there are folks who think that all sexuality is the devil's work

1/27/2010 11:20:34 PM

^^ he’s not cutting off funding for NASA, he’s effectively cutting of funding for the Moon mission.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 11:21 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 11:20:56 PM

Quote :

"i don't think that by giving you the option to do whatever your religion says do that the govt is favoring anyone everyone can do like they want to, as it should be"

If the government gives everyone the option to do privately whatever they want to do.....

that is a religious or philosophical statement saying that some combination is true - either there is no God, or homosexuality is not immoral, or that God doesn't require the State to forbid gay marriage, etc. - those are religious principles. One of them MUST be held by the government.

Obviously you find the government favoring your religious, philosophical, and ethical views to be less offensive than if they held mine. That's expected. But you should acknowledge that is what they are.

1/27/2010 11:22:47 PM

your an ratard

1/27/2010 11:23:23 PM

Quote :

"there are folks who think that all sexuality is the devil's work"

No no no. You can have sex but only missionary through your pajamas.

1/27/2010 11:23:24 PM

and if you're mormon you must wear your magic undies

1/27/2010 11:24:10 PM

Quote :

"If the government gives everyone the option to do privately whatever they want to do..... that is a religious or philosophical statement saying that some combination is true - either there is no God, or homosexuality is not immoral, or that God doesn't require the State to forbid gay marriage, etc. - those are religious principles. One of them MUST be held by the government. Obviously you find the government favoring your religious, philosophical, and ethical views to be less offensive than if they held mine. That's expected. But you should acknowledge that is what they are."

Can't we make laws based off no religious things?

1/27/2010 11:24:38 PM

Quote :

"Option D) there may or may not be a god who may or may not give a damn about homos and it is your decision to decide"

Yes, that is also an option. There are many. That's exactly my point - but the government is going to hold to one religious principle or another.

But that is your religious/philosophical conviction and you want the government to base its policy on your religious/philosophical views. So do I. One of us acknowledges this.

Quote :

"Can't we make laws based off no religious things?"

No. Every law, regardless of what it's about, contains within it religious and philosophical assumptions, and is based off a religious or philosophical framework.

There is no such thing as neutrality. Being neutral to the issue is, by definition, a conclusion based on religious or philosophical convictions.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 11:27 PM. Reason : a]

1/27/2010 11:25:16 PM

Quote :

"philosophical conviction"

So can it be a philosophical conviction alone and not religious?

Quote :

"that is a religious or philosophical statement"

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM. Reason : `]

1/27/2010 11:26:01 PM

Driving on the right hand side of the road was based off religious reasons?

1/27/2010 11:29:42 PM

Yes, Buddah is right handed, so therefore we all must drive on the right side

1/27/2010 11:30:25 PM

Quote :

"But that is your religious/philosophical conviction and you want the government to base its policy on your religious/philosophical views. So do I. One of us acknowledges this."

i think you're overanalyzing it man

everyone gets to choose

1/27/2010 11:31:22 PM

Quote :

"So can it be a philosophical conviction alone and not religious?"

The line between the two is so blurry it's impossible to separate. One's conception of God (or lack thereof) is central to any philosophical framework, and every conception of God carries with it philosophical consequences.

One's ethics always have a framework behind them. When the government decides to do or not do anything, there is always a system (or many) that the decision flowed from - and it does so to the exclusion of other systems.

Quote :

"Driving on the right hand side of the road was based off religious reasons?"

What is religion or philosophical framework is behind a traffic law?

Well, those laws are an official government repudiation of any religion that believers in anarchy - that's a religious statement. It is also a repudiation of any religion/philosophy that believes the government's role should not include road-building or traffic control.

It is also a repudiation of any religion that believes, for example, women should not drive alone (many Muslims). Because our traffic laws allow women to drive alone, our government has set a policy that directly denies that religious view of many Muslims.


