10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is "Wrong"

I brought up the topic of gay marriage in my law class to better understand the political argument behind it for another class, and this is something we all laughed about during the class. Thought it was amusing enough to pass on.

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. 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.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. 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.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. 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.

I do agree in a homosexual's right to marry, however many of those comebacks have inherent problems.

It shouldn't matter unless you're religious imo. It has always baffled me why some atheists and those who are not part of church get married, or are even allowed to get married. It makes no sense

The church can make whatever rules for it's own followers it wants really. The issue I think is more the legal rights of a "Married" couple. If you are gay and have been with your partner for years and years and years, things that a legal marriage offers become important, like joint insurance, property rights, hospital issues and whatnot.

I know several of my gay friends have this great fear that one day their partner (or themselves) may have a horrible accident, be ticking away their last days in a hospital in a coma and because they are not related by blood or legally married, they may not be allowed in to see them in their final hours or be able to make decisions about the health care of their loved one. This is a pretty big issue since, unfortunately, many gay people have been estranged from their families for years, so it could come to pass that someone who's almost a complete stranger at that point would be making the decisions and keeping the one they've loved and shared their life with away.

I'm non-religious, my fiancee and I are having a civil service at the courthouse.

My favorite:

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

1 Reason Why Gay Marriage is Right:

Chewey and Skanker <3

Ah, I missed this:

I do agree in a homosexual's right to marry, however many of those comebacks have inherent problems.

The same can be said of the reasons themselves, and the inconsistencies within them have been prodded at several times.

Although I do acknowledge your agreement with gay rights, Roph.

* Roph prods at skanker ;]

I have got nothing against gay marriage or people being gay in general even though I myself can't see how a person can be (in a sense that I couldn't imagine myself being interested in guys instead of girls, not that it's "so weird" or anything like that); however I do have a problem sex-change operations. I mean, I enjoy gender-bender anime as much as the next guy, but I think if you're born with a banana or your born with two mouths that's the way you should stay. It's not a religious thing or anything, I just feel uneasy knowing that... well, I don't want to mess you all up with my thoughts. XD

I hope no one takes offense in my way to view the world. If you do, however: get a life.

Lots of people who are transsexual would find that plenty offensive, Ruk. And I do believe they already have lives.

I'm sure you've heard plenty about "inside" and "outside" genders. Sometimes people just don't feel comfortable as the sex they were born with, so they get it changed. I remember watching this one transsexual blog on youtube - this trannie chick just got her balls chopped off and she said she felt better for it, despite the pain.

I don't know why you'd bring that up here. You're just begging for people to get on your ass for insulting one friend or another ; )

Lots of people who are transsexual would find that plenty offensive, Ruk. And I do believe they already have lives.
this trannie chick just got her balls chopped off

I don't understand how a female can have her non existent balls chopped off.

I couldn't help but laugh at all ten of those reasons.

Lots of people who are transsexual would find that plenty offensive, Ruk. And I do believe they already have lives.

I'm sure you've heard plenty about "inside" and "outside" genders. Sometimes people just don't feel comfortable as the sex they were born with, so they get it changed. I remember watching this one transsexual blog on youtube - this trannie chick just got her balls chopped off and she said she felt better for it, despite the pain.

I don't know why you'd bring that up here. You're just begging for people to get on your ass for insulting one friend or another ; )

Surprisingly well said. Cuz I'm offended. 

I have got nothing against gay marriage or people being gay in general even though I myself can't see how a person can be (in a sense that I couldn't imagine myself being interested in guys instead of girls, not that it's "so weird" or anything like that); however I do have a problem sex-change operations. I mean, I enjoy gender-bender anime as much as the next guy, but I think if you're born with a banana or your born with two mouths that's the way you should stay. It's not a religious thing or anything, I just feel uneasy knowing that... well, I don't want to mess you all up with my thoughts. XD

I hope no one takes offense in my way to view the world. If you do, however: get a life.

This is pretty offensive, bro.

People have opinions!?

Not if you're transsexual because that makes you have no life.

I do agree in a homosexual's right to marry, however many of those comebacks have inherent problems.

I agree with this.

The church can make whatever rules for it's own followers it wants really. The issue I think is more the legal rights of a "Married" couple. If you are gay and have been with your partner for years and years and years, things that a legal marriage offers become important, like joint insurance, property rights, hospital issues and whatnot.

This reminds me of what Holk or Halo said (their names are similar so I sometimes forget ;-; ) about how marriage is mostly a legal thing; I mean, it's not like if you're not married you don't love each other. The marriage for joint insurance, property rights, etc. is all money related. If they really love each other, they should be able to work around the system or something, idk. Ignore me; I'm not even an adult yet.

Ah, I missed this:

quote

The same can be said of the reasons themselves, and the inconsistencies within them have been prodded at several times.

But that's because they specifically chose highly debatable topics and then reworded them to make their significance less important. >_> For example, #8. They say gay marriage is not backed by religion and retort that "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." That completely undermines the importance of religion to some people (ignoring the people who're completely corrupt in their religion such as "KILL GAYS BECAUSE THEY'RE BAD"). If your belief in gay marriage and love is enough to support your argument, then why shouldn't one's religion be?

That aside, if anyone was offended by what I said, I just want to clarify that I believe gays should have the right to get married. Yes, as a Christian, I do not like gay marriage. That just means I have to not participate in it myself. A pastor once told me "you're only responsible for your own salvation." If gays want to get married, then let them. You'd wonder why, if some extremist Christians have some enormous hatred towards gays, they reject gay marriage instead of trying to let them burn in hell (not to offend gays here and for all you non-believers, it's just a theory) considering it's a far worse punishment.

I hope I worded things well. >_>

Lots of people who are transsexual would find that plenty offensive, Ruk. And I do believe they already have lives.

I'm sure you've heard plenty about "inside" and "outside" genders. Sometimes people just don't feel comfortable as the sex they were born with, so they get it changed. I remember watching this one transsexual blog on youtube - this trannie chick just got her balls chopped off and she said she felt better for it, despite the pain.

I don't know why you'd bring that up here. You're just begging for people to get on your ass for insulting one friend or another ; )

Surprisingly well said. Cuz I'm offended. 

Sorry, Zylos and everybody else, I didn't mean to offend anyone. And just to be clear, I did not mean that I have a problem with transsexuality, but I do find actual sex-change operations uncomfortable (not as in I have had one...).

But that's because they specifically chose highly debatable topics and then reworded them to make their significance less important. >_> For example, #8. They say gay marriage is not backed by religion and retort that "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." That completely undermines the importance of religion to some people (ignoring the people who're completely corrupt in their religion such as "KILL GAYS BECAUSE THEY'RE BAD"). If your belief in gay marriage and love is enough to support your argument, then why shouldn't one's religion be?

I think you missed the part where Christian beliefs were being turned into State Laws.

I think you missed the part where Christian beliefs were being turned into State Laws.

Kinda, but that was only in the retort. The argument was that being gay wasn't supported by religion. Morals, whatever they're based on, have a lot to do with government. If it wasn't "morally wrong" to kill someone, they wouldn't make it against the law. If it wasn't immoral to steal, they wouldn't make it against the law either.

I feel like I'm shooting into the air here because your target and my target are in different places; not only am I wording things a little weird for even me to understand, we're arguing two different parts of it

Alright, so here's the moral: Many people on this forum are extremely sensitive about certain things. So, now we know: Let's be careful about what we say, then 

Lots of people who are transsexual would find that plenty offensive, Ruk. And I do believe they already have lives.

I'm sure you've heard plenty about "inside" and "outside" genders. Sometimes people just don't feel comfortable as the sex they were born with, so they get it changed. I remember watching this one transsexual blog on youtube - this trannie chick just got her balls chopped off and she said she felt better for it, despite the pain.

I don't know why you'd bring that up here. You're just begging for people to get on your ass for insulting one friend or another ; )

Surprisingly well said. Cuz I'm offended. 

Sorry, Zylos and everybody else, I didn't mean to offend anyone. And just to be clear, I did not mean that I have a problem with transsexuality, but I do find actual sex-change operations uncomfortable (not as in I have had one...).

Well, it's a good thing that you're not getting one then. Sorry you're feeling all sorry. I don't know you too well, but you're still awesome : )

Kinda, but that was only in the retort. The argument was that being gay wasn't supported by religion. Morals, whatever they're based on, have a lot to do with government. If it wasn't "morally wrong" to kill someone, they wouldn't make it against the law. If it wasn't immoral to steal, they wouldn't make it against the law either.

Things like euthanasia and honor killings are legal/illegal in certain places and whether or not they are morally right or not is debatable. Your laws are views vary drastically from place to place and different places have different religions and different ways of viewing them. Most of the laws were made quite some time ago and in places like the middle-east the traditions take priority over the laws, if you commit a crime that's 'tradition' but illegal according to their laws they usually just brush it under the mat. Law and religion isn't exactly as separated as it should be.

