionly what they are told. They then deliver this message without consideration to others outside their faith circles. There are often victims but the Christians don't seem to care, they possibly feel if they are doing god's will then they are operating righteously and that can never be wrong, regardless.
Note how predictably Voter and AnimatedDirt (more silent on this matter) are against same gender romantic relationships.

BTW. Voter, AnimatedDirt and others please feel free to change my opinion on this.

Actually I have some Christian friends that don't agree with man made religious dogmas even though they believe their GOD exists. But those kinds of religious people are very rare indeed because religion is essentially about power and control to where the deity represents every aspect of that. It's simply a symbol of what they think they have the right to do and enforce upon others in regards to their ideological constructs. The Bible is essentially about the servitude to the will and power of the ideology, and servitude to will and power in general. It's the finest example of written material the explicitly uses brainwashing and subliminal programming as a contextual structure. That is all religion is, servitude to power. So technically speaking, every religion is a cult in some form or another. And this is why I got out of religion.

QuoteBTW. Voter, AnimatedDirt and others please feel free to change my opinion on this.

On same sex romance ectra.. Voter and AnimatedDirt might possibly feel that Dolphins and many other animals are the work of the devil to which seemingly defies an "all powerful" and all "knowing" god. The rationality that goes into such nonsense is amazing should they actually think same sex relationships are somehow sinful. Those that do simply want to use their ideology as the power and excuse to enforce everyone into their religious ideological constructs, dogmas, beliefs, or morals. Religions are Theocracies looking to have power over the masses according to their own skewed morals and beliefs as if they are magically righteous, or the authority over everything. Its really simple, it's about Power and control.

Quote from: "Voter"That part's correct. The love argument sounds cute and cuddly but it doesn't stand to examination.

It is about love. Sex is a part of that love.

QuoteNo, this isn't my position, although some would take it that way as we have different ideas of discrimination. Some of my opponents seem to think it's discrimination if you don't roll over and give gays everything they ask for. I disagree. I think the existing legislative processes are suitable for defining marriage, for example.

You could use this exact argument to say that the segregation of whites and blacks in the first half of the 20th century wasn't discrimination. I don't buy it.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteNo, this isn't my position, although some would take it that way as we have different ideas of discrimination. Some of my opponents seem to think it's discrimination if you don't roll over and give gays everything they ask for. I disagree. I think the existing legislative processes are suitable for defining marriage, for example.

You could use this exact argument to say that the segregation of whites and blacks in the first half of the 20th century wasn't discrimination. I don't buy it.

That exact argument was used.

Quote from: "Tank"So I would contend that to support this forum's mission statement people should see other people first and their world view second. We should ask questions about why somebody holds a particular view on a particular subject rather than presume to tell them based on prejudice and past experience with other people as we are unique and should be treated and respected as such. That's what I will try to do, I will of course fail at times as I am simply a fallible ape.

Thanks Tank for opening this thread and setting this positive tone and outlook.

I do have some specific issues with Christianity and do tend to ask individual people with theist worldview on this forum with regards to those issues. Without fail they have thus far been aligned with the Christian faith. Without fail I have been surprised by each individual 's response as the issues I have are so obviously wrong I struggle to understand how a thinking person can align with them and I always assume the individual rather than a collective thought. I know that outside of theism people are overwhelmingly against these issues hence the Christian view doesn't fall into a theoretical objective morality and actually would be contrary to that. Hence my view of "should one Christian be responsible for Christianity" would be that it is far more complex than that.

We cannot make the assumption that Christians have free thought. I feel that absolute free thought is a falicy with regards to everyone however certain groups of people are further away from free thought than others. We all have cultural, family, and environmental constraints with regards to our ability to form thoughts. Christian's thoughts have an added contraint with regards to the influence of their faith and church. We can know this by seeing a large alignment with regards to their moral structure which differs from non Christians.

One big beef that I have is that I have an ideal that all people should be treated fairly, with respect and tolerance regardless of race, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, age, lineage, religious beliefs, political views, wealth, education, etc. I feel this ideal is fairly intuitive and accepted by most atheists although there is no atheist book of ideals or teachings to promote this, hence it could be considered part of an objective morality if ever there was one.

Christianity does not promote this ideal and in fact they discourage it. Christians (for the most part) seem to accept the Christianity stance which is counter to this ideal. This is an indicator to me that Christians (for the most part) do not possess free thought with regards to this. If the individual does not possess free thought then how can they be held accountable for their stance? I feel there are measures in place to indoctorine the Christians with thoughts that are not their own and of which they then live by but are unable to break away from. Who should be made accountable? If they are not acting of free will and mind then we must look to those that have the free will and mind and are acting to intentionally implant these thoughts into the minds of others.

The problem is that it is difficult to know if a person is acting of free will and mind or not. I feel the individual themself doesn't even know if these thoughts are there own or have been implanted by others.

EDIT: Case in point, although this is only potentially the thoughts of one individual. (Thanks LegendarySandwich for pointing this out)

Quote from: "Achronos"He<the devil> takes from them trust in God and begins to afflict them with self-assurance, logic, thinking, criticism. Therefore we should not trust our logical minds. Never believe your thoughts. Live simply and without thinking too much, like a child with his father. Faith without too much thinking works wonders. The logical mind hinders the Grace of God and miracles. Practice patience without judging with the logical mind.

Quote from: "Stevil"Hmmm.
Lets say that OK means that you as an individual would not protest against, would not give any dissapproving comments or dissapproving looks towards these people, would not talk behind their backs and pass judgment as to the morality or sinful nature of these people or their actions with regards to the items in question. You would not support a referendum that would look to outlaw this situation. OK means any of these items, not necessarily all.

Some are yes, some are no. Not sure by that last sentence whether I'm OK with them or not. If not, I don't see it as very meaningful as some are a very low bar.

QuoteLets say discriminate would meant that you think these people should be treated in all ways equally to people in the same situation who were from opposite gender. e.g. same rights to be have feelings of love, same rights to be displaying affection, same rights to be celebrating love (e.g. marriage, child adoption), same rights to hold job positions (e.g. early childcare provider, school teacher, doctor, preist, any position in the army)

By this, yes, I would discriminate, but you're merely defining your view as correct with this definition, thereby bypassing the actual debate. Again, not very meaningful.

Quote from: "wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn"discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

I would say you're practicing discrimination here, Voter.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Stevil"Hmmm.
Lets say that OK means that you as an individual would not protest against, would not give any dissapproving comments or dissapproving looks towards these people, would not talk behind their backs and pass judgment as to the morality or sinful nature of these people or their actions with regards to the items in question. You would not support a referendum that would look to outlaw this situation. OK means any of these items, not necessarily all.

Some are yes, some are no. Not sure by that last sentence whether I'm OK with them or not. If not, I don't see it as very meaningful as some are a very low bar.

It's hard to define in all ways that which you might not be OK with the situation. I am trying to not focus on your inner voice, but more on your actions. Yes I am setting the bar low but that is because I don't know you and do not know how far your dissapproval goes. It would certainly be easier if you would volunter information rather than make me play 21 questions. Out of the list of things above which ones are no for you and please give in context with regards to the original questions. I know I am asking a lot of you but it would be great if you could explain why you think these items are not OK. I mean, especially if you would vote toward a law forcing against the behaviour, society is governed by laws, it would be nice to know why things are made illegal.
1. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to fall romantically in love with each other? If not, why not?
2. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to have sexual intercourse with each other? If not, why not?
3. Do you think it is OK for people to discriminate against people doing 1 or 2 or both of the above? If it is OK, please explain?

I really shouldn't have put the last sentence as it was destined for confussion.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteLets say discriminate would meant that you think these people should be treated in all ways equally to people in the same situation who were from opposite gender. e.g. same rights to be have feelings of love, same rights to be displaying affection, same rights to be celebrating love (e.g. marriage, child adoption), same rights to hold job positions (e.g. early childcare provider, school teacher, doctor, preist, any position in the army)

By this, yes, I would discriminate, but you're merely defining your view as correct with this definition, thereby bypassing the actual debate. Again, not very meaningful.

I am actually framing up discrimination because you asked me to. I have only included a subset and things I would actually consider a ow bar but I assume you would not be happy with the marriage and probably not with the child adoption parts. Personally I don't feel it is acceptable for these people to be discriminated within any situation what-so-ever. My view is correct for me, your view is correct for you but please be concious that your view has victims and hence negative consequences for these people. Do you really think it is too much for them to be simply asking for equal rights?

Quote from: "Stevil"Do you really think it is too much for them to be simply asking for equal rights?

Gays having equal rights?! What, are you crazy!? That's simply immoral!! I mean, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! What will happen when they learn that...gasp...GAYS ARE NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS AND HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS ANYONE ELSE?!?!? WHAT IF THEY WANT TO MARRY SOMEONE FROM THEIR OWN SEX UPON HEARING THIS?!?!?

UNACCEPTABLE. I refuse to teach my kids Satanic values such as equality for all. I mean, come on! This is America!!! We were founded on Christian values, such as discrimination against certain groups of people based on traits they can't change.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"...based on traits they can't change.

What if they could change those traits? Lets say they swing both ways, what's the big deal if they happen to fall in love with a person of the same gender?
Do they need to choose to fit within "normal" parameters if they had a choice?

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"...based on traits they can't change.

What if they could change those traits? Lets say they swing both ways, what's the big deal if they happen to fall in love with a person of the same gender?
Do they need to choose to fit within "normal" parameters if they had a choice?

I agree, I just said "traits they can't change" to make the position seem more stupid (not unfairly, because that's how stupid it actually is).

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"...based on traits they can't change.

What if they could change those traits? Lets say they swing both ways, what's the big deal if they happen to fall in love with a person of the same gender?
Do they need to choose to fit within "normal" parameters if they had a choice?

I agree, I just said "traits they can't change" to make the position seem more stupid (not unfairly, because that's how stupid it actually is).

That's cool, I didn't want to assume. It was an excuse I used when I was 20 and quite homophobic. I thought if they didn't have a choice then they were in a bind and I was conflicted as to my stance on the position, but if they did have a choice then I thought it was odd and wrong for them to choose the same gender.

Quote from: "Stevil"That's cool, I didn't want to assume. It was an excuse I used when I was 20 and quite homophobic. I thought if they didn't have a choice then they were in a bind and I was conflicted as to my stance on the position, but if they did have a choice then I thought it was odd and wrong for them to choose the same gender.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense for them to choose to be homosexual, although it wouldn't be immoral even if they did. To justify their hatred, they have to come up with lame-ass excuses like this (not trying to insult you here).

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yeah, it doesn't make any sense for them to choose to be homosexual

The only pitfalls are that they can't naturally have children plus the scorn they may receive from sections of society, but other than that it makes just as much sense one way or the other.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yeah, it doesn't make any sense for them to choose to be homosexual

The only pitfalls are that they can't naturally have children plus the scorn they may receive from sections of society, but other than that it makes just as much sense one way or the other.

Those are pretty big pitfalls. I'm not gay, but I'd imagine that many of them would want to have became straight due to the two reasons above.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yeah, it doesn't make any sense for them to choose to be homosexual

The only pitfalls are that they can't naturally have children plus the scorn they may receive from sections of society, but other than that it makes just as much sense one way or the other.

Those are pretty big pitfalls. I'm not gay, but I'd imagine that many of them would want to have became straight due to the two reasons above.

Yes, I would imagine that too. I am hoping that society can remove the second one though. I like tolerance.

Yeah, tolerance = good. A lot of people don't like the word "tolerance", but I think it works perfectly. I can live with you even if I don't like it if you can live with me even if you don't like it. Tolerating each other.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"It is about love. Sex is a part of that love.

You're preaching to the choir.

QuoteYou could use this exact argument to say that the segregation of whites and blacks in the first half of the 20th century wasn't discrimination. I don't buy it.

But I bet you don't lose sleep over the fact that Mormons and others who desire polygamy are being discriminated against. There isn't a P in GLBT.

