Please tell me there are more Atheists out there...

Remove all ads!

Sorry for getting so off topic here moderators, but i really wanted to respond to this...

Gnarf, what evidence is there that it is a choice?? I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the time it's a natural thing. It is not a choice, so much as being straight is a choice. Think about it: did you ever make a conscious decision to be straight? At what moment did you decide to be straight? You didn't, you were born that way. Many people who are gay have been 'different' from childhood, before they even knew what the term "gay" meant (i.e. the boys who were gay played with dolls and hung out with the girls). So, while i can see that there'd be very rare cases where disturbed individuals made a conscious decision to be gay, i find it highly unlikely that all homosexual people are like that.

 

For the record I totally agree with Lost Meme who made a statement in the very first page of this thread:

Seeing that the rest of the thread closely resembles another flame war on subjects that have been flame warred for a while now, I'll leave it at that.

 

Marriage is something that almost every culture around the world practices. Among some it has its basis in religion, among others it doesn't. Among those where it's a religious thing, there are quite a few different versions around - polygamy, monogamy; the specific requirements of who can marry, such as the woman having to be a virgin. Yet they all call it marriage. The word doesn't refer to christian weddings exclusively.

Yes. A proper christian marriage can't happen unless certain requirements are fulfilled. But the separation of church and state is not quite complete here: the law grants certain rights to couples united by a christian wedding, but not to other couples. That's what I see as the main problem here.

Of course, if there's an alternative version of christianity out there that believes universal love overrides the laws of the Old Testament, I don't see why *they* couldn't wed gays too, according
to their view of things. After all, there is a lot of debate going on as to whether certain faiths qualify as christianity - mormons for one. Jehova's witnesses, in my understanding, are separate, yet they believe essentially in the same things.

This brings to mind images of "whites only"-benches in the park. Would you have said then, "As long as whites are in power, it sucks to be black", and left it at that? It *was* the majority's view back then, after all. Restricting people's rights based on religion or sexuality is no more fair than if based on skin tone, gender or wealth status.

Yet it happens around the world all the time. The US dollar bills say "In God we trust." Christian marriage grants more rights to you than a civil wedding. And so on and so forth.

 

Thanks for the well thought out reply, Gnarfflinger. Was getting worried there the topic had died Not a very well thought out reply on my part sorry, I'm in a rush! [Edit] And the posts above cover most of the points very well[/Edit]

Aye, I thought that was the case. Just pointing out how your wording could be taken. Anyway, I addressed that point you made further down in my post.

Does that mean we shouldn't be advancing at all? If we were all to stop searching for the answers to these questions, and hence not advance or further our minds/world at all, would that really be benefical to human kind? I don't know the bible that well, but I'm certain that there would be a part in there telling you to always look for new ways to do things, or try and find new ideas. Should Benjamin Franklin have said to himself "We will know about electricity when God wills it," and sat indoors and had a coffee, instead of standing outside in the storm with his kite?

In general though, it's the stagnation apporch to religons that have always turned me off. To discourage advancement like you stated is wrong. We should never stop questioning how things work, why they work and what is a better way to do it.

Then prehaps the whole idea of marriage shouldn't contain any legal binding at all? Should it just be something that applies to for each church/culture that celebrates it? And yes, as Susipaisti kindly pointed out, marriage is not only celebrated in the Christian Church. You would be hard pressed to find a culture and/or religon that didn't celebrate marriage in one form or another. There is evidence (although currently, from my PoV, not very convincing) that even the Homo neanderthalensis had marriage of some kind. And I'm pretty sure that Neanderthals weren't christians

But back to my original point. As you are saying that these two factors - religon and state - should be seperated completely, should it be then that marriages have no legal value to them? You go and get married, then go and have another sort of ceremony in some state building somewhere, which makes you legally bonded? That would of course mean that priests and the likes would be unable to legally bond a couple.

Which brings you too the point of 'do people know what is best for them?' Answer me that question and I'll continue on this topic. Many people view this differently, and it's helpful to know where you stand if I want to put my point across.


And last of all...

This comment shocks me. It truely does. Susipaisti addressed the point brilliantly, so I won't go on about it apart from adding another example. The 'purification' during Nazi's reign in Germany. All those jews (amount others) killed. The majority believed it was right. An extreme example I know, but your comment applied here would sound something like "it sucks to be Jew". Does that sound a very Catholic thing to say?

 

Well, if ignorance is bliss, then yes. I would prefer to question, but hey, to those who do prefer ignorance, go ahead, you'll just lag behind the rest of us.