OK this is a REALY touchy topic, and I'm sure its gonna start arguments up the A$& *no pun* "seeing that it already has already"
but still i wanna put my say in this....

i support gays and what they do because its what ever they wanna do, their not hurting the world, what by not reproducing "only thing i can think off >.>"....

 i think their aiding the world, less people solve world hunger, and they would adoopt orphans.  Their just normal people and shouldn't be treated any differently just because a book "the Bible" says soo...

besides i think everyone is just a lil Bi-Courious them self's and are angry with the way they feel about them self's for it and take that anger and point it at people who are gay.

THINK OF THE ORPHINS!!

besides i think everyone is just a lil Bi-Courious them self's and are angry with the way they feel about them self's for it and take that anger and point it at people who are gay.

Oh my god.

He knows.

I agree. Gays have the right to be as miserable as straight people. If they want to marry, let them.

People need to get the argument straight.

Of course people oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Many religions view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore why would those who follow a religion condemning homosexuality allow a marriage of two men with god?

Gay couples do not need to get "married". Marriage is for the traditional religious.

However gay couples deserve  the right to civil unions which grant them the same rights as married couples.

People need to get the argument straight.

Of course people oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Many religions view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore why would those who follow a religion condemning homosexuality allow a marriage of two men with god?

Gay couples do not need to get "married". Marriage is for the traditional religious.

However gay couples deserve  the right to civil unions which grant them the same rights as married couples.

I pretty much agree with this. I don't quite understand why a gay couple would want to get married when they're likely not religious (and if they are I have to wonder why they're so ... masochistic). However, there obviously are gays who are religious and so to resolve the issue an alternative would be to make Marriage a non-religious thing. Surely marriage is at the point now that it's accepted into all of society regardless of faith or a lack thereof (like how many atheists celebrate Christmas).

Perhaps that would defeat the point, but gays could get married on a technicality at least. And this would be the only workaround - you can be assured that a religion isn't going to suddenly disregard what it has been preaching for thousands of years.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal about marriage is period. I'd be happy to have a civil union since the only purpose of it to me is the benefits you and your partner receive. At least with a civil union there isn't this expectation to hold a glamorous, costly event. Nor do you have to fool yourself into thinking your marriage means anything more than a piece of paper and a ring.

People need to get the argument straight.

Of course people oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Many religions view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore why would those who follow a religion condemning homosexuality allow a marriage of two men with god?

Gay couples do not need to get "married". Marriage is for the traditional religious.

However gay couples deserve  the right to civil unions which grant them the same rights as married couples.

I pretty much agree with this. I don't quite understand why a gay couple would want to get married when they're likely not religious (and if they are I have to wonder why they're so ... masochistic). However, there obviously are gays who are religious and so to resolve the issue an alternative would be to make Marriage a non-religious thing. Surely marriage is at the point now that it's accepted into all of society regardless of faith or a lack thereof (like how many atheists celebrate Christmas).

Perhaps that would defeat the point, but gays could get married on a technicality at least. And this would be the only workaround - you can be assured that a religion isn't going to suddenly disregard what it has been preaching for thousands of years.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal about marriage is period. I'd be happy to have a civil union since the only purpose of it to me is the benefits you and your partner receive. At least with a civil union there isn't this expectation to hold a glamorous, costly event. Nor do you have to fool yourself into thinking your marriage means anything more than a piece of paper and a ring.

Gonna have to agree with you on this one. Gays deserve the same "marriage" rights given by the state. They deserve the same tax exemptions as every couple out there regardless of their sexual orientation.

At least with a civil union there isn't this expectation to hold a glamorous, costly event. Nor do you have to fool yourself into thinking your marriage means anything more than a piece of paper and a ring.

But, in a religious marraige, not only is that an important part of the ceremony where all your friends and relatives can attend, but it is one of the most anticipated parts! Why the hell do you think that wedding planners make off like bandits? Because they are providing an absolutely neccesary service?

Ya know what, their services are about as neccesary as having three lambourghini diablos, but people still want them.

That is to say, the whole point of why gay people don't care for a Civil Union, is that it's segregation all over again. Of course, now it's not a racist practice, but a lifstyle one.


You know what a Civil Union is? It's a "seperate but equal" law. Just like giving blacks the back of the bus, or not letting them eat at the same restaurants. Of course, I'm not equating hating gays to hating blacks, only on the point that they are/were discriminated against horribly just because of who they are.

People need to get the argument straight.

Of course people oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Many religions view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore why would those who follow a religion condemning homosexuality allow a marriage of two men with god?

Gay couples do not need to get "married". Marriage is for the traditional religious.

However gay couples deserve  the right to civil unions which grant them the same rights as married couples.

I can honestly say I haven't seen you post in forever. Nice to see ya .
That and I agree with what you've said.

At least with a civil union there isn't this expectation to hold a glamorous, costly event. Nor do you have to fool yourself into thinking your marriage means anything more than a piece of paper and a ring.

But, in a religious marraige, not only is that an important part of the ceremony where all your friends and relatives can attend, but it is one of the most anticipated parts! Why the hell do you think that wedding planners make off like bandits? Because they are providing an absolutely neccesary service?

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here but I'll have a guess. The only reason marriage is held in the regard it is is because since a young age it is drilled in our heads as some sort of ultimate goal or a normal step in human life. It isn't. It's a human construct that means nothing more than what it is (a ring and a piece of paper that allows you benefits). It is people who invest all this meaning into it. It isn't going to take your relationship to the next level nor will it make it magically permanent. It means nothing. I do not feel at a loss because I cannot marry (I am bi, currently in a relationship with Skanker :3), both because I think the idea is retarded as well as the fact that I'm not religious. I really do not care that I am separate from the church at all.

But then there is the problem of religious gays. My solution seems like the middle ground here. You aren't going to change a religion, nor are you going to convince people marriage means nothing. Change the definition of marriage so that people can get "married" (since this is what we're hung up on here - the name of the ceremony) by the government.

Ya know what, their services are about as neccesary as having three lambourghini diablos, but people still want them.

Right, so you agree there's no reasonable need for marriage.

That is to say, the whole point of why gay people don't care for a Civil Union, is that it's segregation all over again. Of course, now it's not a racist practice, but a lifstyle one.

Non-religious gays shouldn't care. Non-religious people should not be getting/want to get married in the first place.
Religious gays are going to have to push for a government run marriage system. Good luck fighting all those very, very dense religious politicians though.

You know what a Civil Union is? It's a "seperate but equal" law. Just like giving blacks the back of the bus, or not letting them eat at the same restaurants. Of course, I'm not equating hating gays to hating blacks, only on the point that they are/were discriminated against horribly just because of who they are.

Sure, but I don't care. If people are all that upset that a religious group won't include them then there's just no helping the situation. The battle will go on forever because both of them are too stubborn. And this is really just telling of how much control/influence the church has over society, which is a problem for me. I don't mean the fact that they are able to choose who gets married - I mean the fact that so many people want to be a part of this religious ceremony in the first place. Perhaps an alternative would be to abolish marriage all together (and organised religion while we're at it).

So basically, if you're upset that you aren't recognised as equal by a religion that's founded on what was written by savages thousands of years ago - you're dumb.

That is to say, the whole point of why gay people don't care for a Civil Union, is that it's segregation all over again. Of course, now it's not a racist practice, but a lifstyle one.


You know what a Civil Union is? It's a "seperate but equal" law. Just like giving blacks the back of the bus, or not letting them eat at the same restaurants. Of course, I'm not equating hating gays to hating blacks, only on the point that they are/were discriminated against horribly just because of who they are.

This is pretty much bullshit, and the state has no say in it in this case, they can't FORCE churches to allow gay marriages they can however allow the same benefits to those couples with legal documents ie marriage licenses or a civil union.

 

Ya know what, their services are about as neccesary as having three lambourghini diablos, but people still want them.

I want to get married to three Lamborghini Diablo's <3333

Marriage isn't a strictly religious thing in today's society, nowadays it's less a sacred rite and more of a legal thing or just having a big symbolic party/ceremony saying you love someone.

Just as Marriages don't have to happen in a Church, or even necessarily be done by a Priest, they aren't strictly a religious thing.

All of that being said, I don't agree with forcing Churches and Priests to perform marriages if they are against homosexuality, it's their right, in my opinion, to disagree and deny service based on that.  However, I -do- think it should be made law that public services (even provided by a church) cannot be subject to discrimination.  I also believe that people and places for homosexuals to be married should be encouraged and made more accessible.

No doubt people would complain that they can't be married in the same church as their heterosexual family, but forcing the church to do that is the same as removing their freedom of religion.