I guess my point is that, depending on the definition, and certainly by the definitions being proposed here, almost everyone discriminates against some groups. Hence it loses its sting as an accusation, and opens the accuser up to charges of hypocrisy.

Quote from: "Stevil"Hmmm.
Lets say that OK means that you as an individual would not protest against, would not give any dissapproving comments or dissapproving looks towards these people, would not talk behind their backs and pass judgment as to the morality or sinful nature of these people or their actions with regards to the items in question. You would not support a referendum that would look to outlaw this situation. OK means any of these items, not necessarily all.

Some are yes, some are no. Not sure by that last sentence whether I'm OK with them or not. If not, I don't see it as very meaningful as some are a very low bar.
[/quote]
It's hard to define in all ways that which you might not be OK with the situation. I am trying to not focus on your inner voice, but more on your actions.[/quote]
Passing judgment behind their backs speaks to inner voice. That's why I'm being careful in answering. I've worked with gay people, for example, and never made any negative comments, expressions, etc. So, I'm "OK" with parts of your list.  But, I believe it to be sin, so I'm not OK by other parts.

QuoteYes I am setting the bar low but that is because I don't know you and do not know how far your dissapproval goes. It would certainly be easier if you would volunter information rather than make me play 21 questions. Out of the list of things above which ones are no for you and please give in context with regards to the original questions. I know I am asking a lot of you but it would be great if you could explain why you think these items are not OK. I mean, especially if you would vote toward a law forcing against the behaviour, society is governed by laws, it would be nice to know why things are made illegal.

Again, there is ambiguity. I would not vote for a law taking away existing rights of gays, but I would vote against a law expanding such rights to include marriage. To me, there's a difference between the two. However, my opponents frequently see voting against granting a right as the same as voting for removal of a right.

Quote from: "Stevil"Do you really think it is too much for them to be simply asking for equal rights?

No. That's what's going on now through the legislative process.

Quote from: "Voter"But I bet you don't lose sleep over the fact that Mormons and others who desire polygamy are being discriminated against. There isn't a P in GLBT.

I actually support the right for people to practice polygamy and despise discrimination against it. So the next time you want to assume something about me, make sure it's actually factual.

QuoteI guess my point is that, depending on the definition, and certainly by the definitions being proposed here, almost everyone discriminates against some groups. Hence it loses its sting as an accusation, and opens the accuser up to charges of hypocrisy.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

QuoteHowever, my opponents frequently see voting against granting a right as the same as voting for removal of a right.

There may be a difference between the two, but they're both discrimination.

QuoteNo. That's what's going on now through the legislative process.

And yet you still oppose it?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"But I bet you don't lose sleep over the fact that Mormons and others who desire polygamy are being discriminated against. There isn't a P in GLBT.

I actually support the right for people to practice polygamy and despise discrimination against it. So the next time you want to assume something about me, make sure it's actually factual.

I'm still thinking that you spend much less time and effort combating that discrimination, but if that's not the case, kudos to you for being more consistent than most gay-rights supporters.

Quote

QuoteI guess my point is that, depending on the definition, and certainly by the definitions being proposed here, almost everyone discriminates against some groups. Hence it loses its sting as an accusation, and opens the accuser up to charges of hypocrisy.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

QuoteHowever, my opponents frequently see voting against granting a right as the same as voting for removal of a right.

There may be a difference between the two, but they're both discrimination.

Yes, by certain definitions I discriminate. So do you. Someone who supports gay marriage is necessarily discriminating against those who oppose it.

QuoteNo. That's what's going on now through the legislative process.

And yet you still oppose it?[/quote][/quote]
Yes - that's part of the legislative process.

Quote from: "Voter"I'm still thinking that you spend much less time and effort combating that discrimination, but if that's not the case, kudos to you for being more consistent than most gay-rights supporters.

Of course. It's a much, much less prevalent issue. In fact, there's not even really a controversy over it, as barely anyone is campaigning for the rights to marry more than one person.

QuoteYes, by certain definitions I discriminate. So do you. Someone who supports gay marriage is necessarily discriminating against those who oppose it.

This is the definition I use:

Quote from: "wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn"discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

QuoteYes - that's part of the legislative process.

Opposing the rights of others?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Of course. It's a much, much less prevalent issue. In fact, there's not even really a controversy over it, as barely anyone is campaigning for the rights to marry more than one person.

As I said awhile back: "If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all."

If people started campaigning  for polygamy rights, would anyone who opposed them be discriminating against them?

More generally, if someone claims any right, are those opposed necessarily discriminating against them?

If so, then yes, I freely admit I discriminate, as I don't agree that each person has the authority to declare what his rights are.

Quote

QuoteYes, by certain definitions I discriminate. So do you. Someone who supports gay marriage is necessarily discriminating against those who oppose it.

This is the definition I use:

Quote from: "wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn"discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

By this definition, I'm not discriminating in my own eyes, as my treatment is not unfair. I think determining the matter through the legislative process is completely fair. You could disagree, claiming the treatment is unfair. This would bring us back to the root issue, which would probably be more productive.

Quote

QuoteYes - that's part of the legislative process.

Opposing the rights of others?

They're not rights yet. That's what the process is trying to determine.

Quote from: "Voter"Passing judgment behind their backs speaks to inner voice. That's why I'm being careful in answering. I've worked with gay people, for example, and never made any negative comments, expressions, etc. So, I'm "OK" with parts of your list.  But, I believe it to be sin, so I'm not OK by other parts.

If you are passing judgement by expressing your opinion to others then that goes beyond inner voice and becomes an action. it is good that you can collaboratively work with gay people, I hope them being gay didn't harm you in anyway.
You have said that you believe it to be a sin. Is this simply because the bible tells you so and your church supports this stance or have you as an individual thought about the sin of gays and why this should be opposed? I would like to hear why you think the sin of being gay should be opposed, i.e what harm or damage is it doing? I am still a bit confused as to your stance of Sex and Love though. Let's say two same gender people are just getting to know each other and fall in love but have not had sex yet. Do you feel these two hypothetical persons are committing sin by simply being in love?

Quote from: "Voter"I would not vote for a law taking away existing rights of gays, but I would vote against a law expanding such rights to include marriage.

So, because it is Status Quo, you deem it to be a good law and would vote against change.
Hence if the law changes and gay marriage becomes law and then a referendum comes to oppose this new law, I presume you would not oppose the new law because it has become Status Quo?
BTW, please tell me what who the victims are and why you think gay marriage is harmfull? I presume you think it is harmfull because you are willing to take away the freedoms of grown adults, surely you wouldn't do this on a whim.

BTW I am for Polygomy. If the adults in question are consenting then what right do I have to tell them how to live their lives?

And here is an odd extreme that I strangely enough also support. I would be happy for a mother and son to marry. This could also be Father - daughter, father - son, mother - daughter. It may seem odd and disgusting, but by my philosophy, who am I to say that it is wrong for consenting adults to love.
There have been strange cases where people didn't know they were related in this way but found out after they were in love.
I am not worried about genetic issues as it is unlikely to happen in one generation, I doubt it is likely this would occur for many generations in a row, and I doubt this would be a common occurance. I just don't think it is the government's or churche's place to enforce such restrictions.
There you go, hopefully you can now see the extent to my tolerance.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Of course. It's a much, much less prevalent issue. In fact, there's not even really a controversy over it, as barely anyone is campaigning for the rights to marry more than one person.

As I said awhile back: "If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all."

If people started campaigning  for polygamy rights, would anyone who opposed them be discriminating against them?

More generally, if someone claims any right, are those opposed necessarily discriminating against them?

If so, then yes, I freely admit I discriminate, as I don't agree that each person has the authority to declare what his rights are.

Quote

QuoteYes, by certain definitions I discriminate. So do you. Someone who supports gay marriage is necessarily discriminating against those who oppose it.

This is the definition I use:

Quote from: "wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn"discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

By this definition, I'm not discriminating in my own eyes, as my treatment is not unfair. I think determining the matter through the legislative process is completely fair. You could disagree, claiming the treatment is unfair. This would bring us back to the root issue, which would probably be more productive.

Quote

QuoteYes - that's part of the legislative process.

Opposing the rights of others?

They're not rights yet. That's what the process is trying to determine.

You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Of course. It's a much, much less prevalent issue. In fact, there's not even really a controversy over it, as barely anyone is campaigning for the rights to marry more than one person.

As I said awhile back: "If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all."

If people started campaigning  for polygamy rights, would anyone who opposed them be discriminating against them?

If on the basis of prejudice, yes.

QuoteMore generally, if someone claims any right, are those opposed necessarily discriminating against them?

No.

QuoteIf so, then yes, I freely admit I discriminate, as I don't agree that each person has the authority to declare what his rights are.

Each person has the authority to declare what his rights are, but that doesn't mean he'll get them.

Quote

Quote

QuoteYes, by certain definitions I discriminate. So do you. Someone who supports gay marriage is necessarily discriminating against those who oppose it.

This is the definition I use:

Quote from: "wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn"discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

By this definition, I'm not discriminating in my own eyes, as my treatment is not unfair. I think determining the matter through the legislative process is completely fair. You could disagree, claiming the treatment is unfair. This would bring us back to the root issue, which would probably be more productive.

Then let's go there.

Quote from: "TheJackel"You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

No, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "TheJackel"You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

No, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

No one should be forced to conform to any moral constructs. If you think gays shouldn't have rights, then that's your problem -- but don't try to make it law. Laws should only exist to allow us more freedom, not take it away.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "TheJackel"You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

No, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

Government shouldn't legislate morality; laws should only exist to restrict behavior that can be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society.

I think it is immoral to indoctrinate children into religious beliefs but you don't see me lobbying to have it declared illegal punishable under child abuse laws...this is because I actually understand what it means to live in a free country and can appreciate that in order to be truly free individuals that means we have to allow freedom for all despite how we may often disagree with the choices of others.

Quote from: "Stevil"If you are passing judgement by expressing your opinion to others then that goes beyond inner voice and becomes an action. it is good that you can collaboratively work with gay people, I hope them being gay didn't harm you in anyway.
You have said that you believe it to be a sin. Is this simply because the bible tells you so and your church supports this stance or have you as an individual thought about the sin of gays and why this should be opposed? I would like to hear why you think the sin of being gay should be opposed, i.e what harm or damage is it doing? I am still a bit confused as to your stance of Sex and Love though. Let's say two same gender people are just getting to know each other and fall in love but have not had sex yet. Do you feel these two hypothetical persons are committing sin by simply being in love?

I define all sins Biblically. Outside of religion, what is sin?
I'm not opposing being gay. I'm opposing change in the definition of marriage.

Quote from: "Voter"I would not vote for a law taking away existing rights of gays, but I would vote against a law expanding such rights to include marriage.
So, because it is Status Quo, you deem it to be a good law and would vote against change.

Incorrect conclusion. Laws aren't necessarily good because they're old.

QuoteBTW, please tell me what who the victims are and why you think gay marriage is harmfull? I presume you think it is harmfull because you are willing to take away the freedoms of grown adults, surely you wouldn't do this on a whim.

I'm not taking away the freedom of grown adults. Currently they have no right to marriage. I can't take away what they don't have. That's the main point you guys either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge.

QuoteBTW I am for Polygomy. If the adults in question are consenting then what right do I have to tell them how to live their lives?

If you are a member of a majority in a democracy, then you generally have the right to tell people how to live thier lives.

Every morning I complain because it takes several minutes for the light in my closet to get bright enough to match clothes. I can't buy a reguloar bulb that turns on instantly for it. In this case, it's probably not even a majority that's telling me how to live. It was probably a vocal minority, but the majority was apathetic. That's living in society. We tell each other how to live our lives regularly.

QuoteAnd here is an odd extreme that I strangely enough also support. I would be happy for a mother and son to marry. This could also be Father - daughter, father - son, mother - daughter. It may seem odd and disgusting, but by my philosophy, who am I to say that it is wrong for consenting adults to love.

