Gay Marriage, religious or not?

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Infohawk's sheer hate of religion hinder his ability to understand the real world and generate effective solutions to serious issues such as this. Refusing to accept others and their differences is a very negative trait imo.

Ummm....

I don't hate religion. I don't refuse to accept others or their differences. Please stop misrepresnting my views.

Since we're trolling, I'll point out you're just cranky because I pointed out you didn't use the term strawman correctly.

 

[Stunt]

You hate religion: you think all Christians should stop posting (even though you say you would not force this) as their ideas are "wacky" and "unreasonable". You think discrediting the bible with respect to incest and trouncing on people's entire belief system is a justification for gay marriage. You are too busy labelling and grouping people, you twart reality and your ability to address real concerns of everyday people; creating practical solutions and comprimise.

Just my analysis, I don't think it was trolling. If it was, oh well, was done to benifit you.

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: zendari
Hate is such a strong word...disapprove is what I'd say.

Let's try BIGOTRY. That's a much more appropriate word.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Glpster

Originally posted by: zendari
Hate is such a strong word...disapprove is what I'd say.

Let's try BIGOTRY. That's a much more appropriate word.

:thumbsup:

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
You hate religion

Errr.. no I don't. You simply stating it doesn't make it true.

you think all Christians should stop posting (even though you say you would not force this) as their ideas are "wacky" and "unreasonable".

I never used the word should. It's their choice. If they stop, I won't care.

You think discrediting the bible with respect to incest and trouncing on people's entire belief system is a justification for gay marriage.

No, I don't think it is a justification for gay marriage. Where the heck did you get that idea. That was you being irrational again.

You are too busy labelling and grouping people,

Everyone labels and groups people together.

you twart reality and your ability to address real concerns of everyday people; creating practical solutions and comprimise.

How do I thwart reality? I address religious post all the time in this forum.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Stunt
You hate religion: you think all Christians should stop posting (even though you say you would not force this) as their ideas are "wacky" and "unreasonable". You think discrediting the bible with respect to incest and trouncing on people's entire belief system is a justification for gay marriage. You are too busy labelling and grouping people, you twart reality and your ability to address real concerns of everyday people; creating practical solutions and comprimise.

Just my analysis, I don't think it was trolling. If it was, oh well, was done to benifit you.

:beer:

 

[Stunt]

I never used the word should. It's their choice. If they stop, I won't care.

I will let people go to this thread and form their own judgements on what you think about Christians.here

Everyone labels and groups people together.

Everyone is Christian, you should become one too. Who's being a populist now?

How do I thwart reality? I address religious post all the time in this forum.

Wishing key groups to leave the forum for happiness without addressing the problems or creating solutions.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: polm
The more important question is whether the marriage certificate issued by the governemnt is equivalent to the religous ceremony of marriage ?

I do not feel a religous institution should be forced to grant, or even recognize, marriages that they do not approve of.

I do feel that the government should be forced to grant marriage licenses to ALL couples regardless of their genders.

It's funny, to me, that religous people feel the need to struggle to preserve the english word "marriage" as exclusive to the coupling of a male and a female.

What the hell is so hard about this people?!?!

I don't know. 🙁 This seems fair to me too.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Your problem is you arent actually looking for a thoughtful conversation on the issue and instead are looking to smear.

If you really were interested in your wifes opinion the adam and eve and incest comment would have been left out.

That's not close to fair. He was having a discussion with his wife, not some stranger on a street corner. Words between married couples are often shorthand with far deepr meanings understood between them.

Genx87 -- I think your discussion with your wife has to start with definitions. She's looking at "marriage" as defined by her faith. First, she has to understand that there is a simultaneous civil definition of marriage that includes financial impact, such as taxes, etc., and social impact, such as visitation rights for a sick or dying loved one.

If she really has a good heart, maybe she'll consider that, regardless of her own beliefs, it would be less than Christian to deny these same rights between two caring, loving people who are harming no one. She doesn't have to approve of their lifestyle, but ask her if she has any reason to stand in the way of others who don't happen to believe as she does.