[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 11:36 PM. Reason : s]

1/27/2010 11:31:39 PM

Someone sum up the last few pages here with more detail than 'tww's usual, and finest'

FTR, I never got my damn stickers

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM. Reason : sdfg]

1/27/2010 11:31:57 PM

IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO DECIDE

YOU STILL HAVE MADE A CHOICE

1/27/2010 11:32:03 PM

It's a jolly holiday with Mary

1/27/2010 11:33:48 PM

HOLY FUCKING SHIT SOAP BOX GOD DAMNIT!!!

1/27/2010 11:36:51 PM

Quote :

"only ONE statement attributed to jesus"

Quote :

"Romans 1:24-32 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 1 Timothy 1:8-11 ps: just cause its new testament doesnt mean Jesus himself said it. k bye"

gee, thanks for proving my point and pointing out statements that jesus didnt say

might wanna wipe your chin off there, seems to have some self-pwnt on it

also you may not wanna throw rocks in glass houses, you have no right to judge other people

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 11:40 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2010 11:39:33 PM

1/27/2010 11:41:37 PM

yay, i really don't care if gays and lesbians marry

1/27/2010 11:42:30 PM

Quote :

"gee, thanks for proving my point and pointing out statements that jesus didnt say might wanna wipe your chin off there, seems to have some self-pwnt on it also you may not wanna throw rocks in glass houses, you have no right to judge other people"

See, here we go again with someone critiquing a view, while falsely assuming they have the same starting point.

If the whole Bible is the Word of God, then Jesus did say those things - through the people He inspired to write them.

But, because you believe the Bible is not the Word of God, you believe Jesus didn't really say anything other than in his earthly life.

In that poster's system - Jesus did say that. In yours, he did not. So you can't call that poster out for being wrong and inconsistent, without making the case the the poster's starting point is wrong.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 11:45 PM. Reason : a]

1/27/2010 11:44:42 PM

Why, again, is anyone using religion to argue against civil rights?

1/27/2010 11:45:29 PM

because gay dudes weird them out

1/27/2010 11:49:17 PM

Quote :

"Why, again, is anyone using religion to argue against civil rights?"

Both sides are arguing for their religion to be reflected in government policy.

1/27/2010 11:50:05 PM

:facepalm:

1/27/2010 11:50:34 PM

What's the difference between a rock and a baby?

it hurts when I kick a rock.

1/27/2010 11:51:30 PM

Quote :

"What's the difference between a rock and a baby?"

Unlike the baby, the rock is only a little smarter than you?

1/27/2010 11:53:08 PM

Quote :

"Both sides are arguing for their religion to be reflected in government policy. "

That didn't answer my question of why.

1/27/2010 11:53:27 PM

Quote :

"That didn't answer my question of why."

The why is because it's impossible not to do so. If you argue for any side of this issue, it's not possible to do so apart from the religious and philosophical underpinnings that brought you to the conclusion.

1/27/2010 11:55:29 PM

I hate equal rights for all Americans....God doesn't think people deserve equal rights either...she told me last night when I was talking to her.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 11:57 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 11:55:45 PM

fuckin hell...wrong thread

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 11:57 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 11:57:36 PM

Quote :

"If you argue for any side of this issue, it's not possible to do so apart from the religious and philosophical underpinnings that brought you to the conclusion."

:carlface:
Snare someone else in your trap.

Anyone else?

1/27/2010 11:57:44 PM

Well, it's true. The government makes a religious statement (for some, and against others) regardless of which way it goes on this.

1/27/2010 11:58:57 PM

When are you going to realize there is no chance in hell or heaven that you are going to change anyone's mind on tww when it comes to religious or political ideas?

If you want to change someone's mind you're gonna have to do what all the other crazy "christians" do and start brainwashing your kids when they are young...

Otherwise you could be like a normal person and allow everyone to decide what they want to believe and not condemn another person for believing differently.

[Edited on January 28, 2010 at 12:04 AM. Reason : ]

1/28/2010 12:01:11 AM

Quote :

"Otherwise you could be like a normal person and allow everyone to decide what they want to believe and not condemn another person for believing differently."