The majority did not believe it was right. The most powerful group, the Nazis, thought it was right. Not all germans were Nazis back then... but your point is valid, as was Susipasti's. Just because the majority says one thing doesn't mean it is the best.

 

So you deny the existence of freedom of choice? EVERYTHING we do is a choice. Those that believe they are homosexual by nature just don't seem to be resisting the temptation. Furthermore, if it is not a choice, then I have to go with Chev and say that it is pathology.

And when did you first hear of the idea of same sex marriage? This is a group wanting to change our culture to accomodate them. What if the rest of us don't want that to change?

Well maybe the law should stay out of spiritual matters. Religious marriage is one thing, Civil relationships are another. Why must the state try to trump the church. If that's the case, then could the Church then try to trump the state? If enough people wanted to do so, they could put a Christian party in office, and then where would those classed as sinners be?

That's one particular faith. They can do what they believe is right. Most other Christians will likely argue that they aren't truly Christian, or that they are heretics or blasphemers, but that is the right of that particular faith.

The Definition of Christianity that I go by is simple. If the core part of your doctrine is the life, teachings, death, atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then you class as a Christian faith. By this, Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses are indeed Christians. The accusations that they aren't may stem from those that hate these faiths for whatever reason.

Where things changed for Blacks in the US (veering off to the Rosa Parks thread now) was when the people morally awoke to see that the way they had been treating the Blacks was morally wrong. The difference here is that there is a large portion that is convinced that the homosexuals are morally wrong, and that this is an attack on what is right rather than the abandonment of that which is wrong.

The state has the right to heed the advise of the church. Should the state agree with the church, that's one thing, but where they disagree, they cannot proscribe religious doctrine.

No, but science should not be exploited as an attack on faith either. When someone that is not an accredited scientist starts rattling off the Theory of Evolution and using that to try to tell us savages that our religion is false and mere superstition, is that really progress? Darwin did observe something while studying finches on the Galapagos Islands, but I disagree with the conclusions reached which contradict the account of Creation that has been given through religion. Rather, Science should be kept among Scientists until it reached answers relevent to those of us that have other things to do outside their world. By sending Evolution to the masses, there arises a segment of the population that will use that to claim that religion is false. Shouldn't Science be more concerned with building a better world as opposed to tearing down the old with nothing to replace it?

If that's what it takes to restore peace between church and state over the gay rights debacle, then that's what needs to be done. This need not be a legallyu drawn contract, but laws dealing with cohabitation, be it marriage, or even just roommates. This would extend the legal rights of married couples to gay couples without dragging the concept of marriage through the mud...

I think that Rene DesCartes stated in the beginning of "The Discourse" (The actual title was 39 words long, and I can't remember the whole thing. I'm also too lazy to go to retrieve my copy to get the whole thing) that nobody will claim that we've been short changed for good sense. This means that we always believe that we know what's good for us.

And there the International community got off their collective asses and put an end to the genocide. But if the International community won't step in (look at Africa from some threads in AoLS) then yes, it does suck to be the "other" people. If the green people in Country X were to undergo a change of opinion regarding the treatment of the blue people, then change would occur. I don't think that enough people will change their mind on Gay rights however.

That's also why Gay Marriage is legal in Canada. The damned government decided that it should be legal, even though a significant majority of the country is theoretically against it...

 

Are hunger and thirst choices? Eating and drinking are, but the feelings of hunger and thirst are not. It's the same thing with sexuality. Me liking women is not a choice, it's just the way it is. Acting on the desires is a choice.

The real question becomes whether it's right or wrong, or acceptable or unacceptable, to be gay. By the "pathology"-comment I assume you mean that if it's not a choice, it's a sickness. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that it is so. Without religion gay people would be a lot better off - maybe there'd still be intolerant views toward them, but not quite so severely.

Since there are so many different ideas of what a marriage "should" be, what's one more? Who decides what is the "right" way in marriage?

Well, to be exact, a Christian party couldn't override the constitution, so changing a country into a theocracy wouldn't be so simple.

Surely the law shouldn't interfere with spiritual matters - as long as spiritual matters don't interfere with the law. The different jurisdiction in a Christian wedding and a civil one is such a case where it does just that.

To me it makes perfect sense that the "earthly" law overrides the "spiritual" laws. If our lawbooks say something is not okay, it doesn't matter what a religion says about it. This seems something that many religious people agree on. Nobody seems to say that not legalizing human sacrifices interferes with people's freedom of religion, even though some primitive religions involve that sort of thing.

