It most certainly is. The destruction of religion was one of the core tenets of atheism.
Oh I see you get to lump ALL religion into one undifferentiated pile, and get to lump all people who think a certain way into another undifferentiated pile as bigots, but I don’t get to lump all atheists in with communists. Funny how that works, your unsophisticated categorical groupings are valid, but my unsophisticated categorical groupings are dishonest.
Interesting double-standard.
Atheism WAS NOT a minor component of communism considering it was based off of the DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM theories of Karl Marx.
And saying, “They are all bigots.”, isn’t dismissive?
I actually have said that the government should get out of the marriage game entirely, on several occasions. Not that marriage should be outlawed, just that it shouldn’t be the provenance of the government. Let it be a matter of contract law, Civil Unions for everyone.
But that’s the thing - it’s not a religious relationship!
I have no religion and am not a spiritual person. Jodi wants to replace sexual orientation discrimination with religious discrimination.
And it isn’t - because it’s not a religious relationship!
Well, the boat’s already sailed on that, hasn’t it? Don’t we call marriages between atheists marriages?
I doubt that. She’s posted some vile things about not caring whether she runs me over with a car. I don’t think she’s ever going to be happy for me.
What’s first amendment-related about non-religious marriages? If there’s no religion in the mix, the state doesn’t have to worry about establishment of any religion over any other.
This is a fabulous argument. I agree, nationalism IS bigotry. I favor open borders. It’s always funny though how often people who think we should have open borders oppose attempts to institute a world government. Ironic.
Y’know, I think my position has been made very clear, and I even restated it for you. In answer to “you either care about what you call your relationship with my wife, or you don’t,” let me be clear: I don’t. I think EVERYONE should have to call civil unions and religious unions different things, if and when that IMO necessary distinguishment is made. It is only in light of that distinguishment that what you or anyone else calls your union makes any difference, and that was the context of the comment to which you are objecting. Even if you didn’t get that context the first time, I have now twice explicitly clarified it for you. If that makes me a “liar” in your eyes, then I will assume you care more about calling me names than you do with actually understanding my position.
Yes, because God knows posting to a message board about a subject demonstrates deep devotion to it.
Well, you and the frog in your pocket who make up your “we” just stand over there secure in that knowledge, then. I see no upside to explaining myself yet again at this point. If you insist on being insulted, be my guest.
Oh, noes! You flaunter, you! You employ the socially-accepted and indeed only available terminology to describe your union with your wife! You bastard! Please, just leave me to marinate in my rage. :rolleyes:
That’s all irrelevant to my point. Society is providing a water fountain. Gays are boycotting the water fountain becuase it’s not the same one provided to straights. Fine. But you are lying if you claim society won’t let you drink.
A “certainty” that no one can actually show will happen. Or define, without proving the “certainty” to be nonsense as soon as it’s dragged into the light.
YOU are the one who claimed that “Christian culture” was at risk. Not that two factions of Christians were arguing. Goalposts : moved.
You assume that I DON’T talk to such people. Specifically, the ones who aren’t talking about the evils of gays, or women, or blacks, etc and thus removing themselves from both the categories of “polite” and of having worthwhile opinions.
Society won’t let them marry though, that lead’s to the point. Why won’t society let them marry? Why does society feel they’re so different? Taking a Civil Union to many folks is telling the world you’re okay being discriminated against.
Nonsense. Atheism holds that there are no gods. That’s all. It doesn’t even say if that’s good or bad, much less call for the destruction of anything.
No, it’s just that atheism is a single belief while religions and Communism are belief systems. Religions and Communism are much more closely related than Communism and atheism.
If I say that you can drink a glass of urine while I drink water, that’s not ‘letting you drink’.
No, Jodi doesn’t. If “marriage” is defined as a civil union endorsed by the state and “charriage” is defined as a religious or spiritual union endorsed by a faith group outside of the framework of governmentally endowed rights and responsibilities, how would it be “religious discrimination” to bar you from charriage? You are not a spiritual person. If you were you could get charried as well as married. Again, I’m not wedded – ha! – to the terms. If you want “marriage” for the governmetally endorsed union, I don’t care. Call the religious union something else.
Are you arguing because the boat’s already sailed, there’s no way and no reason to argue for bringing the boat back and cutting it into two boats?