This is terribly ironic to suggest I should not condemn anyone....while you are judging me That's fine - I expect it - just realize that you are "condemning another person for believing differently."

Secondly, someone could agree entirely with my estimation of the religious nature of the law, without that person agreeing with me about what the right religion or law is.

1/28/2010 12:04:58 AM

okay I have a theory that I'm going to test out...here I go

so seriously...having a pet is a horrible thing to do...who says we have the right to have control over animals like that...I mean we are basically enslaving these animals for our entertainment.


well you have at it, I'm gonna go to bed now...have fun arguing until you're blue in the face.

[Edited on January 28, 2010 at 12:12 AM. Reason : ]

1/28/2010 12:07:20 AM

I've worked at vet clinics where I was required to say "pet care giver" rather than owner.

1/28/2010 12:15:03 AM

Quote :

"I've worked at vet clinics where I was required to say "pet care giver" rather than owner."

That's hilarious. I probably wouldn't even know what that meant.

1/28/2010 12:18:51 AM

And this was back in Mt Airy which is small town NC, rather than all the ones I've encountered in the triangle area which all say owner... even in Carrboro which is hippie capital of NC.

1/28/2010 1:00:21 AM

I'm all for sex marriages.

1/28/2010 1:03:18 AM

definitely for it here!! If str8 couples get to be miserable for a lifetime, let the gays opt for the same shit if they want to!!

1/28/2010 3:08:43 AM

I say let gays get married


but ban gay divorce.



that way they make damn sure they're careful what they wish for.

1/28/2010 3:14:18 AM

^ hahaha

1/28/2010 4:07:29 AM

Alright, this is an effort thread for me because it's a topic I care about. I'm mostly going to be addressing TULIPlovr.

Quote :

"Why is homosexuality morally permissible?"

Not to sound like a philosopher here, but it depends on what you mean by "morally permissible". One of the things that makes these conversations so difficult is that atheists (or the generally non-religious) typically cash out the notion of morality differently than the religious. The question "is X morally permissible?" can mean a couple of things in the context of these discussions, but it usually ends up meaning one of two different things:

(1) Is X in God's big list of "these things are okay to do"?
(2) Do reasonable first principles of moral/right action explicitly prohibit X?

Religious thinkers tend to go with (1), appealing to and submitting to whatever religious or cultural tradition/authority with which they choose to align themselves. Secular thinkers tend to go with (2); rather than worrying about whether an action is inherently right or wrong, one worries about whether or not that action violates general principles that are intended to capture our innate moral intuitions (or perhaps some idealized moral intuitions under the assumption we are purely rational beings rather than contingent little goo-computers).

That being said, I can't see how a government could be run by adopting (1) as a moral test. The reason why I take to be obvious, though discussing it's not out of the question. Of course, (1) could be used as a moral test for personal choices, but that's only in the context of a society that's run with moral test (2).

(2) seems to be the only way to run a society. Let people make arbitrary religious choices on their own time; only the choices that directly affect others adversely need to be regulated and curtailed. There's no reason to restrict the liberty of others due to your own religious moral proclivities, because the beliefs upon which they're based are quite fallible. You might argue that secular philosophical reasoning about moral/right action could likewise be based upon false beliefs, and this is true; however, when the entire process becomes a collaborative, external effort, then these beliefs become open to scrutiny and can be pressed on. Why do I believe homosexuality is permissible? Because it affects nobody adversely, or if it does, that it is harm to which we can reasonably consent due to the containment of risks (two men marrying and having sex do not have any causal impact on my sexuality, health, life, etc unless I choose to participate).

This way, you get to keep (1) to your heart's content. Use (1) all you like. (2) gives you that liberty, whereas (1) might rob you of it (if the way (1) is cashed out does not adhere to your particular traditions). The secular mindset gives room to the religious mindset, whereas the religious mindset can, if followed to its explicit conclusions, exclude other religious mindsets.