Marriage isn't a strictly religious thing in today's society, nowadays it's less a sacred rite and more of a legal thing or just having a big symbolic party/ceremony saying you love someone.

Just as Marriages don't have to happen in a Church, or even necessarily be done by a Priest, they aren't strictly a religious thing.

All of that being said, I don't agree with forcing Churches and Priests to perform marriages if they are against homosexuality, it's their right, in my opinion, to disagree and deny service based on that.  However, I -do- think it should be made law that public services (even provided by a church) cannot be subject to discrimination.  I also believe that people and places for homosexuals to be married should be encouraged and made more accessible.

No doubt people would complain that they can't be married in the same church as their heterosexual family, but forcing the church to do that is the same as removing their freedom of religion.

The legal definition of marriage in many countries is the definition set out by whatever religion, because it's origins are in religion. I know what you're saying when you say it isn't strictly religious (I agree), but it's still unlikely that they'll ever change it from being a religious thing technically. At least not until the hold religion has on the US or any other country is lessened (Sweden - the most atheist country in the world - has legalised same sex marriage).

Er, let's not forget Canada. Go Canada! We have this whole same-sex marriage business, and it's not a big deal. There *is* a whole shitload of homophobia out there, but men can definitely marry men. We have Sunday Shopping, and no one's complaining. People still say "Merry Christmas" to EVERYONE EVERY DAY in December, but men can totally marry men.

I can't deny that I'm ridiculously naive on this subject, but it's not that big an issue over here, at least to folks my age.

I'm sorry if I appeared to have lost my point.

There *is* a whole shitload of homophobia out there, but men can definitely marry men.

OH, so in Canada they only discriminate against the women.  FINE  

People need to get the argument straight.

Of course people oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Many religions view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore why would those who follow a religion condemning homosexuality allow a marriage of two men with god?

Gay couples do not need to get "married". Marriage is for the traditional religious.

However gay couples deserve  the right to civil unions which grant them the same rights as married couples.

Bingo, most religions have different definitions of Marriage and it seems as more of a spiritual thing rather than what gay couples look for when they want same-sex marriage: to have the same rights as same sex couples granted by a marriage license.

There *is* a whole shitload of homophobia out there, but men can definitely marry men.

OH, so in Canada they only discriminate against the women.  FINE  

I prefer to think about it as more of equality then discrimination... anyone who wants to can marry a man!

this post has so far been useless and sarcastic, so back on to discussion.

Technically all bodies are created to be strait. Hell, lesbians' bodies will react to man-pheromones like strait women would (a fact that annoyed a girl in my class who always likes to remind us that she is lesbian and therefor very special and unique.) So I guess that from a biological standpoint banning gay marriage and any gay relationships are "useless" because they don't get anything done. (by that logic women should start having sex as soon as they reach the age of 13 so they can keep on pumping out babies once a year until they die)

And there is a non-religious look at why gay marriage could be wrong... of coarse since the human race is large enough that over population is commonly brought up, I don't think that we really need to focus on reproducing right now.

Also, what about gay Christians, I actually know a few and they are currently more concerned about me burning in hell for not thinking that if I don't bow down to an old revolutionary who spent his time with a whore and a friend who killed him I will spend eternity getting burnt, despite that one time he was all "yeah, you don't really need to go to hell anymore, I cleared it all up with god"... back on track... yeah, these people want to be able to be married under the god that created them and made them gay.  There are churches and priests/ministers/preachers/whatevers that are willing to perform this type of marriage, and I don't think that it's up to (supposedly) 54% of the population to decide they can't just because they think god wouldn't like it... if god didn't like it he would do something about it personally like, I don't know, not make gay guys.

Technically all bodies are created to be strait. Hell, lesbians' bodies will react to man-pheromones like strait women would (a fact that annoyed a girl in my class who always likes to remind us that she is lesbian and therefor very special and unique.) So I guess that from a biological standpoint banning gay marriage and any gay relationships are "useless" because they don't get anything done. (by that logic women should start having sex as soon as they reach the age of 13 so they can keep on pumping out babies once a year until they die)

And there is a non-religious look at why gay marriage could be wrong... of coarse since the human race is large enough that over population is commonly brought up, I don't think that we really need to focus on reproducing right now.

Also, what about gay Christians, I actually know a few and they are currently more concerned about me burning in hell for not thinking that if I don't bow down to an old revolutionary who spent his time with a whore and a friend who killed him I will spend eternity getting burnt, despite that one time he was all "yeah, you don't really need to go to hell anymore, I cleared it all up with god"... back on track... yeah, these people want to be able to be married under the god that created them and made them gay.  There are churches and priests/ministers/preachers/whatevers that are willing to perform this type of marriage, and I don't think that it's up to (supposedly) 54% of the population to decide they can't just because they think god wouldn't like it... if god didn't like it he would do something about it personally like, I don't know, not make gay guys.

...what

Well, my opinions haven't changed much since the last time this subject came up, but I'll repeat myself anyway

I think that the reasons for homosexual marriage are obvious and have been adequately explored by other members already.

However, I think that the reasons against gay marriage are a little stronger than they are ordinarily presented. The problem religious people have with gay marriage is primarily that it isolates them. [analogy]If a school were to teach, for instance, the Christian bible in schools, then it is discriminating against non-Christians because it means the public school system is telling their children that their parents and their religion (or lack thereof) is incorrect.[/analogy] I think that it is the same if the law says that marriage is "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others" (Canadian definition), then it is implicit that marriage is not "an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace; it is one of the seven sacraments" (Catholic definition). The state is hegemonic - the fact that it defines marriage excludes all other definitions and says that they are incorrect. If it says the bond is dissoluble, if it says that it is between any two persons, then that's what it is; all other religous definitions, stronger or weaker, are cast as false. Thus, I do think there is a freedom of belief issue here that is as strong as the case against teaching religion in schools.

That being said, I think that gay couples should certainly receive all of the benefits that heterosexual couples receive, and I think that they trump the religious rights I have outlined. If the only option were to trample on one or the other, than gay mariage rights should prevail in my opinion. But it is not the only option.

The problems that I have outlined for religious have a lot more to do with the word "marriage" than it does with the legal construct of marriage. The fact is, I seriously doubt that many religious people even care that the law recognizes their marriage as a "marriage", because the legal definition of marriage is so weak that almost any religion I can think of has a stronger definition. Further, whatever significance marriage has for them derives entirely from their religion, and not at all from the state. Marriage is a religious institution, and is only secondarily a legal one, if at all.

That is why I think that the best solution would be to simply change the word for the legal construction from "marriage" to "civil union" or "domestic partnership" for heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples. That way, the state would not be discriminating against homosexuals - all of the benefits that currently exist would exist for all couples, even down to the name, regardless of sexual orientation. There is no reason for the law to interfere with what religious people consider to be marriage.


As for gay religious since it was brought up; that's not an issue for the law in any way as far as I'm concerned. For one, the law would have to recognize spiritual benefits, which would take it far out of the realm of separation of church and state. Even if it could get past that hurdle, speaking of Catholicism at the least, changing the definition of marriage would in fact cause a schism with Rome (see: Anglicanism) since it would be rejecting the authority of the Pope. So forcing priests to marry homosexual couples would practically outlaw Catholicism. The religious rights are far far stronger in that case.

I think all marriage is wrong. I think we should just have orgy parties all day.

I think all marriage is wrong. I think we should just have orgy parties all day.

Wow...just...wow...

I should have expected this from a man whose avatar is the Doctor.

I've heard this arguement a lot...go watch the episode of Metalocalypse where Pickles' brother gets married and listen to what the "expert" says about marriage...

...why did a serious debate break out in a joke thread?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, RMRK?!?!

in before the "hill" 

...why did a serious debate break out in a joke thread?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, RMRK?!?!

The reason is simple.