Who are you to tell me what I should think about such things?

QuoteThere you go, hopefully you can now see the extent to my tolerance.

It apparently doesn't extend to me!

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "TheJackel"You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

No, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

Is someone forcing you to marry another man?  

Quote from: "Voter"Every morning I complain because it takes several minutes for the light in my closet to get bright enough to match clothes. I can't buy a reguloar bulb that turns on instantly for it. In this case, it's probably not even a majority that's telling me how to live. It was probably a vocal minority, but the majority was apathetic. That's living in society. We tell each other how to live our lives regularly.

I don't know what you are talking about because compact florescent and LEDs turn on instantly and are plenty bright...but, whatever.

This is a good way to show that the vocal minority can (such as those who are against gay marriage/civil unions) can ruin it for others.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "TheJackel"You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

No, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

Government shouldn't legislate morality; laws should only exist to restrict behavior that can be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society.

I think it is immoral to indoctrinate children into religious beliefs but you don't see me lobbying to have it declared illegal punishable under child abuse laws...this is because I actually understand what it means to live in a free country and can appreciate that in order to be truly free individuals that means we have to allow freedom for all despite how we may often disagree with the choices of others.

I agree with Whitney fully on this issue. The only thing I would change is that I would say that laws should only exist to expand our freedom, but that's really the same thing as saying they should restrict behavior that harms other individuals.

Quote from: "Voter"I define all sins Biblically. Outside of religion, what is sin?

We have a different word for sin -- it's evil, and it's all opinion, whether you like that conclusion or not.

QuoteI'm not opposing being gay. I'm opposing change in the definition of marriage.

Which basically means you oppose them being legally gay.

I actually think that marriage shouldn't be a government institution at all, but as long as it is, we should grant it to all individuals, regardless of what the definition has been traditionally. Things change. The Bible is outdated and isn't relevant to...well, anything in modern society really, if it ever even was in the first place.

QuoteI'm not taking away the freedom of grown adults. Currently they have no right to marriage. I can't take away what they don't have. That's the main point you guys either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge.

You're against the expansion of government-given rights that would do no harm to anyone else if they were passed. Or, to put it another way, you're against eroding unnecessary government restrictions on our natural rights (that is, the right to do whatever the fuck we want). It's the same damn thing.

QuoteIf you are a member of a majority in a democracy, then you generally have the right to tell people how to live thier lives.

Every morning I complain because it takes several minutes for the light in my closet to get bright enough to match clothes. I can't buy a reguloar bulb that turns on instantly for it. In this case, it's probably not even a majority that's telling me how to live. It was probably a vocal minority, but the majority was apathetic. That's living in society. We tell each other how to live our lives regularly.

We shouldn't.

QuoteWho are you to tell me what I should think about such things?

When did he say that you had to think like him? Troll.

Quote from: "Sophus"Is someone forcing you to marry another man?

But Sophus, if gays were allowed to marry that would take away part of his right to tell others how to live their lives based on an old superstitious book written by goat herders! You wouldn't want that, would you?

QuoteNo, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

So you are using Democracy to vote in Theocracy correct? What happens to democracy when theocracy is installed?

Gay rights advocates only advocate that GAY's are people that can make up their own damn minds about marriage. This problem you are having probably stems from the fact that you may think "Marriage" is owned by by Christianity when it clearly is not. I think you believe that Christianity should have total control over marriage rights. I don't think you even understand what a Theocracy entails at this point. I suggest you study Theocracy and then consider the prospect of Atheists telling Christians they have no right to marry because they are religious.. (just as an example thought). Should I be using my position on religion to dictate your marriage rights?

Quote from: "Voter"I define all sins Biblically. Outside of religion, what is sin?
I'm not opposing being gay. I'm opposing change in the definition of marriage.

Why would you be opposed to the definition of marriage being changed such that the discrimination against gays being married is removed from the defnintion of marriage?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Voter"I would not vote for a law taking away existing rights of gays, but I would vote against a law expanding such rights to include marriage.

Quote from: "Stevil"So, because it is Status Quo, you deem it to be a good law and would vote against change.

Incorrect conclusion. Laws aren't necessarily good because they're old.

If you don't deem it as a good law then why don't you want it changed?

Quote from: "Voter"I'm not taking away the freedom of grown adults. Currently they have no right to marriage. I can't take away what they don't have. That's the main point you guys either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge.

Currently they have no legal right. I am talking about human rights, where by a human deemed old enough and with sound mind has the right to live their life as they please. e.g. Just because the Chinese goverment have written the laws that suit them it doesn't mean that there are no human rights violations in China.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteBTW I am for Polygomy. If the adults in question are consenting then what right do I have to tell them how to live their lives?

If you are a member of a majority in a democracy, then you generally have the right to tell people how to live thier lives.

Again, you are talking about legal rights where I talk about human rights. Democracies aren't always fair. Just because something is popular on the day, it doesn't mean that it is right. There are organisations out there that are influencing large numbers of people's opinions e.g. Christian faith organisations.

Quote from: "Voter"Every morning I complain because it takes several minutes for the light in my closet to get bright enough to match clothes. I can't buy a reguloar bulb that turns on instantly for it. In this case, it's probably not even a majority that's telling me how to live. It was probably a vocal minority, but the majority was apathetic. That's living in society. We tell each other how to live our lives regularly.

I'm sure that lightbulb not turning on instantly inconveniences you a lot less than gays are being inconvenienced by not being allowed to marry.

Have you tried putting yourself in the shoes of a gay person, I know it is impossible because you do not think the same, but for a moment imagine being an adult and in love, and having the government tell you that you are not allowed to marry the person you love because you are gay (you could substitue this for something else, say because you have blue eyes) and that is against the law. You see the non gay (non blue eyed) people getting married and probably think your situation is unfair. Then you go into the living room of one of the non gay (non blue eyed) people and you ask why they voted that gay (blue eyed) people can't get married. They then tell you that they didn't think it was right. You then asked "but what does it matter to you if I get married or not?", They then say "it doesn't impact me at all, but I just didn't think it was right). They then go about living their lives ignoring the sad dilema they have put you in.

So my question to you is this (and I feel it is important, if nothing else, please respond to this question) "What does it matter to you if gay people get married or not?"

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteAnd here is an odd extreme that I strangely enough also support. I would be happy for a mother and son to marry. This could also be Father - daughter, father - son, mother - daughter. It may seem odd and disgusting, but by my philosophy, who am I to say that it is wrong for consenting adults to love.

Who are you to tell me what I should think about such things?

At no point in our dialogue within this thread have I told you what you should do. Only you are qualified to know what you should do. In the above paragraph I was giving you an insight into my mind as previously you had suggested people might be right to discriminate against Polygomists, my example was to show you that I am very tolerant.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteThere you go, hopefully you can now see the extent to my tolerance.

It apparently doesn't extend to me!

I have not shown lack of tolerance towards you. I am currently discussing your position with regards to something that I have a differing position on. I would not suggest that you should be discriminated against in any way.

Quote from: "Whitney"Government shouldn't legislate morality; laws should only exist to restrict behavior that can be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society.

Most people would disagree with you. A man sitting on a public bench wearing nothing but a smile and an erection can't be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society, but most people, myself included, are happy that we've legislated morality to prohibit such behavior. Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with someone defecating in public so long as they do so in a plastic bag and dispose of it properly (no harm being caused there), but the rest of us don't want to see it, so we've legislated morality to prevent it.

QuoteMost people would disagree with you. A man sitting on a public bench wearing nothing but a smile and an erection can't be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society, but most people, myself included, are happy that we've legislated morality to prohibit such behavior. Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with someone defecating in public so long as they do so in a plastic bag and dispose of it properly (no harm being caused there), but the rest of us don't want to see it, so we've legislated morality to prevent it.

Funny, there are nude beaches all over the place that don't cause harm to society. You are specifically talking about legislating the taboo. However, this actually has zero relevance to the subject of Gay marriage. Gay marriage has nothing to do with running around naked and smiling at people, nor is adult sexual preferences any concern to the Government, or laws except to protect from rape and pedophilia. And you have nothing to base "causes society harm" in regards to your supposed argument. At best, your argument is sheer bigotry, and discriminatory. You simply want the government to force people to abide by your religion specifically! As in that you actually have the never to think you have the right to dictate marriage as being owned by Christianity, and governed by Christianity.

The one thing that needs to be disposed of properly is the Push for Theocracy by the Christian right. That little number would save a lot of harm, if not another potential 300 years of Burning everything they consider Blasphemous to their ideological constructs. There is a reason for separation of Church and State!

in fact you remind me of this argument:

http://www.thinkingaloudforum.com/forum ... &start=110 (http://www.thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=13398&start=110)

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"No one should be forced to conform to any moral constructs. If you think gays shouldn't have rights, then that's your problem -- but don't try to make it law. Laws should only exist to allow us more freedom, not take it away.

Again, this position isn't going to go very far. Most people are fine with laws that keep people from walking down the street naked. It's not a matter of whether laws should be able to restrict freedom on moral grounds. That question has been settled. The question is where is the line drawn on a specific issue.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So you are using Democracy to vote in Theocracy correct?

No, that's not correct. You don't seem to understand the term correctly.

Quote from: "Voter"but the rest of us don't want to see it, so we've legislated morality to prevent it.

Speak for yourself. I know at least two people who would pay to see it. And I wouldn't mind being added to "Don't give a damn"-cathegory. Hey, as far as naked people go, if the guy with erection in your example was even remotely hot, I'd probably even take time to ogle him.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"Government shouldn't legislate morality; laws should only exist to restrict behavior that can be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society.

Most people would disagree with you. A man sitting on a public bench wearing nothing but a smile and an erection can't be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society, but most people, myself included, are happy that we've legislated morality to prohibit such behavior. Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with someone defecating in public so long as they do so in a plastic bag and dispose of it properly (no harm being caused there), but the rest of us don't want to see it, so we've legislated morality to prevent it.

Most people would disagree with our position, but I stand by it firm. A man should have the right to have an erection in public. If somebody is defecating in public and cleans it up, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to; if you don't like it, don't look.

This sounds like the argumentum ad populem fallacy.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Most people would disagree with our position, but I stand by it firm. A man should have the right to have an erection in public. If somebody is defecating in public and cleans it up, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to; if you don't like it, don't look.

OK, I see no need to proceed further.

QuoteThis sounds like the argumentum ad populem fallacy.

In a democratic society, it's not a fallacy, at least not for practical purposes.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteThis sounds like the argumentum ad populem fallacy.

In a democratic society, it's not a fallacy, at least not for practical purposes.

Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "TheJackel"So you are using Democracy to vote in Theocracy correct?

No, that's not correct. You don't seem to understand the term correctly.

No I do understand the Term correctly.. It doesn't matter how it gets installed, it matters only that of the outcome of government becoming a Theocracy.. We don't need that kind of crap injected into government. That's why we don't vote for people like Sarah Palin. And I suggest you actually read the constitution because it's purpose was to protect the people from Theocratic religious oppression like this.  And again, you really think Christianity owns marriage don't you . You think since that you can't force people to become Christians, you think you can legislate them to be forced to be Christians by law. I know exactly what's going on in that political arena kiddo, I've been deeply involved with it myself. You clearly either have no clue, or you like to play along with it.

And as of yet, you have still to put up even a sane non bigotry argument to even support your position with.. So I guess I should start the political group that should dictate and restrict your life in and out of the bedroom.. We should then by your logic remove the right for Christians to marry because they are a danger to Democracy and freedom from religion.

Quote from: "Sophus"Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

First, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Second, it says that those rights are endowed to us by the Creator. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, only those rights that we grant to each other.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

First, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

QuoteSecond, it says that those rights are endowed to us by the Creator. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, only those rights that we grant to each other.

So, since us atheists don't believe in God, the Declaration of Independence shouldn't apply to us. Right?