Take, for example, Saudi Arabia, where you could be arrested for heresy. I'm sure you imagine that your religious opinions are facts; try explaining that to somebody else who has a similar imaginative drive but a different set of musings.

Quote :

"How is it even possible to have a government that doesn't regulate morality?"

It's certainly possible to have governments avoid moral reasoning along line (1) and engage in the moral reasoning of line (2). I take this to be what people mean when they say "government should not legislate morality". At least, it's the most charitable reading.

Quote :

"Culture and government are outcomes of the philosophical and religious presuppositions of the people. That's inescapable. Your view of government is determined by your philosophical and religious commitments, and so is mine....but I'm the only one who has to defend that or be ashamed of it?"

You certainly have some explaining to do in a post-Enlightenment society, that's for sure. One thing that the Enlightenment taught religious thinkers, especially in government and public policy, is that epistemic modesty is important. The principles that we base the rules of social interaction on should be transparent to all and agreeable to any rational person regardless of their arbitrary religious background. This means that even if a malevolent God exists that thinks that what this world needs is LESS love, that we may have to allow for homosexuality because we can't reasonably know this God exists, has these preferences, etc.

Quote :

"The burden of proof is on you to show that there exists a right to marry someone of the same sex, and you have to defend the religion and philosophy underlying that."

Why is the burden of argument here on those that support liberty? It seems like whenever we want to put more power into the government's hands to curtail liberty, that it is THIS that requires the argument. If gays are unequal or deserve less rights than heterosexuals, this requires an argument to establish. Until then, I'm going to view them as human beings just like any other and fight for their liberty.

Quote :

"You are operating under some form of a philosophical principle that says that only actions that harm others are immoral and/or that government has no authority to disallow a contract that is voluntary on all sides."

There are plenty of contracts that, by their very nature, are void (even if all parties consent). Selling oneself into slavery is a good example. Typically these contracts are void because the consequences are grave, and because people are typically coerced into making those choices by various external factors out of their control.

Quote :

"Yes, and everyone who argues for it is doing so for religious reasons, no matter how much they may deny it. I'm pointing out that it's odd that they demand I justify the philosophical and religious underpinnings of my position, when they believe they have no obligation to do the same."

It's not unreasonable to expect those who wish to curtail liberty to bother and inconvenience themselves with justification.

Quote :

"There is no such thing as a secular government. It is inescapable that every government and every culture is run according to the philosophical and religious principles of the people in them. It's not that we should have religion running government; it's that every government everywhere is run by a philosophy and a religion (or some confluence of many), and it's impossible to avoid that. Allowing gay marriage is just as much a religious policy for the government as if it's outlawed."

You're confusing a couple of things here. Just because people in government have base religions doesn't mean they can't legislate from a secular point of view, or according to secular principles. It depends on what outlook the legislators take. Just because a religious person makes a decision doesn't make the decision religious in nature.

Plenty of religious people do science and math too -- should I consider logic papers written by Christians to be religious? I don't think so.

Quote :

"You can't get rid of tradition and religion. Even if you wanted to, it's not possible. If it were an entirely private contract with no formal government definition, that's still a religious policy held by the government. The government would be adhering to a religious principle that says: "Either A) There is no God or B) If there is one, He/She/It has not told the government to outlaw gay marriage or C) There is a God and he/she/it has told government to outlaw gay marriage, and we're not gonna follow that." Those are all religious principles."

Your new scope of the term "religious" doesn't have any meaning here. Everything is religious according to your definition, so I reject it. It doesn't draw a meaningful distinction anywhere.

Quote :

"If the government gives everyone the option to do privately whatever they want to do..... that is a religious or philosophical statement saying that some combination is true - either there is no God, or homosexuality is not immoral, or that God doesn't require the State to forbid gay marriage, etc. - those are religious principles. One of them MUST be held by the government. Obviously you find the government favoring your religious, philosophical, and ethical views to be less offensive than if they held mine. That's expected. But you should acknowledge that is what they are."

