Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Emma wrote: "If you read back on my comments I think you should find they are neither insulting or offensive?!"Emma wrote: "Why can't you just comment once and leave it at that?! idiots! "
News just in. Telling people they should only comment once after posting multiple comments is hypocritical.
News just in. Calling people idiots for doing what you have done is insulting and offensive.
Emma wrote: "The last thing I would want is to insult or offend people, however people obviously don't think that way when picking my comments apart!"
Well you've failed to avoid causing offence quite rapidly and quite spectacularly.
If you feel so insecure about your views then why post them in a public forum? Why get upset and call people names when all they have done is taken your comments seriously and given you the time and respect to respond?
Emma wrote: "Wouldn't even bother wasting your time discussing it as comments just get picked apart by people who just like to see stuff written by them on here i think!"
You are the one complaining that stuff you have written hasn't been considered wisdom that needed no comment or dissent.
People here are enjoying a discussion, even those of us who do not necessarily agree with each other. By this art of conversation we can perhaps learn about each others point of view, and try to understand even when we can't accept.
If you cannot stand to be part of that process then perhaps you should have listened to your own advice?
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: I find myself wondering .... Why do you think you don't think about it?
What would convince you otherwise?"
When I say I don't think about it, what I really mean is that it does n..."
A marriage joins two individuals for life, so that they can pursue dharma (duty), artha (possessions), kama (physical desires), and moksa (ultimate spiritual release) together.
Marriage shows the strongest commitment you can make to one another. Gay men and lesbians are just as human and have the same needs and desires as heterosexual human beings. I fail to see what God in any case has to do with this Marriage business as in this instance is not religious, but a legal joining. Getting married is the ultimate way of showing your love and commitment to your partner, so why should gay people be deprived of this right. Who are we to sit and judge anyway. Same sex marriages should be legalized. If people find gay relationships contrary to their religion, it is up to them to refrain. Those who do not share their religious opinions should be free to make their own choice on this as on other issues. Gay men and lesbians are just as human and have the same needs and desires as heterosexual human beings.
The argument that same sex marriages should not be made legal "because they do not produce kids" is ridiculous. Should heterosexual couples over 50 not be allowed to marry as they cannot produce kids either? If two people love each other and want to unite their destinies, then it is a beautiful thing which should be celebrated. Whether it is called "marriage" or "life pact" does not matter. Same-sex unions harm no one; one's support or opposition to this is a matter of personal belief and morality.
Anjali wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: I find myself wondering .... Why do you think you don't think about it?
What would convince you otherwise?"
When I say I don't think about it, what I really mean is ..."
Beautiful Anjali.
Emma wrote: "If you read back on my comments I think you should find they are neither insulting or offensive?! The last thing I would want is to insult or offend people, however people obviously don't think that way when picking my comments apart! "
I don't have a horse in this race, Emma, but .... You did say, "Idiots!"
Personally, I think there's more opportunity for understanding, between all of us, if we refrain from calling people "idiots" as you did ... and from calling people "ignorant" as others have in the past.
I do understand your feelings around being questioned, to a certain extent. Most of the other threads on GR aren't like this thread. There isn't the constant questioning. You post and that's it. Or, you post and someone might say they agree. So, I suppose it can seem odd and disconcerting ... if you're not used to it elsewhere on GR or maybe even in life. I mean, let's face it. When we're eating lunch at work, we say things and ... might have a back and forth. However, for the most part, we're not questioned a lot on what we say.
It's the way it is here, though. There's a lot of questioning.
I don't have a horse in this race, Emma, but .... You did say, "Idiots!"
Personally, I think there's more opportunity for understanding, between all of us, if we refrain from calling people "idiots" as you did ... and from calling people "ignorant" as others have in the past.
I do understand your feelings around being questioned, to a certain extent. Most of the other threads on GR aren't like this thread. There isn't the constant questioning. You post and that's it. Or, you post and someone might say they agree. So, I suppose it can seem odd and disconcerting ... if you're not used to it elsewhere on GR or maybe even in life. I mean, let's face it. When we're eating lunch at work, we say things and ... might have a back and forth. However, for the most part, we're not questioned a lot on what we say.
It's the way it is here, though. There's a lot of questioning.
Anjali wrote: "The argument that same sex marriages should not be made legal "because they do not produce kids" is ridiculous. Should heterosexual couples over 50 not be allowed to marry as they cannot produce kids either?"Or perhaps everyone should be forced to undergo fertility testing prior to marriage to see if they are eligible for the "privilege".