Code: [Select]

This thread is -
 ->The Rpg Maker Resource Kit
 -->RMRK General
 --->General Chat
 ---->( Re: 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is "Wrong" )

It isn't -
 ->The Rpg Maker Resource Kit
 -->RMRK General
 --->Elitist Debate
 ---->( Re: 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is "Wrong" )

i just naturally assumed it was in elitist debate, uh i also only read this page because i don't care that much but whatever.

ok so i might be bashed by some non-religious or athiest folk cuz im a christian myself (yep i admit it, so let the bashing begin >_>;;; ) but i dont care if people being gay and date, but its unnatural for a guy and another guy to have sex and having shildren since thats lgically and spiritually impossible, and i have a HUGE deal about transgenders, if ur born a boy or a girl, then guess wut YOUR A GUY IF UR BORN WITH A DONG OR A GIRL IF UR BORN WITH A VAGINA!!! DUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRR!!!!

plus i honestly think transegendered men-->women are the ugliest women i have ever seen (seen them on tv...they look O_o)

but I have like at least 1-2 friends being gay, and im ok with it, i just want them to have kids once they grow up and i doubt adopting would help, i think the parents would be disappointed if their son didn't have a child with their bloodline, and it wouldnt be fair to the adopted child, with a different bloodline and confused about the family

though thats just my opinion, if u dont like my opinion then dont bash me, i have a right...heck EVERYONE has a right to THEIR own opinion so ha (to those where are gonna be bashing me about my opinion)

I have a feeling that your opinion is the least of your worries here.

ok so i might be bashed by some non-religious or athiest folk cuz im a christian myself (yep i admit it, so let the bashing begin >_>;;; ) but i dont care if people being gay and date,  and having shildren since thats lgically and spiritually impossible, and i have a HUGE deal about transgenders, if ur born a boy or a girl, then guess wut YOUR A GUY IF UR BORN WITH A DONG OR A GIRL IF UR BORN WITH A uhu!!! DUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRR!!!!

plus i honestly think transegendered men-->women are the ugliest women i have ever seen (seen them on tv...they look O_o)

but I have like at least 1-2 friends being gay, and im ok with it, i just want them to have kids once they grow up and i doubt adopting would help, i think the parents would be disappointed if their son didn't have a child with their bloodline, and it wouldnt be fair to the adopted child, with a different bloodline and confused about the family

though thats just my opinion, if u dont like my opinion then dont bash me, i have a right...heck EVERYONE has a right to THEIR own opinion so ha (to those where are gonna be bashing me about my opinion)

My opinion is that you're dumb and I'm entitled to it.
Also, just because somebody has an opinion it doesn't mean you have to like it. I don't like your opinion and I'm allowed to voice why I don't like your opinion.

but its unnatural for a guy and another guy to have sex

Why? It happens in nature. What is it that dictates natural and unnatural, really? I know for you it is men from thousands of years ago who didn't really know what they were talking about and decided to write about it in a book called the Bible. For me, sex is sex. It's something that is primarily for fun rather than solely reproduction. This is backed up by the fact that CONDOMS were invented. People want to have sex for fun, not to make babies.  So if you have a problem with homosexuality you must surely have a problem with any people having sex that don't intend to reproduce (and if you have a problem with this, you're stupid).

and having shildren since thats lgically and spiritually impossible

No idea what you're even saying here. Are you saying same-sex couples should or shouldn't be allowed children? By the way, spiritually impossible doesn't mean anything.

and i have a HUGE deal about transgenders, if ur born a boy or a girl, then guess wut YOUR A GUY IF UR BORN WITH A DONG OR A GIRL IF UR BORN WITH A uhu!!! DUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRR!!!!

Wrong. You can be born physically a boy but mentally a girl. It isn't as simple as, "if you have a penus you're a dude wtf ?? xD." A lot of transgendered people do not feel comfortable in the gender they were born in and this causes a lot of psychological issues. I don't see why it's a big deal if somebody chooses to live their life as the opposite gender, especially since it won't effect you at all (nor should it in the first place anyway).

plus i honestly think transegendered men-->women are the ugliest women i have ever seen (seen them on tv...they look O_o)

It's pretty hard to reverse the effects of puberty. There's that one boy who approached his parents at a young age about his gender and they fortunately helped him get the stuff he needed to live his life as a girl. Since they caught him before he went through puberty (he had begun to grow facial hair and this deeply upset him) he's now a very nice looking girl. By the way, I didn't really want to call her "him" here but I figured I had to to illustrate the story properly. I think of this person as a girl, not a boy. Besides, it's not like being "ugly" is a reason to say they can't do it.

but I have like at least 1-2 friends being gay, and im ok with it, i just want them to have kids once they grow up and i doubt adopting would help

Actually I think the success rate of obtaining a baby after adopting a baby is around ... 100%. Unless what you're saying here is, "I want them to have a baby because that's what I want and it's natural and they don't have a baby they won't be natural and they won't be able to live with themselves." Whether they want a baby in the first place is up to them. If they adopt, I'm sure they'll be happy with their decision. Anyway, we need more people to adopt so you should thank them for making the world a better place for the children they adopt.

i think the parents would be disappointed if their son didn't have a child with their bloodline

No, you or your parents would be disappointed by this. No reasonable person would be upset by something as trivial as not having a direct descendant. What does "blood" really matter anyway? What will it matter to you or anybody else? Why would it make a difference?

and it wouldnt be fair to the adopted child, with a different bloodline and confused about the family

What? The child is adopted, you retard. Of course there's not going to be any relation. Do you honestly think the adopted child is going to think, "Damn, I can't believe I got stuck in a family I'm not even in the same "bloodline" as! I really wish I was back at the shelter." And I am sure if a child were brought up with same-sex parents they would be brought up as open minded and wouldn't have a problem with it. There wouldn't be any confusion about the matter, and I don't think they'd complain about "not having a mommy" after years of being brought up by two loving parents. Do you expect the child to suddenly turn around and say FUCK YOU to the two people who have loved them and brought them up as best they could? No, I really don't think that would happen.

Your opinion is retarded. I hate you. Learn to type.

By the way, I don't think you have any gay friends. It amazes me how every time a Christian pops into an argument like this they always seem to have these gay friends. You don't even know how many gay friends you have! "Oh, around 1 or 2... I don't know really."

I'll be honest, I don't have any gay friends. Well, besides some people on here. There's always the possibility that some people at my school are in the closet, but I dunno. I've met a lesbian once... could never tell she was a lesbian. Mostly 'cause she kept asking me if I liked cougars -_-... long story lol... getting off topic now. heh.

Personally, I think it's complicated. I'm a Christian, and the Bible clearly says it's a sin. Now, the Bible also says that God doesn't hate the sinner, but the sin itself. In the same way, I don't have a problem with someone who pursues a same-sex relationship themselves, but I do have a problem with the homosexuality itself. (I have a problem saying "gays" because to me it sounds offensive, kinda like my grandfather saying "blacks"... it just... bothers me. people are people y'know? )

As for the whole condoms being invented thing. That only proves that man uses sex as entertainment. But (I can't speak for other religions) in Christianity, God made sex for pro-creation and yeah - to feel good - but for the husband and wife. So, coming from a different viewpoint, the whole contraceptive thing doesn't really apply.

Yes, sex is entertainment. That was my point. I don't see why people have a problem with it being used for entertainment or "for love" if you believe that kind of thing. There's not really any argument against same-sex anything besides "God says it's bad so it probably is." There's no reason for why. But I suppose that's the foundation of all religion, really.

Anyway, God has a lot of problems with sex and none of them really make any sense. You can't have sex before marriage, no bum sex, no gay sex, reproduction only, final destination. The contraceptive thing does apply especially because there are religions who do have a problem with it since it makes sex a non-reproducing thing - an act of fun.

Sex is pretty cool. Have lots of it. Just don't catch any STIs since that probably won't be much fun.

Oh shi- and here I thought I should be looking out for STDs... :x lol

There's plenty of reasons.
B4 marriage - there's a lot of potential for emotional damage, and sex was supposed to be only for the husband and wife who are "one flesh"
Bum sex - uh... I can honestly say I've never searched the Bible to see is anal sex was wrong :x. I don't know what the Bible says about that, but I do know that I would never have anal sex with my future wife simply because 1... I think it's gross (personal preference. butt = smelly Therefore != sexy lol) and 2... if you get just a little too rough or forget to use lubricant or something you can seriously hurt the uh... recipient.
Gay sex - God made man and woman for each other, not man for man and woman for woman, and sex being a thing for husband and wife, this just follows along.
Reproduction only - God never said "thou shalt have sex only the purpose of popping out babies". it was meant to feel good, for the couple.
Final destination - ... ? what? I'm not really sure what you're saying here lol.

Well yes, condoms might apply in other religions, but I'm not very clear if the Bible itself is against contraceptives. There's one passage in the old testament where a guy "pulled out", but he was killed (I think) b/c he disobeyed a direct commandment from God in a time where God still spoke directly to the people. Sounds extreme, but we're talking about spitting in the face of GOD. God made us, He could simply destroy us if He wanted.

Oh shi- and here I thought I should be looking out for STDs... :x lol

Yes, that's what I said too.

B4 marriage - there's a lot of potential for emotional damage, and sex was supposed to be only for the husband and wife who are "one flesh"

How is there potential for emotional damage? And sex is only supposed to be for the husband and wife if you believe in the bible. You can't just say you should only have sex before marriage because the Bible says so. My point was that it doesn't make any sense as to why it is this way, just that it is.

Bum sex - uh... I can honestly say I've never searched the Bible to see is anal sex was wrong :x.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure here either. What's right and wrong in Christianity is a little tricky since there are many denominations and also because the religion likes to rewrite itself every now and then. I am sure it is said to be a sin to have sex that prevents reproduction, but I could be wrong.

