IWLN: In case you didn’t see it, someone on the GD thread I linked found the article that Roderigo is probably referring to. It’s here.
Read and gape.
IWLN
Thanks for being an equal-opportunity dumabass-kicker.
Miller
I don’t want to discuss abortion here either. My point was if you considered abortion harm or no. The idea was that if we can’t agree on what harm is (I’m sure, BTW; we agree in 95% of the cases) the answer is more complicated.
I’ll rephrase:
“Bad” endorsing: The president signs a law requiring everyone to accept that Catholic Sacraments are efficacious channels of God’s grace.
Too specific, too clearly theological with no obvious social content, forces large numbers of people into believing agaisnt their faith or lack thereof.
"Good edorsing: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
Sorry about the link, but the one provided has the same contents.
Generic, most people won’t complain even though it is clear that many of the guys writing the US constituion thought og the Christian God.
I still don’t know, however, which religion Bush is endorsing by opposing gay marriage.
As to the numbers, wouldn’t you “re-write” the constitution to prevent human sacrifice even if it only happened once a year?
It affects my marriage in the same way that a guy cheating on his wife in a country 10 000 km away from mine does, it goes against marriage even if it has no direct effect on my marriage.
Nope. That would be bad. Very bad. And a violation of the Establishment Clause. The government is explicitly forbidden from endorsing a belief in magic sky pixies.
The Declaration of Independence is just a letter to King George III. It carries no legal authority. The Constitution make no mention of God. It’s irrelevant what the DOI says.
His own. He would be polluting the constitution with a personal religious definition of marriage.
In other words, it doesn’t affect your marriage at all. “It goes against marriage” is a meaningless sentence. Can you show any way in in which anyone else’s marriage will be affected or can’t you?
All religious definitions of marriage are meaningless. You have to show a way in which same-sex marriage would hurt other people, or deprive them of their own rights. Demanding that everyone else in the world subcribes to your own religious definition of “marriage” is not one of your rights.
They could have said that gay marriage has increased the problem of obesity and it would have made just as much sense. They did use the word empirical once, so it must be true. As a matter of fact, I’m going to write an article that says NOT having gay marriage in the U.S. has increased the divorce rate. I have facts to back it up. :rolleyes:
Diog
I remember when calculus was meaningless to me, then I grew up, I studied a bit and found how wonderful and meaningful it is; you will (one can hope) grow up, study a bit and found out how meaningful other “meaningless” things are.
A least I not not such a moron that I cannot follow my own smart-alecky advice
WTF are you talking about? What should I “study?”
What I meant was that religious definitions of marriage are legally meaningless. There is nothing that I don’t understand about the religious definition, it just isn’t relevant to the debate.
Your argument is getting a little limp here. DtC isn’t any more likely to grow up and discover meaning in religion, than I am to discover anything meaningful in calculus. Tell me again how religion is relevant or “meaningful” to the government legal system? Or how gay marriage is meaningful to your marriage, specifically. How does it go against marriage? And only in due respect to the sanctity of the Pit, you are a dumbfuck.
IWLN
I thought we’d agreed I was a dumbass, not a dumbfuck, you nitwit.
How do you know he cannot convert? He wouldn’t be the first.
Religion is important to the people who use it to form their opinions.
DtC
If you think it is meaningless it may be my fault but also may be your own mental deficiencies, you aren’t the judge of meaninglessness. You should “study” religion to find oput how not-meaningless it is.
If my memories serves, Diogenes the Cynic has a degree in Theology. Perhaps he should have studied religion less and then he’d not lost faith, eh? Religion, for many of us, is one of those things that the more you know about it, the less you like it.
My degree is in Religious Studies, but close enough. It included theology.
Rodrigo, if you think I haven’t studied religion you must not wander into GD religion threads very often. I’m fascinated by the subject.
It is so hard for me to keep track when new facets of your sheer blind stupidity emerge each day. You are never boring.
Well he would need a little proof, a dab of fact, maybe a visit from G-d to seal the deal. Can you arrange any of that? One more time. HOW CAN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BE AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO DETERMINE SECULAR LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS? WHO’S FUCKING RELIGION SHOULD WE USE? If it’s right to use religion to determine law, I believe we should use mine rather than yours. Do you have a problem with that?
So when shall I expect your conversion to KTR, which has no religious marriage, and thus come to consider that this notion of using religious doctrine to define who can participate in what is obviously a civil and social contract is just plain silly?
C’mon, let’s get the god out of marriage!
IWLN
Yes, but, as you said, they are facets of my aforementioned dumbassness. I myself find my stupidity rather boring
Each person should use his/her own, the democratic process takes effect and the people decide.
Still, he wouldn’t be the first; as to how that would happen I haven’t a bloody clue.
DIog
Now we’re 100% sure that education in your country is really fucked-up, Religious Studies won’t make you religious any more than African-american studies will make you African-American. I DO know you’re interested in religion, but seeing your 15 posts a day numbers, I wonder if you didn’t waste your time and money at college.