Quote from: "TheJackel"No I do understand the Term correctly.. It doesn't matter how it gets installed, it matters only that of the outcome of government becoming a Theocracy.. We don't need that kind of crap injected into government. That's why we don't vote for people like Sarah Palin.

No, you don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy)

Fourth paragraph: "Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God"."

QuoteAnd I suggest you actually read the constitution because it's purpose was to protect the people from Theocratic religious oppression like this.  And again, you really think Christianity owns marriage don't you . You think since that you can't force people to become Christians, you think you can legislate them to be forced to be Christians by law. I know exactly what's going on in that political arena kiddo, I've been deeply involved with it myself. You clearly either have no clue, or you like to play along with it.

I've read the COnstitution and books on the debates which created it. Theocracy wasn't a significant topic in those debates. Separation of church and state didn't even make it into the original Constitution.

QuoteAnd as of yet, you have still to put up even a sane non bigotry argument to even support your position with.

Sure I have - Rights are granted by society by whatever processes it has in place. I'll live peacably with the results of those processes.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

First, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

QuoteSecond, it says that those rights are endowed to us by the Creator. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, only those rights that we grant to each other.

So, since us atheists don't believe in God, the Declaration of Independence shouldn't apply to us. Right?

The point is that if you want to make an argument based on unalienable rights, you have to justify that those exist. The DofI does so by appealing to a Creator, which atheists obviously can't do.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

First, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Second, it says that those rights are endowed to us by the Creator. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, only those rights that we grant to each other.

Goodness gracious, are you just being trivial to avoid the crux of the matter? Yes, it's from the Declaration, but it demonstrates the thinking behind the Bill of Rights. The point is your rights are not suppose to be up for a vote. The minority tends to get totally screwed that way, which is one downfall to an unbridled democracy with no constitution.

Quote from: "Voter"The point is that if you want to make an argument based on unalienable rights, you have to justify that those exist. The DofI does so by appealing to a Creator, which atheists obviously can't do.

You're right of course, in the fact that we don't have any inalienable rights besides from those our government gives us. When I'm talking about taking away rights, I mean rights we naturally have in nature, which is basically the right to do whatever the fuck we want.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Sophus"Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

First, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Second, it says that those rights are endowed to us by the Creator. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, only those rights that we grant to each other.

Actually it wasn't.. Someone already debunked that nonsense. It seems you are not trying to argue that the constitution and bill of rights were a product of Christianity when it wasn't. Another falsity you clearly have displayed here. At worse this is another mind masturbation attempt to inject GOD, and Religion into Government where it clearly states it does not belong. You really don't understand what a theocracy is do you?

You can have fun reading this here:

http://www.thinkingaloudforum.com/forum ... 14&t=16894 (http://www.thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=114&t=16894)

Here is a quick example/blurb under that link:

QuoteThomas Jefferson wrote:Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
(letter to the Virginia Baptists, 1808)

QuoteQuote:§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age.1 The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head;2 and even NewEngland, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, would furnish out a chapter, as full of the darkest bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals.3 Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity had been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the .most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.4

The amount of dishonest discourse coming from you Voter is amazing to say the least. And you really are avoiding the issue btw. You have zero valid reason to even make your argument worth anything. And you clearly think your religion ought to be that of Governmental function. That is so dangerous to where I wouldn't even want to imagine where that could go! Especially if you get extremists into a system of Theocracy. You would simply turn this country into another place like Afghanistan where people kill each other because they have a difference of opinion, or shown to be unfaithful to the religious ideology. Keep that crap as Thomas Jefferson has said, OUT OF GOVERNMENT!.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You're right of course, in the fact that we don't have any inalienable rights besides from those our government gives us.

Actually rights granted by governments are not inalienable.

QuoteWhen I'm talking about taking away rights, I mean rights we naturally have in nature, which is basically the right to do whatever the fuck we want.

Like vote my conscience on a proposed law?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You're right of course, in the fact that we don't have any inalienable rights besides from those our government gives us.

Actually rights granted by governments are not inalienable.

QuoteWhen I'm talking about taking away rights, I mean rights we naturally have in nature, which is basically the right to do whatever the fuck we want.

Like vote my conscience on a proposed law?

You mean vote in religious Bigotry? You do understand the major backers to Anti-Gay movement in the political Arena are the Christian fundamentalist groups correct? It's quite irrelevant if you try to side step the issue and pose it as some blurred line of "conscience" voting. You apparently think then that bigotry is a moral quality to which you seemingly think should be enforced by law. You may as well vote in a law that GAYS have to pay a breathing tax or die because you think they are such an abomination of your ideological construct. Funny how easy it is to dictate other peoples lives when it doesn't effect your own. Take away everyone's right marriage accept your own is the key argument you are making..

So I will ask you a simple question.

Do you think marriage is owned by Christianity? Or your so called conscience?

It also might help you to understand the following:


Natural and legal rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QuoteNatural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments. They are enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body.

Bigotry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QuoteA bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion.

You sir are essentially trying to legislate religious Bigotry into law.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So I will ask you a simple question.

Do you think marriage is owned by Christianity? Or your so called conscience?

No, I think God created the institution of marriage and so does "own" it.  However, my religious convictions SHOULD NOT DICTATE SECULAR CIVIL LAW.  Therefore, I support the gay community in gaining the CIVIL right to marriage and all that secular society gives as civil rights through marriage.

Quote from: "TheJackel"You sir are essentially trying to legislate religious Bigotry into law.

I would tend to agree.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No, I think God created the institution of marriage and so does "own" it.  However, my religious convictions SHOULD NOT DICTATE SECULAR CIVIL LAW.  Therefore, I support the gay community in gaining the CIVIL right to marriage and all that secular society gives as civil rights through marriage.

There are churches, Christian and otherwise, that support gay marriage. Does that mean that their members CAN'T vote in favor of gay marriage? That's the logical conclusion of your position.

If you say that those in favor of gay marriage on religious grounds can vote for gay marriage, but those opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds can't vote against it, you're now practicing bigotry yourself.

What if I'm opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, but was also opposed to it before I was a Christian...can I vote against it in that case?  

This argument - that one can't vote their opinion if their opinion is influenced by theior religion - is ridiculous, and is itself bigotry.

Quote from: "Voter"What if I'm opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, but was also opposed to it before I was a Christian...can I vote against it in that case?  

[edited to remove ad hominem]

Quote from: "Voter"There are churches, Christian and otherwise, that support gay marriage. Does that mean that their members CAN'T vote in favor of gay marriage? That's the logical conclusion of your position.

If you say that those in favor of gay marriage on religious grounds can vote for gay marriage, but those opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds can't vote against it, you're now practicing bigotry yourself.

What if I'm opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, but was also opposed to it before I was a Christian...can I vote against it in that case?  

This argument - that one can't vote their opinion if their opinion is influenced by theior religion - is ridiculous, and is itself bigotry.

By all means, vote your conscience.  I'm not saying you can't vote on your own conscience, what I'm saying is that the grounds on which the gay community is seeking equality is on a CIVIL matter and not on the grounds of a religious matter.  IN THAT regard, one must then separate what you think theologically and what you think as a citizen of a secular society.  Marriage and what the state affords the married couple has nothing to do whether it is theologically right or wrong.  It is void of the "God" side of the matter.  It has to do with tax credits, rights on medical matters, next of kin decisions ...(among other things) that to the gay couple is the decision for their mate to make and not a family that may or may not agree with their lifestyle or even know their wishes.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"What if I'm opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, but was also opposed to it before I was a Christian...can I vote against it in that case?  

In that case, I would think of you as just an all-around stupid bigot. Actually, I already think that of you, but I guess I would think it was more justified.

LS, this comment of yours is out of bounds and unwarranted. You have been here long enough to know that this would not fly.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"What if I'm opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, but was also opposed to it before I was a Christian...can I vote against it in that case?  

In that case, I would think of you as just an all-around stupid bigot. Actually, I already think that of you, but I guess I would think it was more justified.

LS, this comment of yours is out of bounds and unwarranted. You have been here long enough to know that this would not fly.

Sorry. I won't do it again.

If you could actually remove the post, that'd be best.

Voter, I also apologize to you, despite our disagreement.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No, I think God created the institution of marriage and so does "own" it.  However, my religious convictions SHOULD NOT DICTATE SECULAR CIVIL LAW.  Therefore, I support the gay community in gaining the CIVIL right to marriage and all that secular society gives as civil rights through marriage.

:hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  

Well put AnimatedDirt

Isn't it really up to god to judge on judgement day. Until then, lets just live harmoniously and accept other people for who they are. If you believe then their actions will be judged, so its really not your problem.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"By all means, vote your conscience.  I'm not saying you can't vote on your own conscience,

That's certainly what some of your strange bedfellows are proposing. So you're OK with me voting against a gay marriage act?

Quotewhat I'm saying is that the grounds on which the gay community is seeking equality is on a CIVIL matter and not on the grounds of a religious matter.  IN THAT regard, one must then separate what you think theologically and what you think as a citizen of a secular society.

No, there is absolutely no requirement that I set my religious beliefs aside.

QuoteMarriage and what the state affords the married couple has nothing to do whether it is theologically right or wrong.  It is void of the "God" side of the matter.

I disagree. Can I vote my mind or not?

Quote from: "Stevil"Well put AnimatedDirt

Isn't it really up to god to judge on judgement day. Until then, lets just live harmoniously and accept other people for who they are.

You're obviously not too keen on accepting conservative Christians for who they are. As always, tolerance really means "tolerance for those who I support."

Quote from: "Voter"I disagree. Can I vote my mind or not?

Yes, you can. If you want to be part of the problem, not the solution, you have a right to. We can't stop you.

How does that old saying go? "You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"By all means, vote your conscience.  I'm not saying you can't vote on your own conscience,

That's certainly what some of your strange bedfellows are proposing. So you're OK with me voting against a gay marriage act?

Quotewhat I'm saying is that the grounds on which the gay community is seeking equality is on a CIVIL matter and not on the grounds of a religious matter.  IN THAT regard, one must then separate what you think theologically and what you think as a citizen of a secular society.

No, there is absolutely no requirement that I set my religious beliefs aside.

QuoteMarriage and what the state affords the married couple has nothing to do whether it is theologically right or wrong.  It is void of the "God" side of the matter.

I disagree. Can I vote my mind or not?

I don't think anyone is saying that anyone should vote against their conscience.  The point is, rather, that the gay community is not seeking ANY religious "ok", but are seeking equality on secular matters.  I think, also, that it is rather ignorant of Christians to think that by stopping gay marriage, they somehow will stop the gay "problem".  All sin will continue and only get worse.  We Christians should understand this.  Saying 'yes' to gay marriage (in a CIVIL context) will not cause the floodgates of hell to open spewing out homosexuals in biblical proportions on society.  The gay community will not grow as a result of equality in marriage, it will simply gain a piece of paper and rights afforded by STATE marriage.  I gather no religious organization will condone gay marriage as a result of secular law.  As many people argue, and I agree with, allowing gay marriage will do no more harm to the sacred "institute of marriage" than the heterosexuals (including Christians! *gasp*) haven't done already in massive numbers and to mindblowing degree.

No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.  So far, the numbers rest seemingly comfortable on the side of no gay marriage.  While my religious ideal is against gay marriage, my secular ideal is in support of it.  Protesting, flag waving, I think gives it "The Streisand Effect" and thus makes a mountain out of a mole hill.

Whose to say I'm right on the matter.  The bible only speaks against homoSEXual acts...not specifically marriage or relationships.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.

These two sentences seem contradictory.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Stevil"Well put AnimatedDirt

Isn't it really up to god to judge on judgement day. Until then, lets just live harmoniously and accept other people for who they are.

You're obviously not too keen on accepting conservative Christians for who they are. As always, tolerance really means "tolerance for those who I support."

American Conservative Christianity supports bigotry against women, gays, and non-whites.  It serves as the basis for hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK and the Hutaree.  You have the right to exist but not the right to control the laws.  Allowing such hate groups to exist is tolerance.