Went on to find this:

6. That methods of Birth Prevention are not wrong because they are mechanical, but because they do not promote the ends of nature and obstruct and defeat them.
7. That Birth Prevention is sinful because, like other sensual practices commonly called unnatural, it is a deliberate enterprise taken in hand to separate enjoyment of the sexual act from its possible natural result. It is thus regarded as 'unfruitful works of darkness.'

which... confuses me. Anyway:

I would never have anal sex with my future wife simply because 1... I think it's gross (personal preference. butt = smelly Therefore != sexy lol)

If it's smelly you're doing it wrong.

and 2... if you get just a little too rough or forget to use lubricant or something you can seriously hurt the uh... recipient.

If you forget to use lubricant you're doing it wrong. You cannot forget because it is pretty much required. If you are short of lubricant, it's likely you won't even be trying anal.

Gay sex - God made man and woman for each other, not man for man and woman for woman, and sex being a thing for husband and wife, this just follows along.

This only applies if you believe in the bible. Why is sex only for husband and wife? Why does God have a problem if two men or two women have sex? You can't just say "because he does." And it's not like we even know he DOES have a problem with it since it only appears as a sin in a book that's a big pile of poop. My point was that it doesn't make any sense as to why it is this way, just that it is.

Reproduction only - God never said "thou shalt have sex only the purpose of popping out babies". it was meant to feel good, for the couple.

Actually, you're right here. I was wrong. The bible does say it's okay to have sex without the intent of making babies. However, it's still a mystery why he has a problem with same-sex couples. If he allows a man and a woman to have sex for fun, why not two men? Oh right, marriage is only allowed between a man and a woman and God only likes it when married people have sex. Why? Why does God only allow a man and a woman to be married and why does he only like it when married people have sex?

The answer, in my opinion, is that he doesn't exist and idiots thousands of years ago wrote what they thought about whatever. There's no reason why, it's just the way it is.

Final destination - ... ? what? I'm not really sure what you're saying here lol.

Sorry, Super Smash Bros. Melee meme.

Well yes, condoms might apply in other religions, but I'm not very clear if the Bible itself is against contraceptives. There's one passage in the old testament where a guy "pulled out", but he was killed (I think) b/c he disobeyed a direct commandment from God in a time where God still spoke directly to the people. Sounds extreme, but we're talking about spitting in the face of GOD. God made us, He could simply destroy us if He wanted.

I'm not very clear myself. Perhaps you can make sense of what I pasted up above.

And God is an extreme dude. He was a huge arsehole back during the Old Testament, but fortunately the unchanging god changed by the time the New Testament rolled around.

Damn Aussies and your weird STD/STI mix up.

lol Zylos.

@Chewey: I agree about the husband/wife thing only applying only if you believe the Bible but, then again, I believe the Bible lol. For emotional damage, you can see it just about everywhere. I mean, it's possible that after a while people just because immune to the damage because they're used to it, but initially there is usually damage. You're completely exposing and surrendering yourself to someone who you may not spend the rest of your life with.

As for the contraceptive part... unless they can back what they say up with scripture I wouldn't trust the source. Just because somebody thinks God may not like something doesn't make it so (for example: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/CCM/kutless.htm )... the guy who owns the site basically says that every Contemporary Christian music group is from Satan. :/  His only arguments are that God hates rock music (Which is where in the Bible?) and that they hang out with worldly people. I've got news for him, Jesus hung out with worldly people too. -_- And since when does wearing all black constitute a sin? (sorry, got a lot of issues with this guy) I can tell he has a lot of zeal for God, but it's all misplaced to the point that I can't tell if he's really a Christian or not. Taking a look at his front page and it looks more like he's a prophet of hate. Uh, sorry, went off topic.

I'll agree that people have different viewpoints on the matter, but the Bible itself has never changed. Well, the original word of God hasn't changed. There are some churches and some translations that will say something differently or add something to support their views (cults... yay :/). One example is the Mormon church which translates John 1:1, which says "  1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" to say "  1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was  |a| God" . Their translation breaks a basic law of Greek grammar, but anyways....

I myself use the NIV, because it's translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It's also a very accurate translation. The issue with translation is the inverse balance of meaning and legibility. But that's an issue with translating something into any language.

@Chewey: I agree about the husband/wife thing only applying only if you believe the Bible but, then again, I believe the Bible lol.

Why do you think God would care if a man loved a man and wanted to get married?
And before you say it, why do you think God intended for only a man and a woman to love one another?
Surely he is clever enough to realise homosexuality isn't going to spell the end of the human race. Surely he realises it is just an extension of this love concept he must have coined up (he MUST have coined it up for you to justify marriage) and is an enjoyable relationship for both involved, right?
Why do you think God would create the ceremony of marriage in the first place? (protip: he didn't)

Basically what I'm saying here is... if there were a God (which I don't believe there is), I really doubt he'd care all that much about what we did. If all these 'sins' truly are the word of God he's kind of a dick for imposing so many unnecessary trials. Love a man and you're going to hell?

Why?

For emotional damage, you can see it just about everywhere. I mean, it's possible that after a while people just because immune to the damage because they're used to it, but initially there is usually damage. You're completely exposing and surrendering yourself to someone who you may not spend the rest of your life with.

Er, you don't have to surrender yourself to somebody else just to have sex. You don't have to be in a relationship just to have sex. There is a thing called casual sex and both parties involved are aware it's casual in most cases. I'm not sure how you can honestly believe having sex with people will always end up in emotional hurt. Sure it's possible to become attached but I can't see how this would cause any more hurt than being turned down by a high school crush.

As for the contraceptive part... unless they can back what they say up with scripture I wouldn't trust the source. Just because somebody thinks God may not like something doesn't make it so

So you agree that your opinion (and the opinion of your religion and any other religion) of what God cares about isn't necessarily fact. How can it be fact, really?

His only arguments are that God hates rock music (Which is where in the Bible?) and that they hang out with worldly people.

Your only argument for the Bible being the word of God is that the Bible tells you it is the word of God. The bible was written by man - how can you be sure what God likes and does not like?

Have you spoken to him personally?

How can you be sure anybody else spoke to him personally?

And since when does wearing all black constitute a sin?

It's only a sin so long as your black outfit is made out of more than one material. No synthetics allowed.

I'll agree that people have different viewpoints on the matter, but the Bible itself has never changed.

The bible has changed a fair bit! Are you aware it was once written that multiple gods existed?

Well, the original word of God hasn't changed.

The original word of God hasn't changed? Assuming the bible is the word of God (it isn't but most religious folks believe it be) then... I'd say the word of God has changed a fair bit. I don't think the word of God is, "kill the infidels and stab the pregnant women in the belly to be sure to kill the babies" anymore, is it? Some unchanging god he is!

tl;dr: If there is a God, I don't see why he would care about what we did.
If there is a God, why did he create Man in the first place?
If there is a God, and he created man, why did he decide to put us through a very retarded trial with unnecessary 'sins' to tempt us (like a man loving another man)? The trial is human life on Earth, just for the record. Why not simply create beings in Heaven if he wanted company?
Why would he want company?
If he didn't want company, what reason did he have to create Man? Was he bored? Surely not. He's a supernatural being without the fickle feelings of humans.

Is he an egotistical god? Seems likely. Kind of a dick, then. If he were to exist, that is.

Religious debates are kind of stupid in general; neither side is willing or able to even try to understand the other, so it's a lot of wasted text - but the points you bring up chewey are pretty surface level theology; an important thing to remember is that a lot of religious people are incredibly smart. John Paul II, for instance, knew eight languages fluently and spoke thirteen languages adeptly. I think he has to have been a pretty smart person in other ways as well. To assume, then, that religious people haven't thought about issues like the ones you bring up or that they are unresolvable issues requires, I imagine, a pretty intense intellectual pride. And I don't mean to offend anyone here; it is as true of the stupid arguments religious people bring up to counter atheist arguments. Debates like this are pointless when each side thinks the person they are arguing against is retarded.

I've heard arguments where religious people completely misrepresent evolution because they have never even bothered to research it. I suspect from your arguments chewey, you also haven't read the bible or researched much Christian theology. You might have read some uncontextual stuff on the internet, likely on a page called something like "bible contradictions". You are making untrue assertions, and you will never be able to convince even a moderately religious person with those arguments because their own knowledge of and experience with their religion proves false the assumptions about their religion you are making to construct your arguments. It is as impossible to do so as a religious person who knows nothing about evolution to construct a counter-argument that makes any sense (and if they really knew anything about it, they probably wouldn't try).