Do you see that your smart-alecky sig line blows in your face, I say that since it has been clearly established that I AM most definitely a moron and still you’re here after 170 posts.
Homebrew
It worked the opposite way for me.
Lil
What the fuck is KTR?
I am not saying he WILL convert, I am saying only that it is not impossible
when will I hear this?
Politicians: I support gay marriage, the Bible tells us to accept it.
Liberal open-minded guy: Don’t bring your religious views into government!!!
When will yout stop trying to control my (and other people’s) mind processes? I can come with my ideas any bloody way I want; don’t like them , don’t use them.
I used to like fags, but the doctor said they’d give me cancer
I am a moron, discuss with me at your own risk
It was not my goal to become religious, it was my goal to study religion and it was money well spent.
(What does my post count have to do with anything?)
If you don’t like having your ignorant, baseless, bizarre views challenged, debunked and ridiculed, perhaps you should reconsider admitting to them in public.
I don’t like them and I have no desire to use them. However, the fact remains that you and your ilk want a Constitutional Amendment to prevent me from ignoring your opinion.
My religion.
Expands to Kemetic Traditional Religion, parallel construction to ATR (African Traditional Religion), which is one of the categories into which it fits. (The other broad category is reconstructionist, though the priesthood would apparently disagree with me on that one. Ah well; what’s a priesthood for if not disagreeing with on pointless and stupid minutiae?)
So do I, but it was the nicest thing I could think to say about you. Having to be a bitch to you all the time is tiresome.
A majority opinion **cannot ** be used to determine equal human rights for a minority. Do you understand why not. What if racial discrimination laws would have required a public majority vote?
Probably not by your shining example. :rolleyes:
I think you give yourself too much credit when you call them YOUR mind processes. Odds are you would not have the level of bigotry you do, if your church hadn’t taught you to.
I’m pretty sure I’m flogging a dead horse here, but I have to comment on something Archbishop O’Malley of Boston is quoted as saying in this morning’s paper in explaining his opposition to gay marriage. He said, “We are here because we are concerned about marriage and about family. Good strong marriage and family are good fix for our country, for society.” (That’s taken verbatim from the paper. I know there’s an “a” missing, but I don’t know who dropped it.)
The old friend of mine who celebrated his 10th anniversary with his partner last year, and who tells me about their visits with both their families and the joy he took in his partner’s newborn niece is, to me, an example of “good strong marriage and good strong families.” The love they have for each other and for their families shines through in every conversation I have for them.
On the other hand, several years ago, I worked with a man who was on his second marriage. He said he was a good Catholic because his first marriage was annulled. I started working with him not long after his second marriage and, in the years I worked with him, I never heard him say anything remotely complimentary about either of his wives. In fact, the more I knew him, the more I wondered why anyone would marry him. He’s not an example of Catholics, just of twits, yet, because he is a heterosexual, I gather his marriage is assumed to be a good thing in a way that my friend’s cannot be because my friend is homosexual.
I, too, support good, strong marriages and good, strong families. To me, you do not marry a person unless you are willing to love, honor, and respect them for as long as you both shall live. I share Archbishop O’Malley’s belief that good, strong marriage and family are good a fix for our country, for society. It simply that, to me, based on what I have seen, homosexuals are every bit as capable of having good strong marriages and coming from and creating good strong families as heterosexuals and should not be denied that privilege.
So, Rodrigo and I will stand at loggerheads, and I’ve no doubt in the end we’ll find out who was right. I won’t back down, though, and I’ll stay at my level in the discourse, though.
CJ
Siege
Thanx for the words. Of course you know that when the Archbishop talked about families he was refering to tradtional families (man-woman kind). I’m sure the “best” gay couples are much better than the worst “traditional” couples. It is a fact, however, that a number very close to 100% of male gay couples have sex outside the marriage, with consent, and thinking that’s good (lesbians tend to be more faithful) and that the “open” marriage is the norm. Those were clearly not the ideals the arch was talking about
Diog
Re: post count. It matters as in “get a life”.
You’re still avoiding me on you smartass sig line and the fact (100% established as true) that I am a moron.
IWLN
Thanx for the no-bitch rule, never liked them.
So now I am demoted to mindless church drone, not just dumbass. Well, I’ll return the compliment saying that maybe you’d think like me if the fags hadn’t brainwashed you. (it’s pit-talk, I never use the word fag in the gay context).
No, if he converts it would be by the power of the Holy Spirit.
“Your level of bigotry”. I may be a bigot, but only small-time. Basically the only rights I would be denying (of course you can’t deny a right to someone who can’t have it, e.g. I can’t get maternity leave)
They can work, vote, live wherever, play sports…
MrVisible
I have no problem with my ideas being ridiculed by people who don’t understand them, the minimum I ask is that I can get my opinion whatever bloody way I so desire. Feel free to “debunk” (yeah, right, as if you could)
Homebrew
My ilk and I just want to do the right thing and not let gays ruin what little is left of family and marriage.