|
Post by goten0040 on Feb 13, 2009 9:48:47 GMT -5
I know it's sort of off topic, but there are probably plenty of homophobic atheists, who are homophobic in a more traditional and semantically accurate sense. Not entirely because of them "knowing for sure that it's wrong" so much as just being grossed out by it and because of social norms. You're right, and they are just as wrong as the Christians who are against it, but they're hardly making the scene the Christians are.
|
|
Orangey
Painted Katara
Posts: 5,587
|
Post by Orangey on Feb 13, 2009 15:28:21 GMT -5
When peoples' basics rights are left up to voters to decide on, something's not right. I kind of wish the government did their job and ensured equal rights for everyone, but I guess these things take time.
Relevant to this topic:
"Top 17 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
17. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
16. Gay culture is a new fad created by the liberal media to undermine long-standing traditions. We know this is true because gay sex did not exist in ancient Greece and Rome.
15. There are plenty of straight families looking to adopt, and every unwanted child already has a loving family. This is why foster care does not exist.
14. Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.
13. Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry. Christians also never get a divorce.
12. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our society has no single parents.
11. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
10. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
9. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
8. Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.
7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups.
5. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
3. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
1. METEORS and VOLCANOES."
(from the Facebook group Gay Marriage Killed the Dinosaurs)
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Feb 13, 2009 20:13:40 GMT -5
Fair enough. If that was the official excuse I think the vote would've been closer. There is a certain point where most people aren't willing to debate(and by most people, I think I mean everyone but me, because I'm the only person I've ever met with no ground that is so personal I can't debate it) and the people basically won't let anything change their mind.. The sanctity in marriage one compliments religion, since marriage is done in church and I'm still hearing online about a few churches saying never to get divorced. Most people aren't willing to change their mind on what their religion told them regardless of outside influences. The thing is most people are not willing to change their mind on what theyve already decided on. The excuse is just a means to justify that decision. Previously, some people used the bible to justify slavery whiles other used it to attack slavery. Simply attacking the excuse will not make a dent to the decision itself because it really had nothing to do with the decision in the first place. For example, I may say to you that I think homosexuality is a sin but the fact that Im perfectly willing to commit every other sin stated in the Bible, Quran or any other religious text may suggest that Im not being completely honest about my reasons. Actually, using religion as an excuse is tactically brilliant because people will end up debating about religion instead of the matter at hand. While there are homophobic atheists(if I found something as odd as gay republican atheistic 13 year old who isn't in the closet on the internet, thinking there are not atheistic homophobes is ridiculous), I would be prone to believe they're a vast minority though. I've not once heard an atheist be against homosexuals in a debate/discussion about them. These forums where I discuss (forum-goers are more intelligent than school imbeciles,anyone not from school is going to belittle me because I'm 13, I talk better with a keyboard, and I just like the internet. ), tend to be like 10% Christians and normally they're not devout ones and are perfectly fine with us making threads about how if the Christians are right we'd rather go to hell, and yet every homophobe I've seen has been Christian. Well, that might have more to do with the make up of the particular forum than anything else. By the same token, Ive seen more atheists on internet boards spend a disproportionate amount of time ridiculing Christianity compared to any other religion. There are undeniably very vocal but (in my view) minority groups that have been allowed to set the tone and agenda of public debate on this and other matters to the detriment of any productive dialogue. When the tone of the debate gets too hostile or goes into religion bashing, I think most people just tune out and give it a miss altogether which is why there is a disproportionate showing of views in forums about these matters. By the way, I find that youre very articulate and intelligent for a 13 year old.
|
|
Orangey
Painted Katara
Posts: 5,587
|
Post by Orangey on Feb 13, 2009 21:31:24 GMT -5
The reason Christians get mentioned so much is because of a few extremist groups who feel the need to impose their values on others. Most "Christian-bashing" is of fundamentalists, just like how people focus on Muslim extremists (it doesn't mean they dislike Muslims).