I agree with Gary, Anjali beautifully put...
cHriS wrote: "I believe the word marriage signifies the union of one man and one woman with the intension of raising children. "
So .... I need to get ready for work. Only have time for a quick response. So ....
Separate and apart from gay marriage ....
I, like C-Cose, always wanted to get married ... even when I was a little girl ... I'd think about it. Not from the perspective of pretty dresses. From the perspective of finding that person who ... completes a part of your soul. Like C, I envisioned a man. ;) But, since I'm a woman .... I also always wanted to be a mother ... to have children.
But, here's the deal. I can't have children. Long story. But, I can't. Or, perhaps I should say ... I shouldn't. The children would be endangered. It would be a risk. And, .... I don't play fast and loose with the lives of children, especially my own. So ....
Does that mean I shouldn't get married? Based on your definition.
Of course, I haven't. Going into it knowing this ... well, it makes things considerably more complicated. On a lot of levels.
And, no ... I don't think it would work to say, "You could adopt." Yeah, maybe ... if I had thousands of dollars and thought I could deal with the whole ... falling in absolute love with a baby who could be taken from me in the first 6 months if the parent changed her mind. Among other things ....
So ... at first blush, .... I can say, while you have a right to define marriage as you choose, I wonder if your choice limits other people. I think it does. Further, it might limit more people than you've considered.
But, I seriously need to run ...
So .... I need to get ready for work. Only have time for a quick response. So ....
Separate and apart from gay marriage ....
I, like C-Cose, always wanted to get married ... even when I was a little girl ... I'd think about it. Not from the perspective of pretty dresses. From the perspective of finding that person who ... completes a part of your soul. Like C, I envisioned a man. ;) But, since I'm a woman .... I also always wanted to be a mother ... to have children.
But, here's the deal. I can't have children. Long story. But, I can't. Or, perhaps I should say ... I shouldn't. The children would be endangered. It would be a risk. And, .... I don't play fast and loose with the lives of children, especially my own. So ....
Does that mean I shouldn't get married? Based on your definition.
Of course, I haven't. Going into it knowing this ... well, it makes things considerably more complicated. On a lot of levels.
And, no ... I don't think it would work to say, "You could adopt." Yeah, maybe ... if I had thousands of dollars and thought I could deal with the whole ... falling in absolute love with a baby who could be taken from me in the first 6 months if the parent changed her mind. Among other things ....
So ... at first blush, .... I can say, while you have a right to define marriage as you choose, I wonder if your choice limits other people. I think it does. Further, it might limit more people than you've considered.
But, I seriously need to run ...
Shannon wrote: "It's the way it is here, though. There's a lot of questioning."To be fair, the topic is a question.
Shanna wrote: "Anjali wrote: "The argument that same sex marriages should not be made legal "because they do not produce kids" is ridiculous. Should heterosexual couples over 50 not be allowed to marry as they ca..."Thanks Gary Shanna and Shannon....
Most imp. reason why it should be legalized is Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples.It affects critical medical decisions. For example, if one member of a gay couple that has been together for 20 years gets critically ill, visitation may not even be allowed since the other isn't considered a "spouse or immediate family member". Also, critical medical decisions must often be made when one person is incapacitated; e.g. should a certain surgery be done or not? It is completely unfair to deny these privileges to people because their relationship doesn't fit the state's definition of one.
Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination
The same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages apply to same-sex marriages.
It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles.
Anjali wrote: "A marriage joins two individuals for life, so that they can pursue dharma (duty), artha (possessions), kama (physical desires), and moksa (ultimate spiritual release) together.Marriage shows the strongest commitment you can make to one another...."
Greetings Anjali :)
Beautifully written!!!! It reminds me of a meme that I've seen quite a bit lately ...
"Telling me not to marry because it offends your religion is like telling me not to eat a cupcake because you're on a diet ..." :D
Shannon wrote: "But, then ... for me, I think part of the problem was, in actuality, that I didn't view homosexuals as the "other" ... I viewed homosexuals as the same and couldn't get past the idea that they weren't."Greetings Shannon :)
I just wanted to respond to this snippet from your post ... which I greatly enjoyed reading btw :)
I think the non-visible, "hidden", non-obvious ... qualities in other people are often the most insidious form of "otherness". By this I mean, it catches us unawares and confuses us when we are presented with someone that is "the same but different" in a way that we can't easily define: gay people that are "straight acting", the white North American convert to Islam, the hidden Jew.
