They’re both pro-marrfiage rights, but it would be political suicide to be pro-marriage in an election.
Fundies assholes? Couldn’t say. Assholes? Most definitely.
Ah, but I was not comparing “fundies” with a racial group. I was comparing gobear’s broad, negative generalization of an ill-defined group with the similar generalizations about ill-defined racial groups. Especially in the context of a rational discussion.
I’m assuming here that your are talking at least in part about my original post in this thread.
Bullshit yourself. You are married to a woman–you risk nothing. Your ox is not being gored. You have the rights I can’t have because I’m not “bi.” Don’t you get it? You are in a hterosexual marriage–you AUTOMATICALLY have more than 1,000 legal protections, from legal guardianship in case of illnes to inheritance.
I’m not intersted in the theoretical rights of heterosexuals to have entirely fictional gay marriages. You might as well defend my right to get pregnant.
I’m talking concrete reality, not theory.
Whoa, gobear!
Step back, take some deep breaths, make love, have a drink, and think it over!
I grew up in the Bible Belt. I know just how vile some religious nuts can be. Seriously guy, I also know, and grew up with many fundies who are truly wonderful people, without a mean bone in their bodies. Narrow your vitriol to the bigots if you must, but not all Christian fundamentalists are of Jerry Falwell’s ilk!
Put it this way
If you believe that Adam and Eve were real people who are the ancestors of every human alive today, you’re ignorant.
If you believe that the world was created ex nihilo 6,000 years ago, you’re ignorant.
If you believe that the entire earth was covered by a flood within the stipulated 6,000 years, you’re ignorant.
If you believe that illnesses are caused by demons, you’re ignorant.
If you believe that your religion’s laws against homosexuality should be enforced by the government, you’re ignorant.
I am not, nor have I ever been, married. I said that last post. Are you so blind to what “anyone who disagrees with me” says that you can’t see that? Let me quote myself for you:
I risk nothing in this one sense by being engaged to a woman. My ox, if only in theory (and isn’t that what it is - theory - before the law is actually tested?), is being gored. My right to enter into a legal, civil union with a man is being taken away, bit by bit.
No, I’m not. And what’s more, and you can call it luck or providence or whatever you want, I just happen to be engaged to a woman. I’d really love to see your post if I were engaged to a man and said the same things to you.
Bully for you. I’m interested in the rights of all to marry the human consenting adults they wish to marry. If that doesn’t fit your little checked box, I suggest you either go on ranting at the world or re-examine your outlook on life. There are any number of rights most of us will never use or think about. That doesn’t for one second remove their importance. I have yet to be arrested and may never be. That doesn’t for one second diminish to me my right to due process, to my Miranda rights, to my right to an attorney, etc.
That would of course be why you’re addressing the concrete reality of my personal life, not the theory. Right?
It’s a meaningless definintion as no one believes every word of the Bible. Everyone interprets it to some degree. All you have done is create some category of Religious people with whom you disagree. And you are the arbitor of that category.
If you want to create a category of people who believe that Leviticus commands that gay sex is a sin, and that laws should be made to uphold it, then that might be a working definition. Calling these people “fundies” is simply a way to insult people who believe in a the literal meaning of large portions of the Bible, who might even believe that gay sex is a sin, but who are not ready to legislate against gay marriage.
And there are plenty of mainstream, barely-religious people who are also ready to legisate against gay marriage. I’ve quoted the polls on this too often to do it again. Well over 50% of the US population does not want to legalize gay marriage. Only a small fraction of those would fit your defintion of “fundie”.
Yes, and you can see from the rest of my post that I agree with you in principal about generalizations but I just wanted to cut off too many of the racial analogies before they got out of hand. Not that you did this (and you wouldn’t since your an atheist) but it always annoys me when I hear people trying to liken disrespect for stupid beliefs to discrimination based on innate characteristics like race, gender or sexual orientation.
If you did, I’d think you a fool as I do Log Cabin Republicans and other quislings.
You are really, deeply missing the point. You are engaged to a woman, thus I assume you will marry her. Your rights are NOT being threatened becuae you are in a heterosexual relationship. Once you two are married, nobody will call Fizzy your “friend.” The doctor will not tell you that hse has no legal standing as a guardioan in case of illness. Your families cannot bar you from seeing each other in case of illness.
You are muleheaded or blind if you do not see that you have rights I don’t. MY rights are threatened, yours aren’t.
Some most certainly do.