 

[azazyel]

Getting back to the OP....


I am a Rev, with the Universal Life Church (aka internet priest) and I married a couple of my friends who are not religious. I didn't mention god in the service and they were able to get married. So no, not all Marriages are religious.

For those who feel that marriage is holy then they can go get married in a church by a pastor whom they have probably don't really know. As for gay marriages go, it should be up to the church whether or not they allow gay marriages in their church and by their priests. But the state should let them.

In the words of the Corporate Mofo..

"The first step in realizing that homosexual marriage might be a good idea is to recognize that heterosexual marriage is a fiction in the first place. For many, a husband or wife has become just another lifestyle accessory, a nostalgic relic of a time when men almost literally owned women and the traditional division of labor according to sex was a necessity for running a household. These days, women work outside the home; men stay home with the kids. People spend all day commuting and working, zoning out in front of the TV on weekends, staying together with a partner they've ceased to have any meaningful relationship with simply because they've got so much money sunk into their joint property. Kids are raised by nannies or day care. I can't help but think that a whole lot of gay couples could do a much, much better job of being married than some of the straight couples I've known."

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/030629gays.htm

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I will let people go to this thread and form their own judgements on what you think about Christians.here

Do you think taking a vote on it would make you right that I hate Christians? You saying I hate Christians doesn't make it true. Neither does the whole board saying I hate Christian makes it true.

Everyone is Christian, you should become one too. Who's being a populist now?

I have no idea what you are talking about. What does this have to do with anything?

Wishing key groups to leave the forum for happiness without addressing the problems or creating solutions.

That is not thwarting reality. I wish for a billion dollars too. That doesn't mean I'm 'thwarting realities." I address problems on this forum all the time, including the Christian ones.

 

[Stunt]

I think people should form their own judgements on how you feel about Christians, based on what you say, nothing more. I don't think you are important enough to really make a poll about it to be quite honest.

You criticized my wanting Christian forum members as i was playing into "populist", "wacky", "unreasonable" views, now you are playing into it. You cannot have it both ways.

You twart reality when you think having misrepresentation is a good thing.

We have discussed this already though, fundamental differences, not worth discussing...this is your problem, not mine.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think people should form their own judgements on how you feel about Christians, based on what you say, nothing more.

Who cares about what they say? I'm talking to you. And your view is wrong. Stop hiding behind other people.

I don't think you are important enough to really make a poll about it to be quite honest.

I wasn't suggesting I was. Furthermore, it would be idiotic to try and determine truth based on a poll.

You criticized my wanting Christian forum members as i was playing into "populist", "wacky", "unreasonable" views, now you are playing into it. You cannot have it both ways.

I don't recall saying anything about populist. Do you have a link. (I hope you undersand the difference between "populist" and "popular"). I don't recall criticizing you for wanting Christian members. Do you have a link or are you just misrepresenting me again.

You twart reality when you think having misrepresentation is a good thing.

When did I say having misrepresentation is a good thing? Also, even if this were true, how would this thwart reality?

We have discussed this already though, fundamental differences, not worth discussing...this is your problem, not mine.

If it's not worth discussing, stop misrepresenting my views in the first place. Don't whine when I call you on your misreprentations.

 

[Stunt]

You've made polls in this forum, most recent being the prison rape one...you were trying to determine truths of how people felt about prison rape, i don't think there is any question of the right and wrong in that. I don't hide behind others.

Tell me the difference between popular opinions and populist opinions please.

Misrepresentation twarts reality because the existence of views are hidden and will most likely be justified inaccurately.

I'm not whining, I'm helping you in understanding your flaws in logic and reasoning.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
You've made polls in this forum, most recent being the prison rape one...you were trying to determine truths of how people felt about prison rape

Right, that is different than saying prison rape is wrong because most people don't like it. You seem to talk about other people sharing your beliefs as some sort of support for your argument. It isn't. It's an appeal to popularity.

Tell me the difference between popular opinions and populist opinions please.