We've based our perception of that individual on what we thought we knew about them and then feel forced to possibly re-evaluate them based on something that was not obvious. It can be disconcerting. Some people move right along and say "So what?" ... others view this new knowledge as justification for treating them differently.
I think what you wrote in a later comment about seeing the individual rather than the label is the best possible reaction to this phenomenon and honour you for stating it.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "It's the way it is here, though. There's a lot of questioning."
To be fair, the topic is a question."
Ummmm....
It is a question. And...?
To be fair, the topic is a question."
Ummmm....
It is a question. And...?
cHriS wrote: "I don’t agree with a lot of peoples views but I would fight /vote for them to be able to express those views."Agreed, though I must admit to some trepidation to when that supports hate speech and incitement to violence. I am not sure though what the best solution is in that regard.
cHriS wrote: "I believe the word marriage signifies the union of one man and one woman with the intension of raising children."
Shannon has addressed most of the issues therein far more personally than I could do. All I would add here is 'what about love'? Surely if a couple came together just to have kids but didn't love each other then that leads to issues for the kids growing up?
cHriS wrote: "In general, that’s how it’s been for hundreds of years and that how it should stay."
Just because something has been done a long time doesn't mean it was right. Marriages used to be arranged by parents and girls were effectively sold to the highest bidder for their dowries. Would you see this tradition upheld?
cHriS wrote: "Society is a worse place for children without the security of a father and mother and the ‘family’ unit."
How much security is their in a marriage were one partner abuses the other, and they are now so financially interdependent they can never escape from the abuse? Abuse to the partner often also results in abuse to the children.
Marriage is not, and never was, the utopia imagined by conservatives. (Though perhaps it was better in general for the males.)
cHriS wrote: "We have to many couples living together and not willing to commit to marriage, and two many single parents."
Which is better, marrying for love and mutual respect and then raising kids, or parents being forced into marriage because of economic pressures?
Perhaps it would be better making sure that people didn't have to become parents before they were ready?
cHriS wrote: "Much of the non committal is due to finance and the single parent family is because one of the parents, usually the male, who has little interest in the child he made."
Well I am not married and have a child, though she lives with her mother. I have remained interested and provide all the support I can, and see her regularly. Her mother and I have worked out our differences and remain good friends, but when it came to the crunch she didn't want to marry me. Should she have been forced too because she was carrying my child?
cHriS wrote: "Also the government we last had in power took away tax relief and other benefits for married couples in order not to discriminate. Another small example of pc."
I wasn't aware of that, which benefits? Though the problem with providing financial benefits for marriage is that it can force people into marriages they should never have gone into.
cHriS wrote: "Give more benefits to married couples (including civil partnerships) and make marriage a better proposition than co habiting."
In my opinion, if you are marrying for tax reasons, then you're really doing it for the wrong reasons.
cHriS wrote: "I am not objecting to ‘gay rights’, we are all equal but we are not the same and so we should not be trying to be the same, just for the sake of being the same. What about the phrase, ‘celebrate differences’, that one gets dragged out when it of benefit, so why not use it now."
Because discrimination is not a celebration? At least not for the victims, though the discriminators may indeed party all night.
Some things are indeed different, but some things are the same. Marriage is two people who have sworn mutual fidelity and love. How is it different depending on who the two people are?
Do you advocate retaining the term "mixed marriage" for whites who marry blacks?
cHriS wrote: "Maybe a compromise of letting Churches decide whether to offer gay marriage will have to be the way forward."
That would be sensible and I believe that is what is proposed. Therefore if a church doesn't offer it then they can go to another church.
(Though this is another case for Churches to lose tax exemptions if they practice discrimination which is not permitted for charitable status I believe.)
cHriS wrote: "Although that was not allowed, with regard to adoption agencies, so I don’t know."
Why do Churches get involved in adoption? I am not familiar with this?
I can certainly see why the ability for Churches to discriminate on behalf of children should not be allowed, as that child is too young to make an informed decision about religion.
cHriS wrote: "I would like to see less babies and children needing to be adopted"
As would probably everyone, but since it has been shown that a gay couple is just as good as a straight couple in child raising, why object to it?