There's no law against you practicing your religion, bigotry included in most cases.  How is not letting your sect control the laws intolerance?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.

These two sentences seem contradictory.

They aren't contradictory.

You can practice your religion and voice your opinions freely.  That is your right.  However, dictating that everyone follow the rules of your religion is not your right.

Can you see how that steps on other people's religious freedom, if they are forced to obey the tenets of your religion through laws?  Pretend for a second that the dominant religion in America were Islam.  Would you still be keen for the religious tenets of the majority religion made into laws?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.

These two sentences seem contradictory.

AnimatedDirt is saying, in a nutshell, don't force your beliefs down other peoples' throats. Does your version of Christianity require you doing that?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No, I think God created the institution of marriage and so does "own" it.  However, my religious convictions SHOULD NOT DICTATE SECULAR CIVIL LAW.  Therefore, I support the gay community in gaining the CIVIL right to marriage and all that secular society gives as civil rights through marriage.

:hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :) Even when I was a Christian I strongly believed in a secular government. It would actually scare me to see what Christian fundamentalists would do if it weren't.

In regards to marriage being an institution, It is not an institution what-so-ever. That is an argument commonly used to claim ownership, and to reject marriage as being valid or even relevant in other religions. The fact is, marriage is and always was a legal contract of consolidating property, and wealth. The Love things is a figure of symbolism to seemingly legitimize it as if people actually require marriage to have commitment or love for each other.

I suggest Voter actually read:

http://www.thinkingaloudforum.com/forum ... &start=110 (http://www.thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=13398&start=110)

Quote from: "TheJackel"Mytoch,

Your arguments are completely baseless! All of your arguments are merely circular arguments designed to turn this discussion into pure ignorance in order to hide an agenda that you are clearly trying hide. And this is evident in your assertion of marriages being a "Union" and an "institution". These are clearly religious points of view that assume the right to ownership of marriage! You keep playing irrelevant games of idiocy in dragging this discussion into FALSE statistics that I have found to be not only wrong, but also incorrectly gathered by the same process used in basic polling.. These are highly inaccurate and very subjective to bias because the 100 people they sampled is laughable.  In fact, I am clearly going to state that your entire argument is utter nonsensical! I suggest you look up what marriage was prior to the 19th century! These traditions still exist today kiddo. Marriage is traditionally a business contract that supplies financial and marital benefits between couples or even between families that set to gain from such contractual deals. In fact marriage was used in many cases to unite opposing powers under contract much like a peace treaty.

'Treaty of the Pyrenees
(November 7, 1659) Peace treaty between France and Spain. From the end of the Thirty Years' War (1648) until 1659, Spain and France fought almost continuously. When Philip IV of Spain did not receive the expected Habsburg support against France, he concluded a peace settlement that ceded border regions to France. The treaty also involved a marriage compact between Louis XIV and the Spanish infanta Maria Teresa, which established Louis as the most powerful monarch in Europe."

Treaty_of_Perpetual_Peace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Perpetual_Peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Perpetual_Peace)

And have fun reading this one: Biblical examples!
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:bp6 ... clnk&gl=us (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:bp6wcdAEcWMJ:www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1992_43_1_04_Hoffmeier_WivesTales_Gen12.DOC+marriages+consummated+through+treaty&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Native American marriage:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/t ... rriage.htm (http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/history/indianmarriage.htm)

All you are doing Mytoch, is trying to find desperate reasons to keep homosexuality away from being recognized by the government, and by the term marriage. This is simply because you feel that marriage is a "Union" and an "institution" to which is only a religious iteration of what marriage is.. You keep trying to say that you are keeping your religion out of it, but in fact you are not!, you are only trying to hide that fact through nonsensical and irrelevant arguments. And what is worse, you are trying to support your argument with utter BS statistics that are still irrelevant even if said statistics were to have been magically correct!

You are thus still trying to play a Theocritus role in governing who should be able to get married and who shouldn't be based on your own sense of religious morality. You have provided no valid reason why homosexual marriages shouldn't be allowed to marry under the same term of marriage.. Nor have you provided any relevant argument to support why such equal benefits can not be applied.. At best, all you did was provide excuses to cover up your intentions to protect your precious "union" / "Institution" of marriage!

Marriage was never an institution or a union son! It's only considered as such by the religious institution! Hence, you have proven yourself to be attempting to lay claim to the ownership of "marriage".. You are pretty sly, but not for this white guy! In fact I found your argument to be the very exact common argument used by the religious lobbyists to ban gay marriage.. Thus, it makes you question the credibility of anything you have stated thus far!  Many of them view this as a "Culture" war.

here is your basic and obvious religious argument in a nut shell: And are also the same typical arguments made against such other marriage legalization's in the 19th century when concerning Jewish marriage, women's equal rights, and numerous other examples that became legalized.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0063.html (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0063.html)

Other examples:
 http://www.jimfeeney.org/againstgaymarriage.html (http://www.jimfeeney.org/againstgaymarriage.html)

Here is something interesting. statistics on homosexual marriage support by age groups, and by state! Notice the religious bible belt being the lowest! :shake:

However, it's good to see some Christians realize that a Secular system is the best system possible for equality. Because once you go Theocritus, people start dying, getting persecuted, or Socially outcast to being second hand citizens.. As shown in every case of Theocracy in human history.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"However, my religious convictions SHOULD NOT DICTATE SECULAR CIVIL LAW.  Therefore, I support the gay community in gaining the CIVIL right to marriage and all that secular society gives as civil rights through marriage.

Hey there AnimatedDirt I admire your ability to do that.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"However, my religious convictions SHOULD NOT DICTATE SECULAR CIVIL LAW.  Therefore, I support the gay community in gaining the CIVIL right to marriage and all that secular society gives as civil rights through marriage.

Hey there AnimatedDirt I admire your ability to do that.

I completely agree.. And I hope he's not just saying that. We must at all times keep government secular in order to treat everyone equally without persecution. Government must remain neutral in such matters. Otherwise we will likely self-collapse into something like Afghanistan, or worse.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.

These two sentences seem contradictory.

AnimatedDirt is saying, in a nutshell, don't force your beliefs down other peoples' throats.

In the second sentence he is. In the first sentence he's saying the opposite. I'm trying to clarify what he actually means.

QuoteDoes your version of Christianity require you doing that?

My version of American government allows me to vote as I please. Does yours?

Quote from: "Kylyssa"American Conservative Christianity supports bigotry against women, gays, and non-whites.  It serves as the basis for hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK and the Hutaree.  You have the right to exist but not the right to control the laws.  Allowing such hate groups to exist is tolerance.

There's no law against you practicing your religion, bigotry included in most cases.  How is not letting your sect control the laws intolerance?

Actually I'm making the exact same argument.

You have the right to exist, but not the right to control the laws.

The legal process (both legislative and judicial) will progress. On the legislative side, I'll vote as I see fit. So will you.

Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?
Yes, that Jesus dude.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?
Yes, that Jesus dude.

Actually you're damn right. JC is vicariously responsible for all evil done in the name of Christianity as  being God he could undoubtedly put right what some of his followers have done wrong. But patently chose not to.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.

These two sentences seem contradictory.
In the second sentence he is. In the first sentence he's saying the opposite. I'm trying to clarify what he actually means.

Vote your conscience and trust God to lead your leaders.  If same sex marriage is allowed, what difference is it to you?  The problem is that most Christians fear man is more powerful than God.  If God is God, then let Him guide and steer.  Christians don't believe God can do His will and so assume it is their job to DO IT ALL.  What faith, eh?

Live your life and vote according to your conscience.  If it be following Christ, then do so.  There is no law (yet) preventing you from living by your chosen/adopted morals.  If secular society allows all marriage, this then does not force on you anything against your morals.  Let every man live according to their own beliefs, within the law of the land, peaceably and equally.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.

These two sentences seem contradictory.
In the second sentence he is. In the first sentence he's saying the opposite. I'm trying to clarify what he actually means.

Vote your conscience and trust God to lead your leaders.  If same sex marriage is allowed, what difference is it to you?  The problem is that most Christians fear man is more powerful than God.  If God is God, then let Him guide and steer.  Christians don't believe God can do His will and so assume it is their job to DO IT ALL.  What faith, eh?

Live your life and vote according to your conscience.  If it be following Christ, then do so.  There is no law (yet) preventing you from living by your chosen/adopted morals.  If secular society allows all marriage, this then does not force on you anything against your morals.  Let every man live according to their own beliefs, within the law of the land, peaceably and equally.

This sounds extremely reasonable, but I doubt Voter will listen. Somehow, allowing rights to gay people will take away his rights. I'm not sure how.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This sounds extremely reasonable, but I doubt Voter will listen. Somehow, allowing rights to gay people will take away his rights. I'm not sure how.

Because your trying to take away Voter's right to limit other people's rights.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This sounds extremely reasonable, but I doubt Voter will listen. Somehow, allowing rights to gay people will take away his rights. I'm not sure how.

Because your trying to take away Voter's right to limit other people's rights.

In that process, we're gaining more rights than we're losing.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Vote your conscience and trust God to lead your leaders.

OK. That's all I want to do. Some people here equate that with bigotry or even installing a theocracy.

QuoteIf same sex marriage is allowed, what difference is it to you?

Not much. That's why I've previously said that I would live peacably with that outcome. So, I don't see why you're asking the question.

QuoteThe problem is that most Christians fear man is more powerful than God.  If God is God, then let Him guide and steer.  Christians don't believe God can do His will and so assume it is their job to DO IT ALL.  What faith, eh?

What if God's guiding and steering them to their actions? He frequently works through people. IMO it's a tough Biblical sell to say we shouldn't act in accord with God's morality because that would indicate a lack of faith.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This sounds extremely reasonable, but I doubt Voter will listen.

Why? It's largely in accord with my own views.

QuoteSomehow, allowing rights to gay people will take away his rights. I'm not sure how.

No, saying I can't vote my position if my position has been influenced by religion takes away my rights.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This sounds extremely reasonable, but I doubt Voter will listen.

Why? It's largely in accord with my own views.

QuoteSomehow, allowing rights to gay people will take away his rights. I'm not sure how.

No, saying I can't vote my position if my position has been influenced by religion takes away my rights.

Two words fit your position Voter:

Theocracy
Bigotry

And just so you know, nobody should have the right to install a Theocracy, or vote one in. This includes Atheists ect. A secular government is the best Government option there is, and you want to simply say it's "Your Right" to install a Theocracy according to your religious ideological constructs and conscience.. Well according the constitution kiddo, you need to learn the meaning of Separation of Church and State! This isn't taking away your Rights sir, nobody has that right to install such Bigotry and Theocritus agendas according to their religious, or moral religious points of view.

Very simple, and those two words are exactly what you are voting for no matter how much you want to rationalize it away. I really hope you are not that brainwashed or deluded. BTW this is also equivocating as passing persecution and judgment to which under your religion is a mortal sin. From your arguments, I can seriously tell that you are in favor of removing the secular and neutral Government so it caters specifically to your very skewed and messed up version of morality and religion. Either that, or you are logically and rationally clueless as to what you are actually doings and are only cheer-leading for religious political movements that are apparently beyond your understanding and scope.