As just one example, I don't understand your "unchanging god changes" argument at all. For one, I don't think the God of the Old Testament you are representing as "a huge arsehole" is particularly accurate. Keep in mind that is still the God that Jewish people believe in, and I imagine any Jew would take offense to such a characterization. But even if He is as you describe, I don't see why there is a necessary contradiction in the God of the New Testament. As far as I know, the belief is that it is humanity's relationship with God that has changed. I treat my three year old neice differently than I did when she was six months old. I will treat her differently when she is eight, and I will continue to relate with her differently as she grows. It doesn't mean I'm changing. A more concrete example is that I won't allow her to use a sharp knife right now. When she is older, I will. It's not because I've changed my opinions on the dangers of sharp knives, or changed in any other relevant way, it's that she's changed and the way I relate with her as changed. A less extreme example is simply in everyday relationships. A person might be a friend today and a romantic other tomorrow and an enemy the next - I would treat him/her differently, but it's not as if either of us have changed necessarily. Thus, the assertion that God treats humanity differently in the New Testament does not necessarily suggest that God has changed. That doesn't strike me as a strong argument on your part.

So, I mean, feel free to continue to argue your points, but I don't think it's possible to persuade someone away from something without an actual understanding of their beliefs and not an "other atheists told me this is what they believe" understanding. And, who knows? That might be impossible and certainly unfeasible with respect to the various denominations of Christianity and that personal beliefs often vary from strict doctrine.

I don't know, I imagine I am making some incorrect assumptions about you as well, and if I have I apologize.

tl;dr - religious debates are stupid and I quit

Maybe we should split the serious debate from the joke and move everything to a place where no one will ever find it.

That's a good idea Once it's in Elitist Debate it ought to perish pretty quickly

EDIT:: Adn in that spirit, the ad:

It doesn't matter what you do to it. This exact same thread, with the exact same responses, jokes, and flames will eventually reappear somewhere else in the forum soon enough. Religion topics are like Jason Vorhees; you can stop them for a while, but they just keep coming back to try and stab you with a knife.

GUYS, STOP IT. STOP ARGUING ON THE INTERNET. PLEASE.

PLEASE STOP.

IT'S THE INTERNET. YOU CAN'T ARGUE ON THE INTERNET.

Modern Algebra you said Zombie in your post but you're referring to me I think. I'll work up a response now or when I wake up in the morning *_*

You learn a lot from debates like these though If someone is expecting anyone else to convert to another religion or whatever because of one then lol. I guess everyone has their own reasons for it however.

It's just boring, that's all.

...I'm switching to the light RMRK theme just to see that ad. =O

You're right chewey - I did mean you For some reason I always get you two confused and it makes no sense at all. Maybe it's just the "ee" sound at the end of your name. I changed it in the post.

And I suppose you're right Skanker - they do have value in that.

Religious debates are kind of stupid in general; neither side is willing or able to even try to understand the other, so it's a lot of wasted text

I'd like to be able to understand religious people, but it's rather difficult. "I feel God in my heart. I feel Him in my soul. I see Him in all the trees and the animals!" Well, obviously they don't. We can explain how the human body works now and we've developed a theory on the evolution of the eye. Honestly, there isn't much reason to have faith. It bewilders me why religion is an exception when it comes to this kind of thing. Normally when you're given no reason to believe in something, or if there's no evidence, you don't believe in it. I really don't understand religion! But, you're right, I don't really understand it in either sense of the word. I haven't studied theology extensively and so I don't actually know the ins and outs of religions. However, that seems kind of irrelevant to me when even the simple understanding I have of whichever religion is enough for me to conclude they're not really for me.

I think not understanding religion is on a whole different level to not understanding evolution, or whatever scientific mumbo jumbo it is you want to talk about.

I think I understand enough of theology to conclude that no religion really has any clue what they're talking about, though. It seems funny to me that all these religions think they're the only ones that have it right. Do they believe all the other religions are simply a load of turd crafted from scratch whereas their religion has everything spot on. This seems even more odd to me given that people often believe in the religion they grew up with or are surrounded by. Well, that's not entirely true. It's possible for people to convert to another religion (read: Christianity) because it's far easier, and it makes them feel better/more secure. There are rare cases where people will go on a spiritual journey to discover what they truly feel, and sometimes people come out of this as Atheists. These types seem to make up the minority, though.

Anyway, my point wasn't really to just bash religion and say it's nonsensical (even though I think it is). The hurt organised religions cause in the world is a bother for me, and I want it to stop (mutilation, sacrifice, disallowing two men to marry, etc.). The reason it bothers me even more is because there's absolutely no reason to believe in any of these religions. There's absolutely no reason to believe there's a God and there's no reason to believe he cares about whether or not boys have foreskin.

However, I'm fine with personal beliefs (I don't mean the personal beliefs of a Christian - they're still Christian) and spirituality. Finding an answer or comfort in those is fine, since it carries none of the ridiculous rules of organised religions formed thousands of years ago.

but the points you bring up chewey are pretty surface level theology; an important thing to remember is that a lot of religious people are incredibly smart. John Paul II, for instance, knew eight languages fluently and spoke thirteen languages adeptly. I think he has to have been a pretty smart person in other ways as well. To assume, then, that religious people haven't thought about issues like the ones you bring up or that they are unresolvable issues requires, I imagine, a pretty intense intellectual pride.

You could be right. It's likely there are people who have answered these questions for themselves. It's hardly a religion-wide thing though, and the answers aren't going to be constant. Them being varied and personal sort of just adds to it all being nonsense for me, really. Bending things to justify yourself and make yourself feel comfortable is pretty common among religious people. And that's only going to be the case if they have searched for an answer to these questions. There are many religious people who are obviously quite happy to sit around and let a book write their moral code for them (do what God says or you're going to Hell!).

I really would like to hear their explanations, though. And that isn't a catty statement, just for the record. I don't want to hear it just so I can scoff at them and call out, "Haw! Idiots." With that, I'd like to hear Tsuno's answers to any of my questions, if possible. I'm aware it's possible that they're unanswerable (not because they're SO HARD HITTING but because I've made poor assumptions about faith) though, and I'm fine with no answer.

I've heard arguments where religious people completely misrepresent evolution because they have never even bothered to research it. I suspect from your arguments chewey, you also haven't read the bible or researched much Christian theology. You might have read some uncontextual stuff on the internet, likely on a page called something like "bible contradictions".

I haven't read the bible, but I'm not off-base as far as I know. I do have a basic understanding and I usually only make points that reflect what I know (which I admit has sometimes been a bit shady, woops). Regarding those "bible contradictions" websites, I actually only came across my first one yesterday by chance. Reading it reminded me that I posted in this thread and that I probably had to make a reply. What I do know mostly stems from arguments like these, or from digging around on the internet. I'd say I've learned a fair bit from the TV show The Atheist Experience too (mostly I just watch it for giggles, though). I've also learned quite a bit from Rasse since he's pretty knowledgeable about all this stuff.

You are making untrue assertions, and you will never be able to convince even a moderately religious person with those arguments because their own knowledge of and experience with their religion proves false the assumptions about their religion you are making to construct your arguments. It is as impossible to do so as a religious person who knows nothing about evolution to construct a counter-argument that makes any sense (and if they really knew anything about it, they probably wouldn't try).

I think I know what you're saying here. You mean I could never really make an argument against religion (well at least not the arguments I made) because I've never felt what religious people have felt? You could be right, I guess :x.

Or do you just mean I lack an understanding of the bible?

As just one example, I don't understand your "unchanging god changes" argument at all. For one, I don't think the God of the Old Testament you are representing as "a huge arsehole" is particularly accurate.

Well, I didn't really say anything false so much as I just put what he did in a different light. He was a huge arsehole (at least by the description in the bible - never met him personally), and I still believe he is. Well, he is at the very least an egotistical God. In fact, I think even the Bible states he's egotistical (or perhaps just that he's a jealous God). He is by no means infallible (the Bible never states him to be so), so he seems very capable of changing (the Bible states he is unchanging). Over the course of the Bible he learns many lessons and even swears to himself that he'll never make the same mistakes again. I'd say learning from your mistakes is synonymous with changing. However, even though he may not be as tyrannical as he once was, his ridiculous rules and what constitutes as a sin still stands.

In the end, it either boils down to God being kind of a dick or the "sins" (and religion) being entirely fabricated by men who weren't very bright. The latter seems like the likely answer to me and, if that's the case, that explains why their portrayal of God is the way it is - because they were dicks.

Keep in mind that is still the God that Jewish people believe in, and I imagine any Jew would take offense to such a characterization.

They might, but that doesn't really bother me. I take offense to routine circumcision so I guess we're even.