And most people will disgree on definitions, so yes, I’m the arbiter, judge, sole sole authority on the matter. You don’t get a vote.
There is no such thing as a pro gay marriage religious fundamentalist.
And I’m mad at them, too.
But let’s assume that religious fundamentalists were foursquare in favor of gay rights, so we can set that question aside. Would their belief in a 6,000 year old earth and a global flood against all the evidence contradicting that belief not qualify as ignorance? If not, why not?
gobear: I’m surprised that someone who frequents these boards would be so impervious to reason. I’m done here. Enjoy your self-inflected state of victimhood.
Go ahead and think me a fool, then. I’d rather be a fool than blind to any viewpoint but my own.
You, gobear, are the blind one. Every person’s right to enter into a marriage/civil union/whatever you want to call it … every singly person’s right to do so is being challenged right now, whether or not they will ever exercise it. You are, to use an argument I myself find odious (but almost preferable to what you’ve been posting herein), free to marry the human consenting adult female of your choosing, providing of course for the fact that neither of you are already married. I am as well. Neither of us is able to enter into same contract with a man. That you would be the more likely of the two of us to have that right honored takes nothing from the fact that both of us (along with, coincidentally, a sizable percent of the US population) are experiencing a decrease in civil rights.
By the way - loved how you quoted my sexuality in a previous post in this thread. If I’m “bi”, does that make you “gay”, or was it for a reason not meant to impugn me?
You define fundamentalists thus. This is not a universal definition however. Clearly there are people who consider themselves fundamentalist who do not meet all these criteria.
Luke 6:27: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.”
Matthew 5:39-40: “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.”
Mahatma Gandhi: “Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”
Cecil Adams: “Don’t be a jerk.”
I have said nothing to defend the attitudes of bigots. I do defend the bigots themselves. I do so because a hate group is a hate group, no matter how the group is defined. I find the attitude that “Jesus told me you are evil” to be as odious a cop out for hatred as any. But, that doesn’t make “fundies are the cause of all my suffering” any more attractive. Those who try to make God take the rap for their own hatreds make me sick. But they do so one at a time, on their own, and they blaspheme against the love of Christ as individuals. And not every member of every fundamentalist church is a bigot.
We are all part of the problem, my friend. And the solution is to reduce hatred, not change its direction.
I will support protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I promised I would. I don’t believe that there is any legal justification in recognizing any religious authority in civil matters. I don’t think there is religious authority for it either. The rights enumerated, and others not delineated are reserved to the people. I think it is a very bad idea to have religious definitions of relationships between the state, and its citizens. I object to civil recognition of heterosexual marriages. Marriage is a Holy Sacrament, and should be protected under the first amendment from any intrusion by the government, state or federal.
I am not your enemy. But if you will deny my right to my faith, and make accusations of intolerance, it is you who have decided in ignorance, and refused to judge on the basis of fact, and truth.
And your outrage will not convince everyone that you are right, or that being a Christian, makes me a homophobic bigot. Most will wait, and judge me by my acts, and my words. And if I prove to be a bigot, toward you, or someone else’s demographic subset, then my own bigotry will be known. And that would be an appropriate target for scorn. Did you think I have no scorn for those who speak hatred in the name of the Christ? I must admit I seldom get to the civil matter, since I am too busy rebuking the sinner in the name of my Lord. Almost got myself banned for it.
Tris
There’s a loaded question:D First we’d have to agree on a definition of belief and a definition of ignorance. Then we’d have to objectively determine (if such a thing is possible) if sufficient irrefutible, uncontrivertible evidence exists to A) prove that the Earth is some quantity above or below 6000 years and B) a global flood (such a term would again have to be usefully defined) never occurred.
Good luck getting that done with a sufficiently diverse group of people. Hell, I’m not sure even on this decently liberal board that such an endeavor would be possible.
The age of the earth has been reliably tested to be 4.3 billion years old.
What do you mean, usefully determined? A global flood as described in the OT, covering the entire earth up to the mountaintops. For one thing, human civilization is older than the putative flood date, and there are absolutely no traces of the debris that would have been deposited by a global inundation.
So, is belief in the flood of the Bible ignorance or not?
Usefully defined in that it A) means something useful (specific, basically) and that it serves its intended purpose.
Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.
We still haven’t defined belief. And this is just one person, not 15. Is Libertarian still requiring that people prove their existence to him before he debates with them?
Only the ones who want him to prove the existence of God, I think.