You can go to

http://www.theocracywatch.org (http://www.theocracywatch.org)  or google the Theocritus movements here in the United States.
http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/cr_intro.html (http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/cr_intro.html)
http://www.brucegourley.com/christianna ... ocracy.htm (http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm)

Theocratic Organizations

QuoteAlliance for Marriage
American Center for Law and Justice
American Family Association
American Vision - founded by Gary Demar, leading theocratic ideologue
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Chalcedon Foundation - led by R. J. Rushdoony
Christian Action Network
Christian Business Men's Committee
Christian Coalition of America
Christian Exodus
ChristianAmerica.Com
Citizens for Excellence in Education - arm of National Association of Christian Educators
CitizenLink.Com - an arm of Focus on the Family
Coalition on Revival - Applying Biblical Principles to Every Sphere of Life and Thought
Concerned Women for America
Constitutional Law for Enlightened Citizens
Coral Ridge Ministries - led by D. James Kennedy
Council for National Policy - secret government council policy formed by Tim LaHaye
Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Creation Resource Foundation
Eagle Forum
Family Policy Network
Family Research Council
Free Congress Foundation
Home School Foundation - funded by the HSLDF
Home School Legal Defense Foundation (HSLDF)
Institute for Christian Economics - led by Gary North
National Association of Christian Educators (NACE)
Joshua Generation - aimed at 11 to 19 year olds; affiliated with Patrick Henry College
National Center for Home Education - affiliated with HSLDF
National Clergy Council
National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI)- funded by HSLDF
Operation Rescue
Restore America
Rutherford Institute
Traditional Values Coalition
Vision America - founded by Rick Scarborough, Baptist
Vision Forum Ministries
Wall Builders - led by David Barton
Worldview Weekend

And I am almost curious as to which one of these you are aligning yourself up with.

Quote from: "Voter"What if God's guiding and steering them to their actions? He frequently works through people. IMO it's a tough Biblical sell to say we shouldn't act in accord with God's morality because that would indicate a lack of faith.

Not what I said.  I said Christians have the faith that makes them think it is they who need to do the work God is "out to lunch" on.  That is their faith at work.

Quote from: "TheJackel"I can seriously tell that you are in favor of removing the secular and neutral Government so it caters specifically to your very skewed and messed up version of morality and religion.

I would tend to agree, not specifically at Voter, but at the majority of protesting Christians.
(not that it is skewed and messed up...that's your personal perspective, Jackel)  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Voter"What if God's guiding and steering them to their actions? He frequently works through people. IMO it's a tough Biblical sell to say we shouldn't act in accord with God's morality because that would indicate a lack of faith.

Not what I said.  I said Christians have the faith that makes them think it is they who need to do the work God is "out to lunch" on.  That is their faith at work.

Hence, they think they can play GOD.. And I don't think he realizes how dangerous that concept is. It's even worse when their religion forbids them from doing so, and that should tell you a lot about how the ideological construct works. It's simply about power and control along with the worship of it. That is exactly what religion is as  a base structure.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"I can seriously tell that you are in favor of removing the secular and neutral Government so it caters specifically to your very skewed and messed up version of morality and religion.

I would tend to agree, not specifically at Voter, but at the majority of protesting Christians.
(not that it is skewed and messed up...that's your personal perspective, Jackel)  

It is when it gets installed into a Theocracy. Things like that is how people start killing each other, or how persecution begins.

Quote from: "Voter"No, saying I can't vote my position if my position has been influenced by religion takes away my rights.

Do what you want.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Not what I said.  I said Christians have the faith that makes them think it is they who need to do the work God is "out to lunch" on.  That is their faith at work.

I've never met a Christian who thinks God is "out to lunch" concerning human events. Can you support that this is common, or is this just your rationalization for your own view?

Voter, I don't think anyone is saying that you should not have the right to vote however you want.

People are simply disgussing your stance and the consequences it has on other people's lives and on society as a whole. It is good that you have taken the time to read our posts and debate this topic with us, I understand a topic of "Voter's stance" is personal to you and you may very well feel attacked so you have been patient in tolerating this discussion. Ultimately you have and will continue to have the democratic right to vote as you see fit, noone is doubting your right to vote.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Not what I said.  I said Christians have the faith that makes them think it is they who need to do the work God is "out to lunch" on.  That is their faith at work.

I've never met a Christian who thinks God is "out to lunch" concerning human events. Can you support that this is common, or is this just your rationalization for your own view?

*Sigh*

He's saying that their actions speak of a position that "God has gone out to lunch", not that they're actually saying that.

Quote from: "TheJackel"The only thing I corrected you on was that marriage is not an institution

Just for giggles...

Wikipedia - Marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) and; Wikipedia - Institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution)

:p

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"The only thing I corrected you on was that marriage is not an institution :P

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Not what I said.  I said Christians have the faith that makes them think it is they who need to do the work God is "out to lunch" on.  That is their faith at work.

I've never met a Christian who thinks God is "out to lunch" concerning human events. Can you support that this is common, or is this just your rationalization for your own view?

*Sigh*

He's saying that their actions speak of a position that "God has gone out to lunch", not that they're actually saying that.

*Double Sigh*

And I pointed out that one can equally interpret that they believe god is steering and guiding them. So, absent knowledge that they're actually saying or thinking the one, it's idle speculation, and Biblically I actually have a stronger case.

Quote from: "Stevil"Voter, I don't think anyone is saying that you should not have the right to vote however you want.

Yes, some are, and others are demonizing me for doing so, if not actually saying I should lose the right.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Not what I said.  I said Christians have the faith that makes them think it is they who need to do the work God is "out to lunch" on.  That is their faith at work.

I've never met a Christian who thinks God is "out to lunch" concerning human events. Can you support that this is common, or is this just your rationalization for your own view?

Basically the thinking that it is our Christian duty to legislate God's morals/laws on secular society.  It is not our duty to do so.

The bottom line is that God's laws/morals are not substanciated by man's stamp.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Stevil"Voter, I don't think anyone is saying that you should not have the right to vote however you want.

Yes, some are, and others are demonizing me for doing so, if not actually saying I should lose the right.

Incorrect. Nobody demonizes you for your right to vote. You are essentially trying to blur the lines of church and state to which is specifically against the Constitution. Hence, we are telling you (which you think is demonizing) that it's against the constitution, it's Theocritus, oppressive, it's the persecution of other peoples rights to get married, or a form of bigotry (by definition) to which are against that very document that protects us all! You are trying to equivocate secular Government as being oppressive to your religious agenda of installing Theocritus/bigot legislation. Do you even understand that? Do you even know what's written in the constitution? Government isn't there as a tool to use to govern everyone else's personal lives according to your moral religious ideology son. Government is there to provide basic functional services, and protections to all of it's citizens. Your problem is that you apparently think government is there to govern every aspect of your religious and moral constructs. It has to be Secular Voter! It has to be completely separate from Religion, and moral persecutions such as banning Gay marriage.

Gay marriage does absolutely nothing in terms of walk over your rights, moral beliefs, or anything for that matter. What they do is none of your concern or business, so stop acting like you think you should have power over such matters.

And the other delusion is that Christians think they have to "Do GODS work"..Funny how they don't grasp the brainwash in that, especially considering they believe in an all knowing and all powerful entity. A very big clue to the non-existence of something when you have beings professing and trying to enforce the Will of some invisible Icon of worship. It's the most clever use of brainwashing and control ever thought of. Sounds more like they think their lives are of servitude vs living their own lives, and to worship something. So when does the Horses mouth speak for itself and profess it's own will? Sorry, but I don't trust mankind to be exacting the will of an invisible sky fairy Especially in government!

Quote from: "TheJackel"Under those vague positions of sociology yes

heh...

Quote from: "TheJackel"The problem I have with this is that many Christians like to think the institution is not a secular institution and that they own it. Hence, voter doesn't realize that is what he's attempting to destroy and replace with his Theocritus version of it.

I think you're right.  Christians do not own marriage.  If God is, then He does.  However, the civil perks that come with the term "marriage" are owned by man/society.  That is what the gay community, I believe, is looking for and what I'm 100% in favor of giving equally.

Quote from: "TheJackel"And I would disagree with Wiki, contracts don't necessarily translate to being institutions in my view. I view them as separate concepts entirely. But that is just my opinion

It just seems to go against the norm.  I can, however, accept your opinion.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"The only thing I corrected you on was that marriage is not an institution

Just for giggles...

Wikipedia - Marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) and; Wikipedia - Institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution)

:p

When I got married there were two aspects to it, one socially and one legally.
We had gathered our closest friends and family and spoke our personalised vows as intent of commitment towards each other.
We signed a legal document in front of friends and family which made our new family official under the laws of the country.

So it was a legal arrangement but it was also a cultural ritual to mark an important new stage of our lives.

Note: There were no faith leaders and no mention of any gods. Christianity or any other faith were void from our wedding although I am sure some of the guests were religious and may or may not have made prayers in their minds with regards to our marriage.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Basically the thinking that it is our Christian duty to legislate God's morals/laws on secular society.  It is not our duty to do so.

That in no way supports your view, as they could see that duty as a fulfilment of God's will, rather than a substitute due to God's apathy.

Quote from: "TheJackel"It is when it gets installed into a Theocracy. Things like that is how people start killing each other, or how persecution begins.

I agree 100%!

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Basically the thinking that it is our Christian duty to legislate God's morals/laws on secular society.  It is not our duty to do so.

That in no way supports your view, as they could see that duty as a fulfilment of God's will, rather than a substitute due to God's apathy.

Oh, I think it does.  Go back and do some reading in the OT about "God's" laws and how Israel added to and made hundreds of do's and don'ts bullet points to His law.  To add to God's law is to assume God missed something.  Check Mark 7 and read how they did this.  Therefore to legislate "God's law" onto secular society to avoid giving individuals CIVIL perks is to misrepresent God's intentions in His law(s).  One can presume God is against gay marriage, but to then make a law against it when no law of God exists specific to CIVIL perks in SECULAR society?  God loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  There is no difference.  Both are sinners, one no more or less than the other.  Both need grace equally and both can receive that grace in their sinful state gay or straight, married or single...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Basically the thinking that it is our Christian duty to legislate God's morals/laws on secular society.  It is not our duty to do so.

That in no way supports your view, as they could see that duty as a fulfilment of God's will, rather than a substitute due to God's apathy.

Oh, I think it does.  Go back and do some reading in the OT about "God's" laws and how Israel added to and made hundreds of do's and don'ts bullet points to His law.  To add to God's law is to assume God missed something.  Check Mark 7 and read how they did this.  Therefore to legislate "God's law" onto secular society to avoid giving individuals CIVIL perks is to misrepresent God's intentions in His law(s).  One can presume God is against gay marriage, but to then make a law against it when no law of God exists specific to CIVIL perks in SECULAR society?  God loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  There is no difference.  Both are sinners, one no more or less than the other.  Both need grace equally and both can receive that grace in their sinful state gay or straight, married or single...

I thought that there was a bit in Romans somewhere that says that homosexuality is a punishment created by God and thus all homosexuals are God's creation? Which rather contradicts the underlined.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Oh, I think it does.  Go back and do some reading in the OT about "God's" laws and how Israel added to and made hundreds of do's and don'ts bullet points to His law.  To add to God's law is to assume God missed something.

Or simply to recognize that God did not provide every detail in the written law and left some interpretation and implementation up to us. Note that Moses was judging cases, then he appointed additional judges. God didn't "miss" things, he left them to our discretion.

QuoteCheck Mark 7 and read how they did this.

In Mark 7, Jesus chastises them for placing man-made rules above God's law - the very thing you suggest we do.

QuoteTherefore to legislate "God's law" onto secular society to avoid giving individuals CIVIL perks is to misrepresent God's intentions in His law(s).  One can presume God is against gay marriage, but to then make a law against it when no law of God exists specific to CIVIL perks in SECULAR society?

Earlier you said I could vote my conscience, but you're now again arguing against that position.
Personally, if I'm given a choice between something that is consistent with God's will and something that isn't, it's a no-brainer - I'm going wiht God's will. I find your argument that going against God's will actually demonstrates greater faith to be ludicrous.

QuoteGod loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  There is no difference.  Both are sinners, one no more or less than the other.  Both need grace equally and both can receive that grace in their sinful state gay or straight, married or single...

Sure, but that has nothing to do with societal rules. You can insert any sin in their and say God loves those that commit it, but we still regulate many of them.

Quote from: "Voter"In Mark 7, Jesus chastises them for placing man-made rules above God's law - the very thing you suggest we do.