(You can google the sources for this if you like, I posted the links to it previously).
cHriS wrote: "My assumption, if gay marriage are allowed then another word will be added no to the word marriage to signify the difference, for example true/real, just as we have ‘same sex’ now. Then we are back to square one. "
Why? Why would we need the word when we can just say (x) and (y) are married?
It's been a long time since I heard the phrase "mixed marriage", so perhaps the discrimination would diminish along with the phrase?
C-Cose wrote: "I think the non-visible, "hidden", non-obvious ... qualities in other people are often the most insidious form of "otherness". By this I mean, it catches us unawares and confuses us when we are presented with someone that is "the same but different" in a way that we can't easily define: gay people that are "straight acting", the white North American convert to Islam, the hidden Jew.
We've based our perception of that individual on what we thought we knew about them and then feel forced to possibly re-evaluate them based on something that was not obvious. It can be disconcerting. Some people move right along and say "So what?" ... others view this new knowledge as justification for treating them differently.
I think what you wrote in a later comment about seeing the individual rather than the label is the best possible reaction to this phenomenon and honour you for stating it. "
Yes, I definitely think we're caught unawares.... I know I have been. There have been times when it was a bit different from what you're describing .... The times that stick out, in my adult life, are .... The college roommate who was a good friend, who seemed to have many of the same "values" as I did ... who turned out to be a raging racist. Didn't see that ... until a year or two later. All of a sudden, there it was and it left me questioning everything. What was that? Did I know her at all? Were the other things true about her? Was she honest and generous and ...? But, oops, in addition to that, a raging racist.... Or, was my judgement off totally and completely? The "nice" guy I was dating who seemed smart and funny and loving, but .... Holy crapadoodle! Get a drink in him and he was a mean drunk on steroids. Really mean. Really ugly. Where did that come from? Was he still the nice and loving guy ... who just happened to be raging mean if he drank? Or, was he, ultimately, raging mean?
Yeah ... I think there are all sorts of things that take us unawares. I believe, yes, believe it's important to view the person as an individual. Even that, though, has quirks ... like the above. How to see the whole individual, the truth of the person, and understand what one needs to focus upon. :)
We've based our perception of that individual on what we thought we knew about them and then feel forced to possibly re-evaluate them based on something that was not obvious. It can be disconcerting. Some people move right along and say "So what?" ... others view this new knowledge as justification for treating them differently.
I think what you wrote in a later comment about seeing the individual rather than the label is the best possible reaction to this phenomenon and honour you for stating it. "
Yes, I definitely think we're caught unawares.... I know I have been. There have been times when it was a bit different from what you're describing .... The times that stick out, in my adult life, are .... The college roommate who was a good friend, who seemed to have many of the same "values" as I did ... who turned out to be a raging racist. Didn't see that ... until a year or two later. All of a sudden, there it was and it left me questioning everything. What was that? Did I know her at all? Were the other things true about her? Was she honest and generous and ...? But, oops, in addition to that, a raging racist.... Or, was my judgement off totally and completely? The "nice" guy I was dating who seemed smart and funny and loving, but .... Holy crapadoodle! Get a drink in him and he was a mean drunk on steroids. Really mean. Really ugly. Where did that come from? Was he still the nice and loving guy ... who just happened to be raging mean if he drank? Or, was he, ultimately, raging mean?
Yeah ... I think there are all sorts of things that take us unawares. I believe, yes, believe it's important to view the person as an individual. Even that, though, has quirks ... like the above. How to see the whole individual, the truth of the person, and understand what one needs to focus upon. :)
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "It's the way it is here, though. There's a lot of questioning."To be fair, the topic is a question."
Ummmm....
It is a question. And...?"
It's a question as opposed to a poll?
Shannon wrote: "Yeah ... I think there are all sorts of things that take us unawares. I believe, yes, believe it's important to view the person as an individual. Even that, though, has quirks ... like the above. How to see the whole individual, the truth of the person, and understand what one needs to focus upon. :) "I could identify with a lot of what you've said there. I find that most people have one or two traits that are ... unfortunate. I guess your left with the choice to tolerate whatever it is, and hope they will tolerate our own. I have a few, more hermit like, friends who do not choose to tolerate, which could be considered something to tolerate in itself.
The shock factor I understand, and perhaps to my eternal cynicism. It comes down to a human trait I mentioned before, in context of anthropomorphising natural forces.
