Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
lol the paganist have been around as long as society has----don't try to claim society was the forerunner of religion.
[
Opposing homosexuality does not preclude those opponents from being on the same page as you are, with respect to hunger, greed, etc.
Okay. Your argument fails on three points. Allow me to point them out for you:Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.
That is why God made lawyers.
However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.
And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.
What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.
Ad hominem: "...immoral atheists". This is a form of logical fallacy. It relies on attacking your opponent directly, while ignoring the content of his argument, to avoid responding to the actual argument with a rational, reasoned, logical response. Such an emotional response usually indicates that the person employing the attack has run out of logical things to say, and simply does not wish to admit defeat.
Red Herring: "Child abuse comes to mind." This is a text book case. This is rarely cited logical fallacy; mostly because most debaters confuse red herrings for the strawman argument. The Red Herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. You see, nothing in this discussion legitimizes bringing up child abuse. That should not, in any way, be mistaken for an admission that your stupid red herring cannot be refuted - only that this particular discussion is neither the time, nor place for such a debate.
And finally, back to "immoral atheists". There are two problems with your little ad hominem. First, like most religious zealots, you presume that just because a person does not happen to believe your little fairy tail about the Magic Man in the Sky who is going to make everything okay by "sending" his kid to be brutalized and murdered at the hands of violent, stupid men, that this means that person has no morals. This is simply not true. It only means that they have a different set of morals from you. Second, you presume, apparently since you directed this at me, that I am an atheist, simply because I am not a Christian. You do get that there are a plethora of theologies, and religions that are outside of the three that grew out of the Middle East Monotheistic El Yeshua worship, right?
By all means, do lemme know when you'd like to return to a discussion that actually responds to what I said with logic.
[
so what's the score on atheist behavior ? How decently do they treat people ? I know Stalin and Mao weren't very nice.
lol the paganist have been around as long as society has----don't try to claim society was the forerunner of religion.
Of course it was. There could be no religion without the society to support it. Adding religion was a way of explaining the unexplainable and for controlling the populace.
Who is making the more moral choice, the Christian that does it because god is watching or the atheist that does it because it is the right thing to do?
Hmmmmm... not sure you're right about the 'priorities' thing... I'm guessing that most folks who oppose homosexuality would probably assign the fighting of hunger and greed to be a higher priority than homosexuality... but I could be wrong.[
Opposing homosexuality does not preclude those opponents from being on the same page as you are, with respect to hunger, greed, etc.
No, but it does show their priorities.
George W. Bush got re-elected in 2004 (after stealing the election in 2000) because anti-gay measures in Ohio and other states brought out the religious voters.
so Bush got you to vote fore more greed and more hunger because people like you couldn't stand the gay. (And no one mention Mary Cheney's a Lesbian!!!)
Except a funny thing happened. Remember how Bush promised us he was going to introduce a 'Sanctity of Marriage Amendment" in Congress? What ever happened to that?
Nope. He used his political capital in a hair-brained scheme to try to get Wall Street put in charge of Social Security.
That may be "covered" by religion, but the religious zealots certainly don't practice it as a part of their moral code. You see, part of "treating people decently" is respecting them enough to allow them to make their own decision, and live their own lives. Trying to pass laws that deny people the right to do this, such as denying same-sex marriage, is completely antithetical to that principle.really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.
Ours is based on treating people decently.
No magic sky pixies required.
That's already covered by religion
so what's the score on atheist behavior ? How decently do they treat people ? I know Stalin and Mao weren't very nice.
[
so what's the score on atheist behavior ? How decently do they treat people ? I know Stalin and Mao weren't very nice.
Compared to who? all the religious nuts who've slaughtered millions?
Maybe you need to put down the Bircher propaganda...
That may be "covered" by religion, but the religious zealots certainly don't practice it as a part of their moral code. You see, part of "treating people decently" is respecting them enough to allow them to make their own decision, and live their own lives. Trying to pass laws that deny people the right to do this, such as denying same-sex marriage, is completely antithetical to that principle.really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.
Ours is based on treating people decently.
No magic sky pixies required.
That's already covered by religion
so what's the score on atheist behavior ? How decently do they treat people ? I know Stalin and Mao weren't very nice.