“Vile things”? Are you serious?
People do not normally distinguish between “religious marriage” (“charriage”) and “civil marriage” (“marriage”) – and you know, I don’t think youre terms are any better than mine. That’s the problem: The lack of such distinguishment is the basis upon which non-SSM can argue against the extension of all marital rights to gays: They conflate their view of marriage/charriage (one man + one woman, only in a church, whatever) with government-sanctioned marriage, and insist that unless you meet the criteria for the former (in their eyes, of course), you should not be admitted to the latter. It’s not only what they can do, it is exactly what they are doing, and forms the very core of their opposition.
Using different terms cuts off their access to that conflation of ideas.
No it’s pretty much a certainty that traditional Christian culture in this nation is being eroded pretty rapidly. It can certainly be defined and proved, if of course one wants to look at evidence and isn’t satisfied with the intellectually incurious response of, “Why would I care what bigots think?”
Your inability to hold two simple concepts in your mind at once is hardly the same as moving goalposts. Gay Christian activists are an extremely new subset of Christianity and are flying in the face of an established traditional culture. You like to frame the debate as though the traditionalists are the radicals, it doesn’t work on me even if it works on some others. The gay Christian activists are actually the radicals in this case, who are trying to redefine what that culture is.
How can you speak to these people if you are screaming, “You’re a bigot.”, at them all the time. I have seen how you talk to Christians, you are a condescending prick 100% of the time and don’t really listen to the arguments without prejudgment. I am not saying this as though you are a blank slate to me, I have seen how you conduct yourself in arguments for over half a decade.
As conveniently is any issue where you come into conflict with religious traditionalists. Convenient how that always works in your favor isn’t it?
Communism is an atheist belief system. I was just exemplifying the gross oversimplification that characterizes your arguments, only applying it to a characteristic that you attribute to yourself. I don’t think that all atheists are communists, or that all atheists want to eradicate religion. I DO however think that YOU want to eradicate religion. But I don’t think you will act violently in the name of that cause. I think you are a mostly harmless irascible individual who finds an outlet in internet message boards.
I get that. I just get a strong vibe that when something has no logical basis in fact, and the people keep defending it as a valid argument, it smells like a socially acceptable cover for I Hate How Gay People Fuck and I Don’t Want to be in the Same Social Group as Them.
I’d agree that, as with many other forms of bigotry and racism, scumfucks do their best to disguise their true intention/feelings. (Like David Duke’s “I don’t hate Jews, but let me tell you about their plans for Jewish Supremicism…”). You’re right that it does fail the ‘smell test’. But, I maintain that it’s important to realize that some people simply cling to invalid arguments because, well, people cling to invalid, stupid, absurd arguments all the time. It’s what people do. Sure, when it supports a discriminatory position it’s horrible, but it’s not by necessity a sign of bigotry.
That’s my only point. Are some people who use that type of rhetoric covering up for bigotry? Sure. Are many? Quite possibly. Are all, absolutely all with no exceptions who so ever? No.
Oh, really. And how well did waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . . for segregation to lead to equality work ? It was the generation who went out and demanded equal rights that got them.
Since you are defining “traditional Christian culture” as only those beliefs of those Christians who are bigots, why SHOULD I care ? Or anyone ?
You said “Christian culture”. It was only after I pointed out that there are pro-SSM Christians that suddenly it was “traditional Christian culture”; the “traditional” part apparently being confined to those traditions that happen to be bigoted.
Because they aren’t ? Because they don’t feel compelled to start talking about the inferiority of women or how gays shouldn’t marry.
It’s not a matter of convenience; it’s a matter of the religious having no factual basis for their belief.
Is “Good, and the sooner the better” an acceptable answer? You’re starting from the premise that traditional Christian culture is all that and a bag of chips. There is a lot to be said for the values Christ espoused, but they’ve never been a part of the traditional Christian culture that’s been eroded in the name of civil rights.
Hating one’s fellow man and wishing to deny him happiness should be viewed with disapproval, regardless of whether it stems from Christianity, Buddhism, secular teachings, or whatever.
You have to live for what you believe in, which is usually harder. Any damn fool can fight.
And may I humbly suggest that seizing someone by the lapels and screaming in their face may not be the best means to advance tolerance and understanding?
