RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism"

RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 1:40:01 PM)
We will have to disagree here... the so called good books were written by men with already preconceived opinions on homosexuality. Religion just reflects these feelings that are innate to some extent... as innate as any other human trait can be anyway. I separate my spirituality and beliefs from the literal words of men thousands of years ago and still believe in a Spiritual force that inspired them. I would also not dismiss the internet so quickly when it comes to the changing of world opinion..but just my opinion. Butch

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 2:01:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic why cant you have a civil ceremony??? They won't allow us to have one. [X(] If we were both of the same sex, no problem. But not same sex?? No, we must get "Married", a civil ceremony isn't allowed for that reason. We can have our own (Pagan) ceremony, but it won't be legally recognised. ETA: It's quite black-and-white. Same sex joining = civil ceremony. Different sex joining = marriage. And never the twain shall meet.

chatterbox24 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 2:31:46 PM)
A man tells me he is a church lady and that would not cause anyone confusion? I rarely pay attention to profiles if someone has one. I am seriously laughing so hard. Really? It is not because I can't supply information I have decided I would rather not. This is not rational to you but may God bless you and I mean that in sincerity. I will leave fancy talk to the intellectuals. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice BTW, as a church lady myself, I have to say I cringe when I read your posts. Again and again, your words make all believers sound like morons. quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 A moron? I had to look up the definition to make sure I had that right, you know because of me being slow and all. [8\|] Your posts tend to be rather simple for example claiming "medical research" and then being unable to explain or justify that. Your posts tend to be riddled with errors. For instance dc called himself a "church lady" not you and what pray tell does "rational based" mean. Your posts tend to rely on magical thinking such as this one where "the spirit" was supposed to be able to enlighten people. I think what dc was trying to express is that as a Christian he shudders to see other Christians wade into an intellectual discussion and flounder. That it ends up making Christianity look bad.

GotSteel -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 3:33:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic HOw many people find male on male sex repulsive but fap religiously to lesbian sex? [sm=waves.gif] That's me.

evesgrden -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 3:43:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub If it is a marriage to be outside a church why not call it a civil marriage? Butch Because separate but equal isn't equal. Why call it civil marriage, what's the motivation? The cynics among us might call it an oxymoron.

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 3:56:18 PM)
quote: A man tells me he is a church lady and that would not cause anyone confusion? I rarely pay attention to profiles if someone has one. I am seriously laughing so hard. Really? It is not because I can't supply information I have decided I would rather not. This is not rational to you but may God bless you and I mean that in sincerity. I will leave fancy talk to the intellectuals. I apologize. I should not have gotten personal. That's a line I usually strive not to cross, but sometimes, as in this thread, I fall short.

tweakabelle -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 7:15:51 PM)
As no one has yet explained how hetero marriage is devalued by allowing queers to marry, it seems that I have no option but to try to unwrap this way of thinking myself. In most instances the behaviour of others doesn't impact on me personally. Similarly, if A wishes to marry B or C makes not an iota of difference to me. Whether they marry or not, how they marry, who they marry and the genital status of either or both parties makes not a whiff of difference to me. I can't see that statement changing if I were to change my maritial status either. The only way it could become an issue for me would be if the status of the other parties was inferior to mine, and that elevating their marriage to same status as mine would necessarily mean abolishing this different status, thereby 'devaluing' my status. So the claim that queer marriage devalues straight marriage must rely on a preconception that straight is somehow superior to queer. It seems to me that the devaluation argument can only make sense if viewed through this filter. There may be other reasons but I can't think of any ..... IOW the devaluation argument relies on an unspoken assumption of straight superiority. One of the origins of bigotry lies in differential valuations of the 'Other'. Without different valuations accorded to straight and queer statuses, bigotry is denied the oxygen it needs to exist and flourish. So the devalution argument is ultimately reliant on the same assumptions that drive anti-queer bigotry. What other people do in bed, and who they do it with is no business of mine, unless there is coercion involved. Similarly, when it comes to marriage, who others marry is no business of mine, provided there is no coercion involved. Those advancing the devaluation argument need to realise that bigotry devalues their status far more than any same gender marriage will ever do.

GotSteel -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 7:18:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Got Steel I agree with you on this issue...I was wondering if however the term Civil Marriage would be acceptable for all marriages... hetro and gay alike outside of a church? Those getting married in a church could call it what they like. I don't think so, First I'm not willing to be a second class citizen with a "civil marriage". Second the bigots wouldn't put up with it when they figure out that said law would allow homosexuals to get married in non-bigot churches.