What's the score on Christian behavior? How decently do they treat people? The inquisition, Salem witch trails, Crusades...those were some not very nice Christians.
lol the paganist have been around as long as society has----don't try to claim society was the forerunner of religion.
Of course it was. There could be no religion without the society to support it. Adding religion was a way of explaining the unexplainable and for controlling the populace.
Who is making the more moral choice, the Christian that does it because god is watching or the atheist that does it because it is the right thing to do?
Is a MORE moral choice different than a LESS moral choice?
That may be "covered" by religion, but the religious zealots certainly don't practice it as a part of their moral code. You see, part of "treating people decently" is respecting them enough to allow them to make their own decision, and live their own lives. Trying to pass laws that deny people the right to do this, such as denying same-sex marriage, is completely antithetical to that principle.Ours is based on treating people decently.
No magic sky pixies required.
That's already covered by religion
so what's the score on atheist behavior ? How decently do they treat people ? I know Stalin and Mao weren't very nice.
What's the score on Christian behavior? How decently do they treat people? The inquisition, Salem witch trails, Crusades...those were some not very nice Christians.
right---so lets go with people aren't very nice. Don't try to bother proving atheists are somehow better
Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.That is why God made lawyers.
However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.
And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.
What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.
Really? Child abuse comes to mind for who? You really believe that if someone doesn't give a shit about consenting adults entering into a polygamist relationship, that they must also support child abuse?
I asked the question. Do you care to answer it?
If there were a question, I'd answer it. Your comment was too vague and your meaning unclear. I'm not sure if you are saying that atheists don't care about child abuse or that polygamy has been known to be fraught with it. Only one of those statements even has a grain of truth.
How? Fuck the rhetoric. Explain how someone else's marriage affects you personally in any way.But it DOES affect you, it affects us all.
Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.
However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.
And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.
What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.
Really? Child abuse comes to mind for who? You really believe that if someone doesn't give a shit about consenting adults entering into a polygamist relationship, that they must also support child abuse?
I asked the question. Do you care to answer it?
If there were a question, I'd answer it. Your comment was too vague and your meaning unclear. I'm not sure if you are saying that atheists don't care about child abuse or that polygamy has been known to be fraught with it. Only one of those statements even has a grain of truth.
I will repeat the question for you.
What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support?
I will try and ask it in with smaller words if it is still too vague for you.
Christianity certainly deserves some of the brickbats that it earned during those long centuries while the Church was heavily involved in Secular Governance as well as Spiritual matters, but, even during those troubling times, it served effectively as the transmitter of ethics and morals and behavioral standards for a very great many generations.That may be "covered" by religion, but the religious zealots certainly don't practice it as a part of their moral code. You see, part of "treating people decently" is respecting them enough to allow them to make their own decision, and live their own lives. Trying to pass laws that deny people the right to do this, such as denying same-sex marriage, is completely antithetical to that principle.really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.
Ours is based on treating people decently.
No magic sky pixies required.
That's already covered by religion
so what's the score on atheist behavior ? How decently do they treat people ? I know Stalin and Mao weren't very nice.
What's the score on Christian behavior? How decently do they treat people? The inquisition, Salem witch trails, Crusades...those were some not very nice Christians.
How? Fuck the rhetoric. Explain how someone else's marriage affects you personally in any way.But it DOES affect you, it affects us all.
Marriage doesn't affect me. Changing marriage to include homosexual behavior affects me because it affects the morality of society in general. I don't wish to live in an immoral or amoral society. I've studied history and realize this has been the biggest cause of civilizations collapsing and I don't want that to happen with mine.
So... Marriage is fine, I have no problem with that... I am all for homosexual males finding a nice girl and settling down or homosexual females finding Mr. Right and doing the same. What I am opposed to is altering the term "marriage" so that it will include sexual proclivities of any kind.
Children, animals, and the dead are not considered people. Although, I suppose in the case of necrophilia, so long as the body is yours, I would have no problem with you doing whatever you wanted with it. After all, you're not actually hurting anyone.So pedophiles can't have marriages because children can't knowingly consent under the law.
Animals can't consent under the law, as they aren't self-aware.
Corpses can't consent because they aren't alive to consent.