But religion isn't really an issue in this debate because of that whole, you know, seperation of church and state thing. This is a matter of civil rights. Believe whatever you want, so long as you don't try to make it law. I'm still, after several months, outraged at Californians (and Floridians who passed Amendment 2 in our state, which was similar to Proposition 8). But Florida is another case entirely; practically the whole population outside of the Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Palm Beach, Orlando, Naples, and Tampa Bay Area is redneck. It's seriously one backwards state. D:
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Feb 14, 2009 15:27:45 GMT -5
Yes, for most people. Doesn't mean no one's manipulated by the excuse.You implied I was only talking about one forum? I spend 30% of my time on various forums. Some are, most people only seem to have a few things they decided they won't change their mind on. Mainly because we know more about that religion than others without even having to research anything because they're the majority. why am I reminded of this? ozatheist.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/being-oppressed.jpg . Depends what you mean by bashing. I don't refer something as a bash or a flame if it isn't baseless. If you're reffering to atheists who don't have reasons for their bashes that they're willing to say I'm not very familiar with them. Also, if I continue an arguement or get involved if I planned on it regardless of who's bashing me I don't see how other people can't do the same.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Feb 14, 2009 21:44:42 GMT -5
^^ I didnt imply that you only post on one forum. That rediculous chart is an excelent example of bashing. This is the wiki definition. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashing_(pejorative)Notice how far off topic we are getting? No, Im not blaming you but this is what happens all the time as Im sure youre aware if youve been on as many forums as you imply. If it continues in this vein, the only people who will end up posting here are atheist bashing christians and christian bashing atheists which can lead to L&T action if things get hostile. But religion isn't really an issue in this debate because of that whole, you know, seperation of church and state thing. This is a matter of civil rights. Believe whatever you want, so long as you don't try to make it law. I'm still, after several months, outraged at Californians (and Floridians who passed Amendment 2 in our state, which was similar to Proposition 8). But Florida is another case entirely; practically the whole population outside of the Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Palm Beach, Orlando, Naples, and Tampa Bay Area is redneck. It's seriously one backwards state. D: I agree that the matter should be framed as a civil rights matter because that way, everyone can get behind it. If (for example) practising jews or muslims had to believe that eating pork was not against their religion or that their religion was stupid for having such a dietary restriction in order to support the rights of non-believers to enjoy pork, we'd get nowhere and fast. In my view, it would be better to push for an amendment to the Civil Rights Act to remove the matter out of the hands of respective States altogether.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Feb 14, 2009 22:07:01 GMT -5
Why? Christians are a majority (in america atleast), which the chart shows, and I've seen them call themselves the victim(.........way too much......once it was behind actual bashing and was to the tune of "stop being critical of my views you horrible people!!" and yes it was on a debate board.....I was glad to have thoughts of murder twoards him) which the chart shows. Infact, in California the pro-prop8 commercials were the most obvious ones I've ever seen. Whining about how anti-prop8 people calling them bigots, ignorants, and other crap like that. While not proving they're not bigots.
The wiki says "Bashing is a harsh, gratuitous, predjudicial attack on a person, group or subject." while dictionary.com says prejudice is thoughtless and reasonless. thoughtless and reasonless is close enough to baseless. I think religion is relevent to the conversation. Either it is the reason prop8 happened, or a lot of people believes it does. Agreed.
|
|
Sakura
FN Sokka
Sakura. Just Sakura.
Posts: 1,744
|
Post by Sakura on Feb 22, 2009 3:29:22 GMT -5
Okay, okay guys, shoot some hoops outside. XD But can I please point out one thing? I know that Christians are the majorities here in the Gay-Marraige-Sux-Pants thing here, but you've got to remember there are other factors in there too. The social norm, for instance. We're not used to seeing a man and a man kiss, or a woman and a woman proclaim their love. Another thing is child protection. Some parents believe their children will be tuaght this in school if the bill won. That purpose was defeated, as the children propably already know about it from their friends. It's like Family Life- you could get a signed slip, as someone might have brought up. The thing that kind of threw me off, though, was something I was told, that if the bill passed, gay couples could sue parishes for not marrying them. Is that really true? Because that would be wrong, I know that. Okay, continue your debate. I'm sure someone will come to so kindly dissect this, as Historyman-kun did last time. But please try to remember not all people who believe in Christ hate gay couples. ><
|
|
|
Post by goten0040 on Feb 23, 2009 9:51:43 GMT -5
I hope I didn't come across as insisting at all God-worshipers hate gays, because I'm a Christian and I totally support them. I will say that the couples being able to sue parishes is wrong though. I mean, it WAS illegal. Do they mean that if they continue to refuse to marry them?
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Feb 23, 2009 11:50:50 GMT -5
Parish as in church or as in County?
Well, church has the right to refuse their services to individuals for their own reason.
If a same sex marriage was legal, I think a county official would be ill advised not to go ahead and perform the ceremony.
But having a woman and a man for parents does not guarantee a balanced upbringing...
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Feb 24, 2009 23:08:39 GMT -5
|
|
Sakura
FN Sokka
Sakura. Just Sakura.
Posts: 1,744
|
Post by Sakura on Feb 28, 2009 3:28:49 GMT -5
Parish as in church or as in County? Well, church has the right to refuse their services to individuals for their own reason. If a same sex marriage was legal, I think a county official would be ill advised not to go ahead and perform the ceremony. But having a woman and a man for parents does not guarantee a balanced upbringing... As in the Church can be sued for turning them away type of thing. I mean, a county official? No, but I think the church's should have desicions, especially to all those guys who are completely immobile about Gays. I know! Look at Jackson Pollock! I mean, his work is FREAKIN AWESOME, but he had depression and acholohism, and apparently, a cold mother! What now? Would you rather have abusive parents or gay parents? Word of the day: Gay- Guess what? It means happy!
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Feb 28, 2009 13:27:56 GMT -5
I don't think so but I hope you're right. Would you be fine with them doing the same with black people? At the very least they should remove the tax exemption of those churches. I don't care about those guys who are completely immobile.
|
|
|
Post by goten0040 on Feb 28, 2009 13:43:28 GMT -5
I don't know if people are allowed to really... sue... a church. Separation of church and state right? 0__0
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Feb 28, 2009 14:02:26 GMT -5
the actually text is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's a lawsuit not making a law. It says nothing of lawsuits.
|
|