These are bizarre mental acrobatics with one goal and one goal only: paint the opposition as doing precisely what you're doing, and with that as justification and excuse, proceed forward. If the opposition is religious just like you, then you can use your religion without any guilt or epistemic modesty; you can simply align your bigotry with "God" and march along. I reject this move altogether. Not everything is religious, and even if it were, it wouldn't mean that your positions are instantly vindicated. One thing about living in a post-Enlightenment culture is that we become expected to provide people with reasons and arguments for our positions. Even if everybody were religious or simply held differing religious opinions, this doesn't matter one bit; restricting liberty requires an argument. If you want me to stop something, there'd better be a good reason why. Those reasons should link into the world and how actions affect the world, ideally.

1/28/2010 1:24:45 PM

Quote :

"What is religion or philosophical framework is behind a traffic law? Well, those laws are an official government repudiation of any religion that believers in anarchy - that's a religious statement. It is also a repudiation of any religion/philosophy that believes the government's role should not include road-building or traffic control. It is also a repudiation of any religion that believes, for example, women should not drive alone (many Muslims). Because our traffic laws allow women to drive alone, our government has set a policy that directly denies that religious view of many Muslims."

This is ludicrous. Simply allowing behavior does not flout personal religious beliefs and rules. To extend things this far is sophistry on your part and doesn't do any work whatsoever. You are not drawing a useful distinction.

Sometimes we allow behavior that religious traditions disagree with, but this is because we're adhering to a set of principles aimed at letting people from different religious traditions live together and get along. This means we give everybody as much freedom as we can afford to, such that they can restrict themselves in any way they see fit.

Keep in mind that the government ALLOWING something doesn't require any action. It's the government FORBIDDING something that requires action; thus, forbidding something requires justification (that is, justification for government action).

Quote :

"Both sides are arguing for their religion to be reflected in government policy."

All viewpoints are religion, then. My opinions about cognitive neuroscience become religion, under your view. This conflates "religion" with "belief" and as such doesn't do anything.

1/28/2010 1:25:12 PM

melandylan with the fat girl fail in this thread

jesus christ what an idiot

1/28/2010 1:42:58 PM

Quote :

"I say let gays get married but ban gay divorce. that way they make damn sure they're careful what they wish for"

It already kind of works like that. About a fifth of the US would recognize me as either married, partnered, unioned, or whatever term their state uses.

There was a 3 day waiting period to get married. But to get divorced I'd have to move to the state where I got married and live there for 6 months before I'd be allowed to, whereas most straight couples already live in the state where they got married so its a none issue even if such requirements exist.

So for gays it takes 3 days to get married, and 6 months to break up. It isn't the same thing as a ban, but try moving with someone you've decided to break up, looking for work and a place to live, & living in the same area for 6 months... I imagine it achieves much the same effect.

1/28/2010 3:54:07 PM

Quote :

"Romans 1:24-32 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 1 Timothy 1:8-11 ps: just cause its new testament doesnt mean Jesus himself said it. k bye"

seriously?

*BREATHE*

not that anyone who actually needs to watch this will ever watch it, i really enjoyed it AND the religious scholars that were interviewed. http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/indexe.htm

and not that any of the god fearin homophobes in this thread could even HANDLE this documentary, it is really heartbreaking and humanizing. not really about whether homosexuality (and other forms of sexual "deviance") is right/wrong...but just a documentary about relationships and some of the challenges that "different" people (namely transsexuals) face (like healthcare problems). http://www.nextwavefilms.com/southern/

i add in the second one because i just think it shows that love and relationships and so many different HUMAN (since we are all human after all) characteristics transcend sexuality/sexual origin/gender identity/etc.

and i also just don't understand how the religious zealots, after reading the bible (which actually a lot of "christians" haven't - they just know certain verses) and being children of god (or whatever) can still condone the persecution of other human beings. especially when, religious beliefs aside (since we aren't YET living in a theocracy) i don't see how someone's sexual choices harm you (in the way that say, murder would harm you).

but whatever floats your boat, i guess.

1/28/2010 8:28:40 PM