Can't resist throwing this recent quote by Jeffy Joe into the mix:

The spirituality of science: “Look at that King Bird-of-paradise. Breathtaking!”

The spirituality of religion: “Look at that King Bird-of-paradise. Breathtaking! I know the One who painted it. I know how He thinks. He doesn’t think we should let gays get married”

I think that the posts of Voter and AnimatedDirt have answered my OP very well. It would appear that any one Christian can not be held responsible for Christianity as just two can't agree with each other  

Quote from: "Tank"I think that the posts of Voter and AnimatedDirt have answered my OP very well. It would appear that any one Christian can not be held responsible for Christianity as just two can't agree with each other  

However I feel that Voter's stance that he should not only obey the bible "word of God" but should also enforce this onto non Christians shows that there is a contingent of Christians that could be lumped into teh "responsible for Christianity" basket. Although as I have previously stated in this thread I have concerns with regards to the ability of each of these people to have free mind and will as they have been compromised by the teachings of Christianity.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Tank"I think that the posts of Voter and AnimatedDirt have answered my OP very well. It would appear that any one Christian can not be held responsible for Christianity as just two can't agree with each other  

However I feel that Voter's stance that he should not only obey the bible "word of God" but should also enforce this onto non Christians shows that there is a contingent of Christians that could be lumped into teh "responsible for Christianity" basket. Although as I have previously stated in this thread I have concerns with regards to the ability of each of these people to have free mind and will as they have been compromised by the teachings of Christianity.

I understand your point. Now how can I hold AnimatedDirt to account for Voter's (presumed) stance when both Voter and AnimatedDirt have independently come to their respective Christian world view and self declaration? I don't think I could. The label Christian is so nebulous and varied it is effectively meaningless in terms of defining group action and therefore responsibility.

IMO all one can do is hold an individual accountable for their thoughts and actions. Why they think and behave the way they do is a separate issue. One could argue that the bibles attitude to homosexuality is wrong as it ignores the right of the individual to determine there own actions and that those actions, when consensual between adults, do no harm to those involved. Thus the bible attempts to codify acceptable human behaviour when apparently god gave us free will and will judge us his own way when he gets around to it.

Each and every one of us are responsible for how we act on the thoughts and imaginings that run through our minds. IMO the world would be a much better place if people recognised the need to behave within two guidelines, 'Do no harm.' and 'Do unto others as you would have done unto you.' See, no god required. Personal responsibility, a respect for personal freedom, tempered by recognition of the common good is what's needed.

Now humans being humans there would be infinite debate about what 'Do no harm.' means. Consider abortion as an example. One camp would consider the mother's well being in the balance of mother vs child, while the other camp would only consider the child. But I doubt that there would be significant debate that stealing, violence to others, rape, murder and war would were bad. If the world ran under those two precepts there could never be a war and all the wasted trillions of dollars could be spent on feeding and homing the poor etc. etc.

Dogmatic collective world views (Communism, Nazism, Catholicism, Islam etc.) are dangerous because they dilute, erode and displace responsibility from the individual to the group. They exploit the tribal mentality of humans and as such place power in the hands of people who crave power. This worked while the world appeared to have infinite space and resources but it does not work now as we face a population growth that will lead to the death of billions and the destruction of the Earth's entire ecosystem.

So I still don't think I can hold AnimatedDirt responsible for Voter's behaviour just because they both define themselves as Christians. But can I hold both of them responsible for supporting a world view that in the main supports unrestrained population growth?

I think only one christian was responsible for christianity, and I'm pretty sure he was a jew. And didn't he already pay the price for it by getting nailed to a cross?

I don't think the punishment was harsh enough to fit the crime.  

Quote from: "Tank"I understand your point. Now how can I hold AnimatedDirt to account for Voter's (presumed) stance when both Voter and AnimatedDirt have independently come to their respective Christian world view and self declaration? I don't think I could. The label Christian is so nebulous and varied it is effectively meaningless in terms of defining group action and therefore responsibility.

The label religious is even more nebulous. Yet, consider Whitney's recent thread on the mother who killed her son in a botched exorcism. It's posted on the Religion rather than the Current Events board, and no additional comment is given. The reasonable inference is that she thinks all religion bears responsibility for the actions of this one person.

.

[quitting coffee, please forgive the errors]

Quote from: "Voter"[quitting coffee, please forgive the errors]

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg163.imageshack.us%2Fimg163%2F7355%2Fconsoling2.gif&hash=3a8ffba6dd009744a227ffe4896f21813251a0c2) good luck!

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Tank"I understand your point. Now how can I hold AnimatedDirt to account for Voter's (presumed) stance when both Voter and AnimatedDirt have independently come to their respective Christian world view and self declaration? I don't think I could. The label Christian is so nebulous and varied it is effectively meaningless in terms of defining group action and therefore responsibility.

The label religious is even more nebulous. Yet, consider Whitney's recent thread on the mother who killed her son in a botched exorcism. It's posted on the Religion rather than the Current Events board, and no additional comment is given. The reasonable inference is that she thinks all religion bears responsibility for the actions of this one person.

I think that's going a bit too far right there. It was put in the religion forum most likely because exorcisms are religious and the person was religious, not because all religions (including Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians... etc.), are responsible for it. So I don't think that is a reasonable inference, I think that is a very irrational inference.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  There is no difference.  Both are sinners, one no more or less than the other.  Both need grace equally and both can receive that grace in their sinful state gay or straight, married or single...

I thought that there was a bit in Romans somewhere that says that homosexuality is a punishment created by God and thus all homosexuals are God's creation? Which rather contradicts the underlined.  

Maybe you could find the Romans text or maybe it's not in Romans.  I'd like to know what you're referring to here.

Quote

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  There is no difference.  Both are sinners, one no more or less than the other.  Both need grace equally and both can receive that grace in their sinful state gay or straight, married or single...

I thought that there was a bit in Romans somewhere that says that homosexuality is a punishment created by God and thus all homosexuals are God's creation? Which rather contradicts the underlined.  

Maybe you could find the Romans text or maybe it's not in Romans.  I'd like to know what you're referring to here.

Probably Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

I would disagree that "gave them up to" indicates that God created homosexuality, but other than that he's correct on the point.

However, he's incorrect to claim the contradiction, because the passage goes on to a big list of other things which God gave them up to, also in punishment, including sexual immorality in general, therefore including heterosexual sins.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Homosexuality seems to be listed first and in greater detail because it is apparently unnatural.

Hope that helps.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  There is no difference.  Both are sinners, one no more or less than the other.  Both need grace equally and both can receive that grace in their sinful state gay or straight, married or single...

I thought that there was a bit in Romans somewhere that says that homosexuality is a punishment created by God and thus all homosexuals are God's creation? Which rather contradicts the underlined.  :upset:

Quote from: "Tank"Bugger! Now I'll have to do some work!  :)

Quote

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  There is no difference.  Both are sinners, one no more or less than the other.  Both need grace equally and both can receive that grace in their sinful state gay or straight, married or single...

I thought that there was a bit in Romans somewhere that says that homosexuality is a punishment created by God and thus all homosexuals are God's creation? Which rather contradicts the underlined.  

Quote from: "Voter"Maybe you could find the Romans text or maybe it's not in Romans.  I'd like to know what you're referring to here.

Probably Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

I would disagree that "gave them up to" indicates that God created homosexuality, but other than that he's correct on the point.

However, he's incorrect to claim the contradiction, because the passage goes on to a big list of other things which God gave them up to, also in punishment, including sexual immorality in general, therefore including heterosexual sins.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Homosexuality seems to be listed first and in greater detail because it is apparently unnatural.

Hope that helps.

I think that's the bit that I was referring to. I recall it from a debate at RDF where a person was using the argument that homosexuality was a punishment and therefore God was responsible for homosexuality. I raise this only as it appears to contradict ADs comment about God loving people irrespective of their sexual preferences. I'm no biblical scholar so you'll have to debate this while I watch from the sidelines. Thanks Voter.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Tank"Bugger! Now I'll have to do some work!  :)

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Tank"I understand your point. Now how can I hold AnimatedDirt to account for Voter's (presumed) stance when both Voter and AnimatedDirt have independently come to their respective Christian world view and self declaration? I don't think I could. The label Christian is so nebulous and varied it is effectively meaningless in terms of defining group action and therefore responsibility.

The label religious is even more nebulous. Yet, consider Whitney's recent thread on the mother who killed her son in a botched exorcism. It's posted on the Religion rather than the Current Events board, and no additional comment is given. The reasonable inference is that she thinks all religion bears responsibility for the actions of this one person.

Yes, that's such a reasonable thing to infer from her post. How dare she imply that all religious people will, have, or are killing their children in botched exorcisms, and then carrying around their dead remains in a tote bag for a year! The nerve!

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yes, that's such a reasonable thing to infer from her post. How dare she imply that all religious people will, have, or are killing their children in botched exorcisms, and then carrying around their dead remains in a tote bag for a year! The nerve!

That's a straw man. I said the implication is that religious people are responsible, not that they will emulate.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yes, that's such a reasonable thing to infer from her post. How dare she imply that all religious people will, have, or are killing their children in botched exorcisms, and then carrying around their dead remains in a tote bag for a year! The nerve!

That's a straw man. I said the implication is that religious people are responsible, not that they will emulate.

"Yes, that's such a reasonable thing to infer from her post. How dare she imply that all religious people are responsible for the people that will, have, or are killing their children in botched exorcisms, and then carrying around their dead remains in a tote bag for a year! The nerve!"

Is that better?

Quote from: "Tank"I think that's the bit that I was referring to. I recall it from a debate at RDF where a person was using the argument that homosexuality was a punishment and therefore God was responsible for homosexuality. I raise this only as it appears to contradict ADs comment about God loving people irrespective of their sexual preferences. I'm no biblical scholar so you'll have to debate this while I watch from the sidelines. Thanks Voter.

Quote from: "Romans 1:24  NIV"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

Homosexuality is not a punishment, but it is a natural occurrence when the sinful heart is allowed to rule the whole body.  When it reads, "God gave them over..." it doesn't mean God MADE them, but allowed their hearts (freewill) to run their lives which then lead to sexual immoral acts AND...

Quote from: "Romans 1:28-32  NIV"Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

It's all inclusive at what God "gave them over" to.  It's a statement of God, while dictating what is right and wrong (assuming He is God and not just a god) and His willingness to let each choose their destiny.

As Romans progresses and states the above in different ways to better understand, it says further down...

Quote from: "Romans 3:9-11  NIV"What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.  As it is written:

  "There is no one righteous, not even one;
  there is no one who understands,
  no one who seeks God."

"We" being Jews specifically knowing God, but Christians, or those who follow Christ (since the Pharisees, the top Jews, didn't agree or believe Christ).  This proves, then, that we are all the same.  All are in the same boat.  The homosexual is no worse a sinner than the heterosexual.  ALL are unrighteous.  How then does this Gospel thing work then?  To say, would be preaching.  The point here is to answer Tank's question if homosexuality/all sexual immorality is a punishment.  It isn't.  It's what Man does naturally when left to his own ways and desires.  So it is not contradictory to state that God loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  Both are sinners.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The point here is to answer Tank's question if homosexuality/all sexual immorality is a punishment.  It isn't.

I have to disagree. That seems like the best interpretation of " receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Sounds like punishment to me.

QuoteIt's what Man does naturally when left to his own ways and desires.  So it is not contradictory to state that God loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  Both are sinners.

That I agree with.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The point here is to answer Tank's question if homosexuality/all sexual immorality is a punishment.  It isn't.

I have to disagree. That seems like the best interpretation of " receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Sounds like punishment to me.

Yes, but that is not specific to homosexuality because there are many sins listed that "God gave them over" to.  It is the result of sin (death) that is the punishment.  One might even argue that those words have an erie allusion to the AIDS virus, but that's speculation at best if you narrow their subject as homosexual acts only.  Even if, this is a consequence of sin and not the punishment.