GotSteel -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 7:32:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It is just plain and simple human nature and the revulsion of gay behavior by many straight people and their inability to overcome this way of thinking that has been mainstream since the beginning of civilization. Um my understanding of antiquity conflicts with this claim. Do you have evidence for it? quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Some are blaming religion... nonsense... this attitude towards gays predates many religions which are just a crutch.. or self justifications written in the religious texts as validation of their natural feelings. No, the data's there, this really is a religious issue.

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 7:35:37 PM)
quote: Similarly, when it comes to marriage, who others marry is no business of mine, provided there is no coercion involved. Does being conscripted as a bridesmaid or groomsman count as coercion? [:)] But seriously, I think you've nailed it.

kdsub -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 7:42:18 PM)
Will which is it ... there IS a God and he IS against gays... or the very mortal men who wrote the Bible had preconceived ideas of homosexuality and that is why they wrote the verses in the Bible. There is your proof in the written word.... homophobia preceded religion.... if not then you must agree there is a real vindictive God. Butch

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 8:04:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle As no one has yet explained how hetero marriage is devalued by allowing queers to marry... As no one here has claimed that, it is a crimson clupeid. K.

Lucylastic -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 8:39:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic why cant you have a civil ceremony??? They won't allow us to have one. [X(] If we were both of the same sex, no problem. But not same sex?? No, we must get "Married", a civil ceremony isn't allowed for that reason. We can have our own (Pagan) ceremony, but it won't be legally recognised. ETA: It's quite black-and-white. Same sex joining = civil ceremony. Different sex joining = marriage. And never the twain shall meet. Is this because you dont want to wed with the word god in the registry office ceremony? please understand IM trying to understand what the issue is here. If I missed something previously please let me know, its been a weird few days.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 9:30:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Because the whole separate church/state thing is comparatively new, and legal marriage far predates it. There's a long historic macroeconomic answer as well, but this thread is clouded enough as it is. Not as much as you think. The separation of church and state started coming about in the reformation, where nation states, tired of the domination of the church in their affairs, supported the break away protestants like Luther, and this started roughly in the 17th century or so (actually late 16th),and while it wasn't exactly a clean break, it was a start. As far as legal marriage goes, one thing that is a bald faced lie is that marriage is this ancient institution that in effect all couples partook of. The reality is that for a really long time, the only people who got married routinely were nobility and those with money, primarily because of making sure titles and property were inherited properly. It wasn't until roughly around 1600 that people started marrying in any numbers,when thanks to changing times more people had property and things for someone to inherit. Before that, most people simply paired off, had families and didn't bother with formally getting married, it is why common law marriage came into being. It is one of the reasons the whole argument about marriage being a sacred thing versus a civic thing is a bald faced lie, if the importance of it was in the sacred, why did so few people do it?Basically, since formal marriage came about (roughly 1100's), very few people bothered to use it until they had something to protect, which meant they felt it was important for its legal rights more than for the moral one. Romans married and their were laws about it, just as much for the plebs as for the nobility. So I don't know what you're babblin about. Like marriage is a thing neo christians invented you make it seem. BULLCRACKER. About any people had rules about it so that states a law. What I wrote was history. In Roman times ordinary people, the plebes, more than likely were not formally married because they had no reason to.The well off would do it to have their property and inherited titles protected, but the common people for the most part never formally married. It wasn't that formal marriage didn't exist, it is that ordinary people didn't bother. After the fall of rome, peasants didn't bother getting married, and the Catholic Church did not even have a formal ritual of marriage until the 900's, and didn't require people who wanted to formally marry to do it in the church until the 11th century. Every book on the history of marriage, written by scholars and historians, has pointed out that the only people who generally bothered to get married (I am talking legal marriage here, mind you) were the well off and nobility, who had a reason to get legal recognition. Most common people simply paired off and had families, and they didn't have any property to speak of, given that most of them tenant farmed on feudal estates and such and didn't have much property to protect. Ever wonder where common law marriage came from? The reality is that marriage's driving force wasn't God or some form of sacredness, despite what the church claims, it was because people wanted the legal protections that marriage granted, whether it was titles or inherited wealth. You can tell me bull hockey, but I have read the books on it, and every one of them confirms it, and they put to the lie the Faux News/GOP drivel on marriage.