But even if He is as you describe, I don't see why there is a necessary contradiction in the God of the New Testament. As far as I know, the belief is that it is humanity's relationship with God that has changed. I treat my three year old neice differently than I did when she was six months old. I will treat her differently when she is eight, and I will continue to relate with her differently as she grows. It doesn't mean I'm changing. A more concrete example is that I won't allow her to use a sharp knife right now. When she is older, I will. It's not because I've changed my opinions on the dangers of sharp knives, or changed in any other relevant way, it's that she's changed and the way I relate with her as changed. A less extreme example is simply in everyday relationships. A person might be a friend today and a romantic other tomorrow and an enemy the next - I would treat him/her differently, but it's not as if either of us have changed necessarily. Thus, the assertion that God treats humanity differently in the New Testament does not necessarily suggest that God has changed. That doesn't strike me as a strong argument on your part.

You're saying the human race, as a single entity, has evolved and matured? Maybe. We're certainly a lot brighter on average, at least. Perhaps the reason our 'relationship with God' (as it is written) has changed is because an increase in understanding of the world has left us far less... scared. So yeah, you could be right. It could be our relationship with God that has changed, and not God himself. To me, it doesn't seem important which it is. Either change stems entirely from a change (for the better) in perspective, in my opinion. Perhaps, then, there'll be a day when Christianity reduces to simply believing in God - with the sins being replaced by "be good and don't hurt others." I'd like that.

So, I mean, feel free to continue to argue your points, but I don't think it's possible to persuade someone away from something without an actual understanding of their beliefs and not an "other atheists told me this is what they believe" understanding.

Man, regarding the "other atheists telling me what to believe thing" ... well, I dunno. With Atheism, it's not like you believe in anything more than that there's no God. What I learn from other Atheists is mostly just interesting facts that make organised religion seem more and more ridiculous, or messy. I don't think I'm really told what to believe, but there's probably some things I say that are regurgitated from other Atheists. Far better than those who spout, "I believe in God and there's nothing you can do about it so suck it, Atheists! Nyah nyah nyah!" in my opinion.

I don't know, I imagine I am making some incorrect assumptions about you as well, and if I have I apologize.

You made some interesting points  .

Sorry for all the bits and pieces in brackets but it is a bad habit I've worked myself into while arguing ._.

Gay sex - God made man and woman for each other, not man for man and woman for woman, and sex being a thing for husband and wife, this just follows along.

Gay sex - God made man and woman for each other, not man for man and woman for woman, and sex being a thing for husband and wife, this just follows along.

Firerain, did you even read the conversation? or understand what I said? I used what's called a syllogism... look it up. Unless you want to argue that a system of logical that's been used for 100's of years is illogical, then go ahead.
If you want to make yourself look smarter then maybe you should have actually said something instead of just simply quoting something you obviously didn't understand the context behind.

(Sorry, I'm exhausted still and that irritated me :/ )


@MA - you raise good points... (as chewey said) That's exactly why if I don't understand something I won't try to debate it lol. If I don't know, I'll say that (like with the anal sex bit. I really just don't know.. haven't done the research)

@chewey - I'm going to address only two things right now if you'll forgive me for being lazy lol.

So you agree that your opinion (and the opinion of your religion and any other religion) of what God cares about isn't necessarily fact. How can it be fact, really?

No. I understand that what I said was probably unclear, so let me rephrase. Just because somebody claims something about God or about some core Biblical truth regarding sin (in this particular case) and cannot back it up with scripture, then it is a false teaching. Keep in mind that this is from the perspective of a Christian (myself) and assumes that Christianity is true and that the Bible is the original inspired work of God.

This brings me to my second point.

I can't for the life of me find what I wanted to quote, but hopefully you'll know what I'm talking about lol.

You said that the fact that many Christians can't agree on what Christianity teaches means that Christianity is ridiculous. Well, the problem with that assertion, is that it assumes that theology is simple. No, that's not what I want to say... uh, metaphor time! lol  Theology is a swimming pool. Just like there are shallow sections of a pool and deep sections of the pool, there are easier pieces of theology and difficult pieces of theology. To understand some of the deeper bits of theology one needs to know how to swim (you follow?). Some things that appear to be easy may actually require a deeper knowledge of theology than many people assume. The reason many people can't agree on what the Bible says, is because the deepest they ever go into their Bible is what's preached from the pulpit (usually salvation, and don't sin type messages). Many Christians just don't actually know what the Bible says... and it's sad. It breaks my heart when someone goes out unprepared and tries to argue theology.

No. I understand that what I said was probably unclear, so let me rephrase. Just because somebody claims something about God or about some core Biblical truth regarding sin (in this particular case) and cannot back it up with scripture, then it is a false teaching. Keep in mind that this is from the perspective of a Christian (myself) and assumes that Christianity is true and that the Bible is the original inspired work of God.

I understand that. I was mostly just making a point of how it's impossible to know if the Bible is the word of God. It is possible to see it change from generation to generation and from translation to translation though. There are contradictions and logical fallacies in this group of stories (which you can find on one of those 'bible contradictions' websites). However, I am aware there are those who simply take what is written in the Bible as stories with a message about life, rather than take it all literally.

I was reading earlier that pretty much any time a woman is pregnant in the Bible, she is pregnant with a boy. Every time God gets involved and makes the ladies pregnant himself, they are boys. The Bible is very sexist, having a strong preference for men (like Rasse). It's also fairly racist, but perhaps not as much as it once was. Obviously, sexism and racism were fairly prevalent in people for a long time. This, to me, highlights the fact the Bible came from man - not God. I don't really think it was God's intention to create a master sex/race, with the rest being servants and slaves.

I also really doubt a god would impose a ceremony as silly as religion on people. What would an "eternal bond" between people mean to a god? I'm just whinging now, though.

You said that the fact that many Christians can't agree on what Christianity teaches means that Christianity is ridiculous.

Did I say that? If I did, I really didn't mean to. What I meant was that it's really not crystal clear what's accepted by Christians since there are so many denominations.

Well, I'll only respond to a few of those points, so if I miss any you were particularly keen on me addressing, then I will return to them; if it's not here it might be that I agree with them though, or otherwise it was just a point I didn't want to explore for this. First, I should mention that:

I really would like to hear their explanations, though. And that isn't a catty statement, just for the record. I don't want to hear it just so I can scoff at them and call out, "Haw! Idiots." With that, I'd like to hear Tsuno's answers to any of my questions, if possible. I'm aware it's possible that they're unanswerable (not because they're SO HARD HITTING but because I've made poor assumptions about faith) though, and I'm fine with no answer.

is quite a bit better than most people involved in these debates, so I commend you. And @Tsuno - I also don't think that what I've said about "religious people" applies strictly to you. I think both of you are very smart people and I don't mean to demean you with my frustration with religious debate in general. And Skanker is right, these debates are a good place to learn things, if nothing else.

But, in any case, I feel like I should explain this a little more:

I think I know what you're saying here. You mean I could never really make an argument against religion (well at least not the arguments I made) because I've never felt what religious people have felt? You could be right, I guess :x.

Or do you just mean I lack an understanding of the bible?

Partly, it's the "felt" thing, but it's partly that people make arguments based on what they see as a social norm, and part of what religion does is it exists as an alternative to the social norm and the state; to believe in a religion is subversive as it essentially strips the state of its ultimate power over you. I mean, that may not be as much the case in America, where the norms at least are partially based on Christian values, but it still is the case. I mean, for instance, the highest priority in our society may be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but Christianity more or less explicitly rejects that in its very foundation. They believe in a God that is all-powerful, and yet presented himself to the world as a baby - completely powerless and dependent on human love. He came at a time when the Jewish people were completely oppressed by the Romans - their life, their autonomy being utterly suppressed, and yet the God who could easily smite all their enemies instead allowed himself to be sacrificed and killed by the hatred of others. Christianity is based on an inverted notion of power - God's power is in love, mercy, submission, rather than domination over others. It's essentially a belief that you change the world through transforming your enemies, not through eliminating them; rather, that the world can only change through love. So, when people use arguments such as the wars Christianity has caused, then any Christian will be sure to ignore you because they recognize that those actions were contrary to the central tenants of their faith, and therefore were a case of Christianity being invoked while being ignored - that the interests in those wars were primarily secular in any case, and where they weren't, it was an abuse of their religion, not an extension of it. Ultimately, to use historical atrocities in an argument will always be ineffective because you're countering values that they don't actually hold and that they know they don't hold and that they know their religion doesn't teach.

So, the primary values of society are not necessarily important to Christians. And some things that principles that don't apply to our culture at all (or very little) are important to Christians. So, when you say you don't see the harm of casual sex, for instance, it is based on the value of personal autonomy. We can ask, "where's the harm?" and answer that, where there is consent, there is no harm. However, Christians would approach the same question with human dignity (of the soul) prioritized over autonomy. For the Christian, the harm is in people being treated like objects, not as a person but as a body with conveniently sized holes or other relevant genitalia. In casual sex, or in prostitution for instance; even where there is mutual consent, there is an affront to human dignity in being treated as an object, even where both parties treat the other as an object and do so consensually. [EDIT for clarification: You can make an excellent argument for why casual sex isn't harmful based on an autonomy perspective, but it will never persuade a Christian because it doesn't address the reason(s) he/she believes it is harmful. To convince a Christian that casual sex is OK, you would have to argue that it doesn't offend human dignity, because it is on those grounds that he/she opposes it. You would probably have to make an argument on grounds of purity too, but I won't go into that here.]

