…to keep opening these non-religious reasons threads. How many more do we need? Give it a fucking rest.
Marc
What about those lazy Mexicans, anyway? This whole “women can vote” thing?
Shoehorn butterhorse.
In other words, what are you talking about?
Have been to the GD forum recently…?
It’s because liberals are so convinced that they have a monopoly on truth and reason that anyone who holds a different opinion must be some kind of crazed fanatic. When they realize that it’s possible for a rational person to not be a liberal, they are unable to wrap their minds around it and need explaination.
You mean Death Wish 6? No way.
Yes, that’s exactly right. Oh, no, actually, that’s not it at all, and you’re stupid for suggesting it.
I think the reason for it is that everyone (at least in GD) knows the religious positions on things like gay marriage, abortion, et al., and would like to avoid a(nother) religious thread.
Having answered that, I think your thesis is somewhat flawed. Right now, on the first page of GD, there are only three threads that fit your description. One is on gay marriage, one seems to be a spinoff of that on polygamy, and the third was posted by The_Broken_Column. By your reasoning, you may as well have started this thread about threads about Bush. Also, I think you can easily avoid opening those threads.
I’ve been participating in the “Non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage” thread for days now, and I think it serves a vital purpose. Since we’re not a theocracy here in the US, the idea of basing legislation on religion and religion alone is appalling, when it results in systematized discrimination against a minority. And yet, all the arguments against gay marriage come down to either personal revulsion or religion.
The thread has been fascinating. Without the cover of religion, no-one has been able to come up with a rational reason to exclude gay people from the legal benefits and protections of marriage that even approaches logic. There have been, so far, two posters who have stated that religion and morality are inseparable, and therefore the debate is invalid, basically conceding the debate. They can’t justify their marginalization of millions of people without religion.
Meanwhile, The_Broken_Column has started up a thread entitled "Non-religious//moral objections to killing?** in an effort to prove that religion and morality are indeed inseparable, an effort that’s proving to be laughably weak.
The bottom line is that religion, while it has a role in society, isn’t a sufficient basis for law.
The bonus is that we get to watch the people who are used to smogging up legal discussions with religious dogma squirm in the absence of their usual cover.
Ahem.
“You can’t run a country by a book of religion
Not by a heap or a lump or a smidgen
Of foolish rules of ancient date
Designed to make people all feel great
While they fold, spindle, and mutilate
Those unbelievers from a neighboring state”
–Frank Zappa, “Dumb All Over”
Pretty much sums it up for me.
Let’s start threads with titles like “Religious Reasons for Abortion.” Then we can all get our dose of enlightening conversation:
Original Poster: Are there any religious reasons for Abortion?
Someone: No, God said abortion is wrong!!!
Someone Else: No he didn’t!
Someong Three: Did too! Your going to hell, Someone Else! I’ll pray for you!
DreadCthulhu’s Ghost: I like to eat fetuses!
Someone Four: The Golden Calf told me this morning that it was OK!
Someone: Idolatry! Idolatry! Die, pagan!
The Last Someone: God is both for and against abortion!
Well, suppose that the non-Liberals offered an explanation, rather than being condescending. What would that be like?
Actually, fuck that, let me open that though up even wider. What if when a poster (Liberal or Conservative) was starting to realize that it was possible for people to logically and intelligently reach a political position that differs from his own that we all made an effort to nurture and protect this fragile and precious emerging sophisticated understanding of the world?
Although we get distracted from time to time, we are trying to fight ignorance here.
Two threads? It took “Batman Vs.” threads about twenty iterations before it was pitted.
Before they were pitted. I’m not illiterate, my parents were married in City Hall!
Between Batman thread and posts containing 1920’s death rays can you blame a guy for having no patience?
Marc
On the contrary. They are challenging the rational conservatives to come out and show there IS a rational basis for their position that does not depend on religiosity or traditionalism for the sake of traditionalism.