Populist has a specific meaning. It refers to a certain kind of politician who panders to the masses. Populist as an adjective speaks to that noun. Popular just means a lot of people share it.

Misrepresentation twarts reality because the existence of views are hidden and will most likely be justified inaccurately.

Hidden suggests covering something up. Me not caring if someone posts is not covering something up. Even me not wanting someone to post is not covering something up.

I'm not whining, I'm helping you in understanding your flaws in logic and reasoning.

I suggest you read about logical fallacies more closely then.

 

[Stunt]

Asking people to form their own judgements is appealing to popularity?

Hidden means not visible. If you want Christians to stop posting you are hiding their views and misrepresenting their voice. Not that you are taking actions to cover it up, you don't have the power to do that.

I suggest we stop hijacking this thread with this discussion of your flaws.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Asking people to form their own judgements is appealing to popularity?

No. It's not.

If you want Christians to stop posting you are hiding their views and misrepresenting their voice.

Yet another logical leap. I could want Christians to stop posting and yet NOT mispreresent them. Me wanting something doesn't really do anything. Do you understand that? It's not like it magically shuts Christians off. Are Christian views hidden now? Of course not. Yet you think I want them to stop posting. According to you, the mere fact of me wanting them to stop posting is silencing them. Yet they speak! It doesn't make any sense. Either me not wanting them to speak isn't silencing them or they are being hidden right now (which they're not). (PS I think anyone who reads between the lines of the post in question and knows my posting history understand that my view is more about indifference than about affirmatively wanting them to stop posting).

I suggest we stop hijacking this thread with this discussion of your flaws.

Then stop posting falsities about me. You started the misrepresentation. I have the right to defend myself against your falsities. You went off-topic about me hating Christians. I am defending myself. Don't complain when I do so.

 

[Stunt]

You are right in saying I am not the one to inform you of your flaws, these are yours to determine.

Unfortunately, people agree with these statements and you should take note 🙂

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
You are right in saying I am not the one to inform you of your flaws

You can point out my flaws. Just back it up with reason. Most of all, don't misrepresent my views (as you consistently do), especially when it has nothing to do with the OP.

Unfortunately, people agree with these statements and you should take note 🙂

Wow. How many times can you make an appeal to popularity? It isn't logical. Popularity of an idea is not a reason to take it seriously. There are a lot of dumb popular ideas that aren't worthy of serious attention.

 

[azazyel]

You 2 need to get a room or continue in PM.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: azazyel
You 2 need to get a room or continue in PM.

Honestly...I think I'm Infohawk's new friend 🙂

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
My wife and I were watching Meet the Press. Well, I was watching and she was playing on the pc. Ken Melman started in on Bush standing firm on his "defense of marriage" schpeel. It prompted me to spout out to my wife that I am completely in favor of gay marriage because it is a government-sanctioned partnership that has nothing to do with religion. She, being a Republican and a Christian of stronger faith than myself, disagreed completly. She said that it is a partnership that is sanctioned by God and not the government.

This brought me around to saying that incest was also something that was "sanctioned" by God. After all, he only created Adam and Eve. Therefore, we all descended from the same parents and are all incestual.

I guess what I am trying to figure out, especially from those on the right, if they are supporting gay marriage bans for religious reasons, would they support incest no longer being a crime or moral depravity for the very same reason?

the whole deal with Adam and Eve is just a story, has no relevance to modern day man. It was put into context so that the people of the time, who in todays world probably had the equivalent of a 2nd grade education, could understand it.

So your saying the bible is a giant lie?

 

[robertcloud]

The primary and only purpose of marriage is to facilitate and promote the creation of a family. Queers can't have children so why should they get married?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
The primary and only purpose of marriage is to facilitate and promote the creation of a family. Queers can't have children so why should they get married?

Gay people can adopt children or use artificial insemination. How do you reconcile that with your belief "queers can't have children."

 

[robertcloud]

Gays can't adopt. There are many single mothers anyway, so I don't care if two women have a baby. Queers can't have a family.