So, that's partially what I mean - people approach debates like these with a completely different set of priorities, because the values of society are sometimes contrary with the values of a religious person. To bring up arguments premised on values that are not shared by Christians is in some ways a waste of breath, because even if it's a correct argument, they may have a higher value that contradicts it - in order to be successful with an argument, you have to argue against it on the value that they hold highest, and there isn't usually an accord between what an atheist prioritizes and what a Christian prioritizes.

And so, it is the values, less so than the feelings, that you would need to address. And those values often run contrary to what we expect or are used to, so, in arguing against a religious person it is important to study their theologies if only so that we can know what they prioritize, and what they actually believe, rather than what we perceive them to believe.

However, I'm fine with personal beliefs (I don't mean the personal beliefs of a Christian - they're still Christian) and spirituality. Finding an answer or comfort in those is fine, since it carries none of the ridiculous rules of organised religions formed thousands of years ago.

As for this, well, I think it's a moot point. Part of what comforts people about religion is being in unity with others (part of the body of Christ, for instance) - most people generally don't find much comfort in isolation, so personal beliefs would not be an adequate replacement for religion for most people. Unity is a primary tenant in a lot of religions - one of the seven sacraments is, for instance, communion. As for rules, even in Christianity I don't think they're as strict as you think. While they do condemn sinful behaviour, there is a constant possibility of redemption. Part of what the coming of Jesus did, at least by the Catholic Church's theology (and not speaking for any other Christian denominations), was shift the burden of sin from the action and onto the intention. So, even though a general tenant is "thou shalt not kill", an accidental killing would not be a sin. And even what sins there are are forgivable at any time really. And there are a lot of misconceptions about what Christian churches teach in general. For instance, you mention circumcision, but while that is common in America I don't think the impetus is primarily religious. While I could be wrong about this history, it was primarily promoted by medical professionals in America and what's left is mostly a holdover from that. Even the apostles, in one of the first councils of the church, declared that it as not necessary for Gentiles converting to the Christianity to be circumcised. And some delightfully fire and brimstone words from Pope Eugene IV reinforced that in 1442:

   [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

Source for that quotation: http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html

Partly, it's the "felt" thing, but it's partly that people make arguments based on what they see as a social norm, and part of what religion does is it exists as an alternative to the social norm and the state; to believe in a religion is subversive as it essentially strips the state of its ultimate power over you. I mean, that may not be as much the case in America, where the norms at least are partially based on Christian values, but it still is the case. I mean, for instance, the highest priority in our society may be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but Christianity more or less explicitly rejects that in its very foundation. They believe in a God that is all-powerful, and yet presented himself to the world as a baby - completely powerless and dependent on human love. He came at a time when the Jewish people were completely oppressed by the Romans - their life, their autonomy being utterly suppressed, and yet the God who could easily smite all their enemies instead allowed himself to be sacrificed and killed by the hatred of others. Christianity is based on an inverted notion of power - God's power is in love, mercy, submission, rather than domination over others. It's essentially a belief that you change the world through transforming your enemies, not through eliminating them; rather, that the world can only change through love. So, when people use arguments such as the wars Christianity has caused, then any Christian will be sure to ignore you because they recognize that those actions were contrary to the central tenants of their faith, and therefore were a case of Christianity being invoked while being ignored - that the interests in those wars were primarily secular in any case, and where they weren't, it was an abuse of their religion, not an extension of it. Ultimately, to use historical atrocities in an argument will always be ineffective because you're countering values that they don't actually hold and that they know they don't hold and that they know their religion doesn't teach.

So, the primary values of society are not necessarily important to Christians. And some things that principles that don't apply to our culture at all (or very little) are important to Christians. So, when you say you don't see the harm of casual sex, for instance, it is based on the value of personal autonomy. We can ask, "where's the harm?" and answer that, where there is consent, there is no harm. However, Christians would approach the same question with human dignity (of the soul) prioritized over autonomy. For the Christian, the harm is in people being treated like objects, not as a person but as a body with conveniently sized holes or other relevant genitalia. In casual sex, or in prostitution for instance; even where there is mutual consent, there is an affront to human dignity in being treated as an object, even where both parties treat the other as an object and do so consensually. [EDIT for clarification: You can make an excellent argument for why casual sex isn't harmful based on an autonomy perspective, but it will never persuade a Christian because it doesn't address the reason(s) he/she believes it is harmful. To convince a Christian that casual sex is OK, you would have to argue that it doesn't offend human dignity, because it is on those grounds that he/she opposes it. You would probably have to make an argument on grounds of purity too, but I won't go into that here.]

So, that's partially what I mean - people approach debates like these with a completely different set of priorities, because the values of society are sometimes contrary with the values of a religious person. To bring up arguments premised on values that are not shared by Christians is in some ways a waste of breath, because even if it's a correct argument, they may have a higher value that contradicts it - in order to be successful with an argument, you have to argue against it on the value that they hold highest, and there isn't usually an accord between what an atheist prioritizes and what a Christian prioritizes.

And so, it is the values, less so than the feelings, that you would need to address. And those values often run contrary to what we expect or are used to, so, in arguing against a religious person it is important to study their theologies if only so that we can know what they prioritize, and what they actually believe, rather than what we perceive them to believe.

Oh, that makes sense. I think that might be why I tend to make arguments like these, though. It just seems weird to me that people would allow what they think is right and wrong to be dictated by the Bible. Of course, this wouldn't seem weird to a Christian who believes the Bible is the word of God, so now we're trapped in a circle.

As for this, well, I think it's a moot point. Part of what comforts people about religion is being in unity with others (part of the body of Christ, for instance) - most people generally don't find much comfort in isolation, so personal beliefs would not be an adequate replacement for religion for most people. Unity is a primary tenant in a lot of religions - one of the seven sacraments is, for instance, communion. As for rules, even in Christianity I don't think they're as strict as you think. While they do condemn sinful behaviour, there is a constant possibility of redemption. Part of what the coming of Jesus did, at least by the Catholic Church's theology (and not speaking for any other Christian denominations), was shift the burden of sin from the action and onto the intention. So, even though a general tenant is "thou shalt not kill", an accidental killing would not be a sin. And even what sins there are are forgivable at any time really.

For me, the problem is having to ask for forgiveness in the first place really. I'm only talking about the sins that don't hurt people, by the way. It makes sense to me for a person to feel remorse for killing somebody (accidentally or intentionally) and looking to God for forgiveness - to cope with what they did. But obviously, I'm not going to think homosexuality is (or should be) a sin, whereas a Christian who believes in the Bible is going to. And here we are again at the values thing. I guess I'm stubborn enough to think what I value is right. 

And there are a lot of misconceptions about what Christian churches teach in general. For instance, you mention circumcision, but while that is common in America I don't think the impetus is primarily religious. While I could be wrong about this history, it was primarily promoted by medical professionals in America and what's left is mostly a holdover from that. Even the apostles, in one of the first councils of the church, declared that it as not necessary for Gentiles converting to the Christianity to be circumcised. And some delightfully fire and brimstone words from Pope Eugene IV reinforced that in 1442:

Well, circumcision became common practice in the US when some folks wanted to put a stop to young boys masturbating. I know people say this was completely non-religious, but to me it seems the people who brought it into practice had the values of/was influenced by some religion. They must have, if they figured masturbation was self-abuse and wrong. It is completely non-religious now (well, not if you're Jewish). Instead, routine circumcision exists because it has become the norm - which is awful, in my opinion.

Anyway, my point with the circumcision thing wasn't to say modern day Christians commonly practice it. My point was, there was a time when the God they believed in enforced this sort of thing. He even threatened to kill people who weren't circumcised (although I think they just weren't allowed inside a church if they weren't circumcised... not sure) I'm not going to say God has changed since I'm not really sure he has anymore. Would a change in relationship suddenly have God thinking foreskins were perfectly fine? I don't know! It just seems rather... made up, to me. To even have that rule in the beginning seems silly to me. And that's how I feel about same-sex relationships and any other 'sin' which does not actually harm anybody. I'm fine with calling murder a sin, since I mostly associate sin with something that's pretty bad.

   [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

That's pretty interesting. Christian circumcision spells a loss of eternal salvation? lol ._.

This is the first time I've actually seen it said that the Old Testament should be pretty much ignored, actually.