But if earthly law says something a religion forbids is okay (or someone suggests it should be changed that way), everybody gets worked up. It's strange how few people make noise over animal sacrifices not being legal anymore, but how many wish to outlaw homosexuality.

I've done some research.

Human sacrifices are made in the Old Testament, by the Israelites in the name of the Lord. This happens in the last chapter of the Book of Judges (in case the English translation has a different title, it's the one after the Book of Joshua). In this instance the command isn't said to come from God, though. I distinctively remember something similar being done after a war campaign, but I couldn't for the time being find it.

As for the stonings, chech out the 4th Book of Moses, 15:32-36.

In the 5th Book of Moses, chapter 13, it is clearly stated that all laws ordered by the Lord through Moses must be obeyed without adding or removing anything. It seems strange to me that later-day Christians so comfortably give up on obeying *some* of the old laws but not others. Since the laws that state homosexuality is an abomination are right there side by side with animal sacrifices and stoning - practices that no Christian seems to be defending - it begs the question: Why should homosexuality still be forbidden, when eating pork isn't? How, by what logic and by what authority, has it been decided which parts of those old lawbooks are still relevant and which aren't?

On doing what the majority thinks is right:

The key word there is "believe."

Science is an ongoing process - this has been stated time and again. At what point should the findings be introduced to the masses then? Only once everything in all of existence and beyond is known? When is that going to happen? And until then, should the rest of the world just fumble in the dark without scientific knowledge to aid us (literally, bearing in mind the electricity thing Rotku mentioned), while the scientists know more than any of us? Knowledge is power. What do you think would happen, if such power was only in the hands of a selected few, and the masses remained completely ignorant?

Maybe I got a little carried away there. Let's keep the issue on evolution theories then. In a nutshell, it seems you're suggesting that scientific findings shouldn't be brought out if they are in contradiction with existing knowledge. That only theories that agree with the Bible or the current interpretation of it should be allowed to be brought out.

Galileo Galilei comes to mind again.

Also consider that religion doesn't really offer conclusive answers to everything, either. It merely states that "Us mere mortals can't understand everything, so let's assume there's a greater being out there that does, so we don't have to seek knowledge anymore."

 

One of the most brillaint, logical statements I have heard in a long time. Just pure brilliance. I completely agree. No more needs to be said.

 

Then going by this, doesn't that mean that, assuming you are right, these homo-sexuals who are wanting to be married are doing it for their good? And who are we to stop someone from benifiting themselves, if no one else is harmed by it?

Anyway, I'm out after this post. Can't really see any point in continuing posting in this thread - both sides are fixed in their ways, and both sides are right to a certain degree.

 

Exactly, What you choose to eat or drink is a choice. Just as sexual temptation is not a choice, who you have sex with or even whether or not you have sex is a choice. Religion, therefore, is justified in asking that we restrict the choices we make to please God.

Actually, I take the opposite approach. I think that the Gay peoplewould be better off if they sought the Lord's aid in overcoming this temptation. If you believe that having gay sex is not a choice, then their must be something wrong with them. They would need treatment to overcome this mental illness. Take your pick which is better--choice or illness...

The point is that for centuries, possibly milleniums (millenia?), all these varied opinions agreed on was that Marriage was between man and woman. They never allowed men to marry men, or women to marry women.

Actually, it's a case of State stepping in to standardize Marriage regardless of faith. Under seperation of Church and state, they had no such right tobegin with.

This is a prioritizing of rights. The right to life is placed above freedom of Religion.

When the Government starts to send one message to the people, and the chruch sends a contradictory message, then of course the church would get upset...

I couldn't find the passage that you refered to. It did refer to a punitive campaign against someone. They would have been declared criminals under the Law of Moses or something.

Obviously capital punishment was favoured back then.

First, There was a caste of scribes and pharisees that continued to "refine" the laws as given. When Jesus Christ came, he set the laws straight. After this, pork was no longer forbidden, animal sacrifices no longer required, but homosexuality was still forbidden.

Put that power into the wrong hands and see how messed up things can get. I just think that more complicated theories should be held back until more advanced training is sought and properly prepared for, and more controversial theories should be held back until they can be absolutely proven.To me, I think that Darwin made many assumptions that he may not have been entitled to. He did observe something, but I don't think he observed over a long enough period of time (like say 10,000 years should suffice).

The Roman Catholic Church was outside the doctrine there. Nothing in the Bible states that the Earth is centre of the universe. The pride of the church (pride being a sin being irrelevent) would not allow them to consider that he may be right. The difference is that Evolution DOES contradict biblical teachings on the Creation of Man. Religion teaching that man was specifically made in the image of God, but Evolution teaches that man was born of an unspecifiec primitive homonid.