Why not? Aren't you simply pointing out how we are restricting people's rights to do what they want to do
Yes, it does. However, what you are describing does not fall under pedophilia. Pedophilia requires, by definition, that the "children" in question be pre-pubescent. That means they haven't even begun to sexually mature, yet, let alone reached sexual maturity. As to the question of age of consent. I have argued for some time that our "age of consent" laws are purely arbitrary. As you pointed out, by 14, or 15 these adolescents have reached sexual maturity. What we need is a Master-Johnson type comprehensive study of adolescents to determine, quantifiably, when they are capable of making emotional, and cognitive maturity. We have neurological evidence that the frontal cortex doesn't reach full maturity until age 26, however, we have no actual data on when adolescents develop the ability to make reasoned decisions. Once we have that information, if the data says 14, then 14 should be the age of consent. If it says 16, then it should be 16. If it says 19, then it should be raised to 19. The point is that "age of consent" should be demonstrably based on verifiable evidence, not some arbitrary number that makes "mommy, and daddy" feel "comfortable".What you now define as 'children' includes humans who have reached age of sexual maturity, marked by natural changes such as menstrual periods, pubic hair and development of breasts, etc. So why should these humans be restricted to your pre-defined moral constraints on when you think they are capable of consent?
You may have a point. However, I think the difficulty comes in determining how one determines consent - legally i mean. Without the ability of verbal cues ("yes" or "No"), how do we determine that an animal has "given consent". Just because you "say so"? That doesn't work with humans, why should it work with animals?Animals are aware of themselves. They are capable of giving consent. Try giving a cat a bath without it's consent. Try riding a horse without it's consent. If a girl's german shepherd doesn't consent to mounting her, it won't. Again, who the hell are YOU to decide what is morally acceptable? How is that bothering you?
Well, again, this is really a matter of those of us who support same-sex marriage not being the list bit interested in fighting for the rights of people who don't exist. Since there doesn't seem to be any polygamists coming forward demanding the right to marry multiple spouses, it's really kind of a non-issue, now isn't it?So really, that only leaves "Polygamists". And while I have no problem with polygamy if everyone involved is a consenting adult, the reality is that we don't allow people to make a marriage contract if they already have one with someone else.
Well there are LOTS of things we don't currently do. Seems to me "there's no danger because we don't allow that" is a stupid justification for allowing something we've never allowed before. If we can change the meaning of "marriage" we can change the meaning of "consent" or "children" or any damn thing else, all bets are off.... if we want to do it, we can simply change the law.
How? Fuck the rhetoric. Explain how someone else's marriage affects you personally in any way.But it DOES affect you, it affects us all.
Marriage doesn't affect me. Changing marriage to include homosexual behavior affects me because it affects the morality of society in general. I don't wish to live in an immoral or amoral society. I've studied history and realize this has been the biggest cause of civilizations collapsing and I don't want that to happen with mine.
So... Marriage is fine, I have no problem with that... I am all for homosexual males finding a nice girl and settling down or homosexual females finding Mr. Right and doing the same. What I am opposed to is altering the term "marriage" so that it will include sexual proclivities of any kind.
Civil Marriage has nothing to do with sex or proclivities. Civil Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults that allows them to make decisions for each other.
Was voting "altered" when blacks and women could do it?
Over 60% of the country will live in a marriage equality state shortly. Have you been scouting property in Iran? I hear they still jail and kill the queers there.
Interesting article in the Federalist:
Stop Calling It Marriage Equality
Some quotes:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon Church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”
Personally, I don’t have any misgivings about same-sex marriage, mostly because I don’t believe it destabilizes society or family—although I suspect it will offer gay Americans far more stability. The policy debate is about over, anyway. These days, we should be more troubled by the persistent need to coerce and demean those who hold religious objections to gay unions into compliance. And if I were, say, a practicing Catholic, I could never accept that the sacrament of marriage could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than the Big Guy. This is neither homophobic nor does it undermine your happiness. In my small “l” libertarian utopia, people are free to enter into voluntary arrangements and others are free to believe that the participants of these arrangements may lead to eternal damnation.
The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized. My sense is that the vast majority of Americans have little interest in shacking up with their sisters or entering into a ménage à trois (well, in its literal meaning, “a household of three,” at least). Rather, I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”
Let me answer in both logical and mathematical terms.I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”