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 9:37:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice If their feelings were not the point of bringing them up, what was? Well, reading the whole sentence, my guess would be to explain why I raised the point. I only raised the point in the first place because I know a lot of people who feel very attached to the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and most of them would not object at all to civil unions that would give gays the same legal rights and privileges. (The "point" being what I said at the link I referred you to.) K. Weighing in with a couple of cents worth: "Marriage" is considered a sacrament in many churches. And, many religions don't consider it a "marriage" unless it is done in a church, etc. Why not defuse the controversy with the fundies and simply consider all civil officiated unions "domestic partners" and leave "marriage" to the churches. Let the various congregations consider "marriage" only between one man and one woman and leave the legal definition of "civil union" to be whatever the local jurisdiction wants to. That would make sense, I totally agree. But what you are leaving out is those that claim that marriage is the problem, the term, would never agree to that, because their ultimate goal is to make sure that gay couples don't enjoy the same rights they do. If you made marriage a matter of the churches, they could not claim superiority, because gay couples could get married in churches, plenty of them see gay marriage as fully sacramental. In the current system, homophobes can use the law to make gays second class citizens, and in fact many gay marriage opponents come right out and say that giving gays the right to marry is the government "supporting sin"......if we made everyone get a civic union, if legally straight or same sex couples had the same name/benefit, to them it would be 'encouraging' gays. The big lie is that gays want the term marriage, what gays want is to have their unions fully protected by the law, and to get that they need the legal word marriage because of the way the law is written, Opponents know that, and their ultimate goal is to try and make sure that gays never fully have the rights of marriage, they need/want gays to be second class, if they didn't, they should be clamoring that marriage have no meaning legally, that church weddings have no legal meaning, and that to get government rights you file for civil benefits, period....but I haven't heard a groundswell of that coming from those claiming marriage is a sacred term. They argue that marriage should remain a legal definition and only be available to straights, which is nothing more than wanting gays to have no or few rights for their unions, there is no other explanation why the religious right is not clamoring that marriage be left up to the churches.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 9:47:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The most common objection I hear from some straight people against marriage equality is that it will somehow 'devalue' heterosexual marriage. Often these same people propose civil unions as a 'acceptable' formula that won't devalue their hetero marriages. I've never received a satisfactory answer when I ask precisely how will heterosexual marriage be devalued. So I am at a loss to understand this point of view. Perhaps someone can explain to me precisely how the institution of marriage between heterosexuals will be devalued by extending the same privelige to queers. It devalues their marriage in the sense that they can no longer lord over gay couples and tell them their coupling is superior to theirs, better than theirs, and in their narrow little world, that is a terrible thing, much the same as Jim Crow gave a lot of people at the bottom of the barrel someone they could feel superior to. It is kind of pathetic that people need to have the idea that their marriage is special cause someone else is denied the right, it makes you wonder just how strong their marriage is if they need to look down on other people's marriages. Seems to me given how shaky a lot of marriages are, with the divorce rate and such, that maybe marriage would be strengthened more if they worked on their own marriages rather than tried to stop others who wish to marry from doing so. One of the fundamental irony of gay marriage is some of the strongest opponents, fundamentalist Christians and members of conservative black churches, both have issues with marriage than people who generally support same sex marriage.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 9:58:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR I don't doubt that many folks, online and off, are sincere about thinking the government should get out of "the marriage business." But I confess I find the timing curious. Marriage and government have been entwined for centuries. Yet I honestly don't recall anyone's describing that as a problem before governments began issuing marriage licenses to gays as well as straights. dc- Not to mention that the predominant reason for getting married was based on non religious reasons, inheritance and titles seem to come to mind.. The reality is that marriage ceased being a religious sacrament when it was recognized by the government/law and when the idiots in the churches and their brethren proclaim marriage to be this sacred ritual they are hypocrites, because why then did they ever allow government to use the word marriage or recognize it? You can't claim something is sacred, allow it to be used by a civic body without protest, and then claim it is sacred only, it is sheer hypocrisy of the highest order. If making everyone to get the rights now associated with marriage means getting marriage out of the law, I personally am fine with it, as long as it is the same term and is equal. Marriage is so loaded with bullshit, so loaded with a lot of centuries of inequality and unfairness, that removing it from the law may not be such a bad thing. Among other things, by doing so, you now totally have taken the wind out of the sails of Catholics dumb enough to believe what the Bishops say, the evangelicals, and other same sex marriage opponents, because now the law isn't redefining marriage since it isn't involved in it....one of the easiest way to beat an opponent is give them the results they want, just not in the way they want. The numbnuts want to keep gays from getting legal recognition for their unions, but to cover it claim it is because the term marriage is sacred; take away the term marriage, and they are exposed for what they are, ignorant bigots trying to maintain segregated law to make themselves feel better.