News Flash: Only gay people get AIDS!

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
[youtube:347txjhq]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypZT4lQHoK8[/youtube:347txjhq]

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Yes, but that is not specific to homosexuality because there are many sins listed that "God gave them over" to.

Which makes them all punishments.

QuoteIt is the result of sin (death) that is the punishment.

While death is a punishment, sin is itself a punishment according to the Bible. Perhaps further explanation would be helpful. Romans 1 seems to tie in to Geneses 6. In Gen 6:3 God says his spirit will not strive with man forever, and sets the time for the flood as 120 years hence. Put this all together and the model is:

- Man tends to sin
- Sin is not the ideal state for man to live in
- So, God's spirit strove with man, i.e. graciously helped men to avoid some sin
- Men were ungrateful and deserved punishment
- God withdrew the restraint of the spirit to some extent
- Men therefore sinned more greatly
- This was punishment, as they were living further from the ideal state

QuoteOne might even argue that those words have an erie allusion to the AIDS virus, but that's speculation at best if you narrow their subject as homosexual acts only.  Even if, this is a consequence of sin and not the punishment.

I don't understand how you can think that living a more godly life isn't more fulfilling than living a sinful life.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Yes, but that is not specific to homosexuality because there are many sins listed that "God gave them over" to.

Which makes them all punishments.

QuoteIt is the result of sin (death) that is the punishment.

While death is a punishment, sin is itself a punishment according to the Bible. Perhaps further explanation would be helpful. Romans 1 seems to tie in to Geneses 6. In Gen 6:3 God says his spirit will not strive with man forever, and sets the time for the flood as 120 years hence. Put this all together and the model is:

- Man tends to sin
- Sin is not the ideal state for man to live in
- So, God's spirit strove with man, i.e. graciously helped men to avoid some sin
- Men were ungrateful and deserved punishment
- God withdrew the restraint of the spirit to some extent
- Men therefore sinned more greatly
- This was punishment, as they were living further from the ideal state

I don't quite understand how sin, which is transgression of God's law (Rom. 3:20), is a punishment?  One cannot commit punishment to then be punished in hell for committing punishment.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  Maybe you can further elaborate.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"One might even argue that those words have an erie allusion to the AIDS virus, but that's speculation at best if you narrow their subject as homosexual acts only.  Even if, this is a consequence of sin and not the punishment.

I don't understand how you can think that living a more godly life isn't more fulfilling than living a sinful life.

I'm confused.  How did you come to this conclusion?  I never made such a claim.

Quote from: "elliebean"News Flash: Only gay people get AIDS!

Even more confusion.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I don't quite understand how sin, which is transgression of God's law (Rom. 3:20), is a punishment?

Is a person living in more sin better off or worse off than a person living in less sin? I would say worse off, and so sin is both an offense and a punishment. Surely you've heard it said that "[particular sin] is its own punishment" before. It's not an unusual expression.

QuoteOne cannot commit punishment to then be punished in hell for committing punishment.

Sure they can, if the intrinsic punishment is not complete punishment.

Quote from: "Voter"I'm confused.  How did you come to this conclusion?  I never made such a claim.

If god allows people to move from a state of less sin to a state of greater sin, and you don't think that is punishment, then the logical conclusion is that a more sinful life is as fulfilling as a less sinful life.

Quote from: "elliebean"News Flash: Only gay people get AIDS!

Even more confusion.[/quote]
Yeah that was weird.

Quote from: "Voter"Is a person living in more sin better off or worse off than a person living in less sin? I would say worse off, and so sin is both an offense and a punishment. Surely you've heard it said that "[particular sin] is its own punishment" before. It's not an unusual expression.

If you put sins into a system of heirarchy, then yes, to a degree.  However, to steal a penny is no worse than stealing $1 Million.  It is still stealing and, according to the biblical teachings, each comes with the same ending punishment.  Death.  Stealing itself, as an action, is not punishment.  All that comes along with stealing (or sin) is a consequence of the action.  The action itself is not punishment.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteOne cannot commit punishment to then be punished in hell for committing punishment.

Sure they can, if the intrinsic punishment is not complete punishment.

The nature of sin is not punishment.  The nature of sin is pride.  One does not set out to sin out of the longing for punishment.  It is for self-gratification.    

Quote from: "Voter"If god allows people to move from a state of less sin to a state of greater sin, and you don't think that is punishment, then the logical conclusion is that a more sinful life is as fulfilling as a less sinful life.

In this, you are making God out as pulling our strings, if you will.  In other words, He causes us to sin as punishment.  I disagree 100%!  When the scripture states, "God gave them over to..." it simply means "God allowed them to...".  When it states that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart", it doesn't mean God didn't allow Pharaoh to chose "right", it means the selfishness of Pharaoh's heart, in opposition to God, hardened his heart...therefore God hardened Pharaoh's heart.  Pharaoh chose freely.  It was his hate or disbelief for God that caused his choice.

Quote from: "Voter"Is a person living in more sin better off or worse off than a person living in less sin? I would say worse off, and so sin is both an offense and a punishment. Surely you've heard it said that "[particular sin] is its own punishment" before. It's not an unusual expression.

The punishment I get for "sinning" is the best punishment I've ever got, then.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"Is a person living in more sin better off or worse off than a person living in less sin? I would say worse off, and so sin is both an offense and a punishment. Surely you've heard it said that "[particular sin] is its own punishment" before. It's not an unusual expression.

The punishment I get for "sinning" is the best punishment I've ever got, then.

I can see how one might reach that conclusion.
[spoiler:1g451pp4](https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-image.tradeindia.com%2F00309317%2Fb%2F0%2FNine-Tail-Flogger.jpg&hash=fcac7f97bfac983242b6dda37e68a26df7178f51)[/spoiler:1g451pp4]
 

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The punishment I get for "sinning" is the best punishment I've ever got, then.

Therein lies the absurdity of "to sin" is punishment.  If sin were a punishment, then by definition sin would be disliked.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I don't quite understand how sin, which is transgression of God's law (Rom. 3:20), is a punishment?

Is a person living in more sin better off or worse off than a person living in less sin?

Please correct me if I am wrong:
A non Christian does not have the concept of sin and hence there is no such thing as living in or living without sin for a non Christian.

For a Christian I expect the Christian faith and community will grow guilt within the sinner. Guilt is not a nice feeling and can rot the inner soul or conscience of a person and hence could be seen as a punishment.
For a non Christian looking into the Christian world it can be seen as a cruel tough love approach where Christians put guilt onto each other for simply being human.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The punishment I get for "sinning" is the best punishment I've ever got, then.

Therein lies the absurdity of "to sin" is punishment.  If sin were a punishment, then by definition sin would be disliked.

Incorrect, as people don't necessarily have the perspective to dislike sin.

Sure, before I was saved, I thought I liked sin. Now I know a better way and regret the years wasted to sin. Sin was, indeed, its own punishment to an extent.

Quote from: "Voter"Incorrect, as people don't necessarily have the perspective to dislike sin.

Sure, before I was saved, I thought I liked sin. Now I know a better way and regret the years wasted to sin. Sin was, indeed, its own punishment to an extent.

...Saved from what? Why did you need saving from it..? And what is the point of regretting what has past? It is a waste of time. Look forward in stead.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The punishment I get for "sinning" is the best punishment I've ever got, then.

Therein lies the absurdity of "to sin" is punishment.  If sin were a punishment, then by definition sin would be disliked.

Incorrect, as people don't necessarily have the perspective to dislike sin.

Sure, before I was saved, I thought I liked sin. Now I know a better way and regret the years wasted to sin. Sin was, indeed, its own punishment to an extent.

With the correct perspective, you can think that winning a million dollars in the lottery is a bad thing, too.

I'd rather have the perspective that "pornography is awesome and not immoral" than "pornography is a sin and will ruin my life and my poor, innocent soul". Maybe that's just me.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"With the correct perspective, you can think that winning a million dollars in the lottery is a bad thing, too.

I'd rather have the perspective that "pornography is awesome and not immoral" than "pornography is a sin and will ruin my life and my poor, innocent soul". Maybe that's just me.

No, it's lots of people, but hopefully not AD, whom I was addressing.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"With the correct perspective, you can think that winning a million dollars in the lottery is a bad thing, too.

I'd rather have the perspective that "pornography is awesome and not immoral" than "pornography is a sin and will ruin my life and my poor, innocent soul". Maybe that's just me.

No, it's lots of people, but hopefully not AD, whom I was addressing.

Definitely not the perspective.  Simply, at the core, while I agree we do things we don't like to do, knowing sin and what it ultimately causes to us and what it did to our Savior, we are still sinners and "delight" in sin.  If sin was not attractive, we wouldn't participate in it.  If all sin had immediate reprocussions of pain and/or discomfort to self or others, we'd easily avoid it.  But as Legendary Sandwich mentions, sins includes things we like and see no problem initially otherwise sin wouldn't be a problem.

I do see where you may be coming from.

Quote from: "Romans 7:15  NIV"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Definitely not the perspective.  Simply, at the core, while I agree we do things we don't like to do, knowing sin and what it ultimately causes to us and what it did to our Savior, we are still sinners and "delight" in sin.  If sin was not attractive, we wouldn't participate in it.  If all sin had immediate reprocussions of pain and/or discomfort to self or others, we'd easily avoid it.

There are negative repercussions other than pain and discomfort, and those may take proper perspective to recognize. Consider the pornography example. It doesn't cause immediate pain or discomfort, but it does detract from the user's ability to form and maintain stable romantic relationships. There are psychological studies that show this.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Definitely not the perspective.  Simply, at the core, while I agree we do things we don't like to do, knowing sin and what it ultimately causes to us and what it did to our Savior, we are still sinners and "delight" in sin.  If sin was not attractive, we wouldn't participate in it.  If all sin had immediate reprocussions of pain and/or discomfort to self or others, we'd easily avoid it.

There are negative repercussions other than pain and discomfort, and those may take proper perspective to recognize. Consider the pornography example. It doesn't cause immediate pain or discomfort, but it does detract from the user's ability to form and maintain stable romantic relationships. There are psychological studies that show this.

Which studies?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Which studies?

Here's an example:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/Abs ... ?id=237566 (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=237566)
The study cites research which shows that the consumption of Internet pornography threatens the economic, emotional, and relational stability of marriages and families. Qualitative and quantitative research indicates that pornography consumption, including cybersex, is significantly associated with decreased marital sexual satisfaction and sexual intimacy...

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Which studies?

Here's an example:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/Abs ... ?id=237566 (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=237566)
The study cites research which shows that the consumption of Internet pornography threatens the economic, emotional, and relational stability of marriages and families. Qualitative and quantitative research indicates that pornography consumption, including cybersex, is significantly associated with decreased marital sexual satisfaction and sexual intimacy...

Only the abstract was available, not the full study. Do you have a link to the full study? If not, then I regard your study as invalid.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Only the abstract was available, not the full study. Do you have a link to the full study? If not, then I regard your study as invalid.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Only the abstract was available, not the full study. Do you have a link to the full study? If not, then I regard your study as invalid.

...?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Only the abstract was available, not the full study. Do you have a link to the full study? If not, then I regard your study as invalid.

...?

Point is that most people here rarely look further than youtube or wikipedia, but you're turning up your nose at a real article because I only found the abstract.

Quote from: "Voter"Point is that most people here rarely look further than youtube or wikipedia, but you're turning up your nose at a real article because I only found the abstract.

So, do you have the full study or not?

In all fairness, there is nothing wrong in citing an abstract of a study. Most people won't have access to the full study anyway, in this case.

Quote from: "McQ"In all fairness, there is nothing wrong in citing an abstract of a study. Most people won't have access to the full study anyway, in this case.

Yes, but this study seems iffy to me, and I don't want to accept it without looking at the results themselves and learning more about the specifics.

Bump for n00bs and also a reaffirmation of my position after the issues with Struggling Atheist (aka Lier for Jesus).