And science can't disprove it. There is something real behind this. Science can't tell you squat about it. Religion givves us a simple, practical answer and lets us get on with our lives. As society advances, we become curious, and Science would ultimately seek to look into how God created the world, and how to make our lives better. A questionable theory that contradicts religion does not meet these criterion, and may actually make the world worse for the confusion it creates.

 

I'm curious. If homosexuality is strictly a conscious choice, how do you account for homosexual behavior found within animals?

 

That's only with the enormous (and IMO erroneous) assumption that being gay is wrong. And you know what they say about assuming...

From very basic (and probably rounded) statistics, gay people make up 10% of the population. So do left-handed people; should we send them to the church for re-training? Abnormal does not equate with wrong, and next time someone so much as implies it (in the wrong thread, no less), I will send them a PM that might even make the SP server combust.

 

Flame away Fel. Homosexuality is not wrong because it is abnormal, but because it is immoral. Sex, morally speaking, is restricted between man and woman, who are married. Any other form of sexual activity is strictly forbidden. Have a nice day.

 

How did this become YET another thread about homosexuality?

 

Because we're really fond of lesbians?

No?

Hmm. Good question.

 

I was wondering that myself, Harbourboy. I thought it was about athiests which is not the same thing. In fact where are our athiests?

 

I don't know, I'm an agnostic.

I think the gay issue is somewhat relevant, because the view that it's somehow immoral stems from religion.

Now, Gnarff. [rubbing hands in anticipation]

The human sacrifice is in the Book of Judges 21:11. Also check out the 4th Book of Moses, 31:40. It's about what they do after the vengeance on Midians - out of 16 000 prisoners 32 are declared to belong to the Lord as a tithe or something. What exactly is done with them?

On stonings:

So are you saying it was not a command from God, but from the people? Then why would the law against homosexuality be from God either? Why would *that* not be just from the people?

Could you point me to a passage where Jesus speaks about pork, or homosexuality? I haven't so far found such.

I suppose the first chapter of Genesis is somewhat open to interpretation. It seems to have been written by people who think the Earth is the center, but one could also say it's simply described as seen from the people's perspective.

Actually 10 000 years is not such a long time in evolution. But how could anyone observe anything for that long? Luckily we have fossils.

One example, perhaps simplified, of the basic principal the evolution theory is based upon can be seen in the breeding of dogs, cats, horses etc. Certain qualities can be strengthened and others weakened by selecting which specimens get to breed. I don't think anybody contests this. If such dramatic difference (think wolf -> chihuahua) can be acquired in just a few generations, why would there not be differences over several millions of years? And why would humans be unaffected?

As for science...if less money was spent (and had been spent in the past) on making the churches rich and glamorous, and more on scientific research, we might be a lot further ahead in the search for knowledge. If the church wasn't so hell-bent on obstructing research into areas it doesn't approve of, the answers would come a whole lot quicker.

And do you believe the world and the people in it were somehow better off in the middle ages, or in the times of ancient Rome, or before that, because they didn't have unconclusively proven theories to distract them? And who says they didn't?

Isn't the whole Genesis part of the Bible somewhat open to interpretation? This is just a thought, but does it really contradict evolution, conclusively? It's just the view, the interpretation, of certain people. Just like it was the view of other people that the Earth absolutely *has* to be flat and *can't* revolve and orbit the sun.

Also religion, in my mind, qualifies as a questionable theory not conclusively proven.

So why aren't Jewish people in an uproar because eating pork and leaving your sons uncircumcised is legal?

 

One thing I would like to point out is yes science cant solve everything. When Darwin made his theories he knew they were theories and he in fact had nothing to do with being anti-church. Many people have this misguieded notion that scientists are against religion when in fact often times the opposite is true. It is actually not that hard to come up with evolution friendly way of going thru the bible. For instance how long is a day for God realizing that a day on anywhere but earth is diferent than earth. On Venus I recall the day being longer than its year.

Science is also set to try to figure out what is happening in the world. Religion is all about faith. That is why most religious ideas can (should) not be taught as science. God can not be proven with science or dis proven and thus is not scientific because when you discuss anything about God it is a question of faith not God.

I am not an atheist but I tend to prefer arguing with one as they tend to not blindly follow, they dont rise to anger for questioning their "religion", as fast, and in general make better arguements based on facts rather than make statements about science then use religion as justification.

 

I'm a spiritual person myself, but I do believe that religion is complete and utter rubbish, and I can only feel sorry for those who live by it.