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 10:01:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I don't doubt that many folks, online and off, are sincere about thinking the government should get out of "the marriage business." But I confess I find the timing curious. Marriage and government have been entwined for centuries. Yet I honestly don't recall anyone's describing that as a problem before governments began issuing marriage licenses to gays as well as straights. Actually, it has been the position of some people for a long time. This whole business of the state involving itself in who may and may not marry started in the post-Civil War era as a way to combat miscegenation. The requirement to obtain a "marriage license" in order to marry legally was used to deny the right to marry to mixed couples (their application for a "license" would not be approved). The current debate over gay marriage has dragged the whole marriage issue onto center stage, but even today the objection to government involvement seems a minority view among those on the front lines. K. Kirata- I am not sure what you wrote is true. Legal recognition of marriage goes way back before the civil war, you may not have had to get a marriage license, but once you were married, to be able to do things like determine estates and such, or any other legal benefits of marriage, you had to file a mariage certificate signed by an authority, whether it was a priest or a judge or whatever. Unless the state recognized common law marriage, it was the only way to be recognized as married, which also included the children not being considered bastards.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 10:07:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Lucy it just amazes me how arguments over this naming issue of marriage are debated so passionately when the real issues are ignored. It has nothing to do with the word marriage... or religion in particular... It is just plain and simple human nature and the revulsion of gay behavior by many straight people and their inability to overcome this way of thinking that has been mainstream since the beginning of civilization. Some are blaming religion... nonsense... this attitude towards gays predates many religions which are just a crutch.. or self justifications written in the religious texts as validation of their natural feelings. Butch People aren't naturally repulsed by gays, same sex couples, that revulsion is taught behavior. Some of it is in fear of the different, but guess what, that same fear of the different is what led to racism, race hatred, whatever, and the natural fear of that which is different gets bolstered by generations of learned behavior. Put it this way, little kids don't have a revulsion to same sex couples, little kids don't care, but give them enough time with homophobic parents, religion that teaches that gays are filth, and soon little johnny is calling them fags and worse.....claiming it is natural is nonsense, there are spiritual traditions that don't have a problem with people attracted to same sex couples. If it were natural revulsion, then gays would be hiding in the closet, same sex marriage wouldn't be whispered about and the entire country would look like the deep south..but it doesn't, because as with racial prejudice, people have learned there is nothing to be afraid of.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/17/2014 10:14:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Not because the church has lost power... but because of... the net!!! I do not have my head in the sand when it comes to religions..meaning Islam and Christianity's in particular...roll in this issue. You must understand that the majority of mankind claims to be religious and the majority of mankind still holds negative views of homosexuals. Lets just say we could take religion out of the equation mankind in general will still have issues with homosexuality. The only reason we think religion is at fault is because of the majority in both negative views in mankind and the reflection of these views in religion of the majority. It is mankind... not religion at fault... or perhaps a better way to put it is religion is just a reflection of mankind's basic view. Butch The mankind that holds negative attitudes towards gays is a factor that a lot of humanity is still woefully ignorant and ill educated. It is no big surprise that places like Africa, The Arab world and a good deal of asia are strongly anti gay, they are some of the most ill educated places on earth, where many of the people are poor, uneducated, and often in the thrall of churches whose attitudes are stone age. In Europe and America, anti gay attitudes are entrenched in rural, poorer, less well educated places or among people who fall into that demographic. Want to know what causes attitudes about gays? There is nothing inherent in it, it is ignorance, pure and simple. Want to know what has changed the tide? Young people have been exposed to gay people, whether it is on tv, whether it is on the internet or when they go to college and meet gay kids and start realizing that their parents and the local priest/preacher were full of shit, that gays don't have horns, that most gay kids aren't having sex with children or animals, and that the only evil is the stupidity they were taught. It is no big surprise that homophobia is concentrated in people older than 40, most people under that age , to the tune of 80%, see nothing wrong with gays...so much for your thesis. Put it this way, even without all the rapid progress being made these days, give it 20 or 30 years and gay marriage will be a fait accompli, when all the older generations die off.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875