Humans have developed a wonderful trait sometimes termed "a theory of mind" that allows us to put ourselves in the position of another person and imagine how they must feel. This is a really useful trait for creating and maintaining social groups. The problem is when we over simplify it or forget that it is a construct of our own minds. When we do it to inanimate objects we get things like "the computer is being stubborn", "the car broke on purpose". When applied to forces we can "see" design and purpose even when none exist, which leads to conspiracies, magic and sometimes religion.
When we apply it to people (as it was intended) we can end up idealising that person in our minds. (This is also extremely common with celebrities, leaders and historical figures) Then when the persons true nature shines through we end up shocked, surprised, disappointed or even in denial.
I know there are a few relationships that I did the same, to my cost.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "It's the way it is here, though. There's a lot of questioning."
To be fair, the topic is a question."
Ummmm....
It is a question. And...?""
Based on the questions I answer, what I've said in the past regarding questions, and what I said to Emma ...
Did it seem like I was saying it's wrong to question?
Or ... that I thought it was a poll?
That's what I was getting at .... I sort of thought I was being fair ... in the statements I made and my understanding of the situation at hand.
To be fair, the topic is a question."
Ummmm....
It is a question. And...?""
Based on the questions I answer, what I've said in the past regarding questions, and what I said to Emma ...
Did it seem like I was saying it's wrong to question?
Or ... that I thought it was a poll?
That's what I was getting at .... I sort of thought I was being fair ... in the statements I made and my understanding of the situation at hand.
Shannon wrote: "Did it seem like I was saying it's wrong to question? Or ... that I thought it was a poll?"
Nope, I was just observing that there may be a lot of questions, which was started by a question.
C-Cose wrote: "I think the non-visible, "hidden", non-obvious ... qualities in other people are often the most insidious form of "otherness". By this I mean, it catches us unawares and confuses us when we are presented with someone that is "the same but different" in a way that we can't easily define: gay people that are "straight acting", the white North American convert to Islam, the hidden Jew."Or the atheist? :-)
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Did it seem like I was saying it's wrong to question?
Or ... that I thought it was a poll?"
Nope, I was just observing that there may be a lot of questions, which was started by ..."
Okay. I was wondering ... since you replied to me and said ... to be fair. Thanks for the clarification.
Or ... that I thought it was a poll?"
Nope, I was just observing that there may be a lot of questions, which was started by ..."
Okay. I was wondering ... since you replied to me and said ... to be fair. Thanks for the clarification.
Gary wrote: "I could identify with a lot of what you've said there. I find that most people have one or two traits that are ... unfortunate. I guess your left with the choice to tolerate whatever it is, and hope they will tolerate our own."
Yes, this is normal, I think. One or two unfortunate traits. ;)
I think the question becomes ... which are deal breakers?
For me, deal breakers wouldn't be if a person was Jewish or an atheist or gay ... or if the person squeezed the toothpaste from the middle.
For me, deal breakers would be about hurting others. Did the person have a trait or quality or habit or ... that would lead to him/her willfully to hurt other people ... or me?
But, I'm guessing that question is answered differently by different people.
(Need to go back to correcting .... Papers on seasons and courage and memories and novels .... Must. Stop. Procrastinating.)
Yes, this is normal, I think. One or two unfortunate traits. ;)
I think the question becomes ... which are deal breakers?
For me, deal breakers wouldn't be if a person was Jewish or an atheist or gay ... or if the person squeezed the toothpaste from the middle.
For me, deal breakers would be about hurting others. Did the person have a trait or quality or habit or ... that would lead to him/her willfully to hurt other people ... or me?
But, I'm guessing that question is answered differently by different people.
(Need to go back to correcting .... Papers on seasons and courage and memories and novels .... Must. Stop. Procrastinating.)
Gary wrote: "C-Cose wrote: "I think the non-visible, "hidden", non-obvious ... qualities in other people are often the most insidious form of "otherness". By this I mean, it catches us unawares and confuses us ...Gary wrote: Or the atheist? :-) "
Yes ... lol :) I freely admit to confusion and a level of unease fully understanding atheism as a concept and it has coloured my perception of people that espouse it. I can only hope that my writing here has shown some personal growth on that front ... :P
Shannon wrote: "For me, deal breakers wouldn't be if a person was Jewish or an atheist or gay ... or if the person squeezed the toothpaste from the middle.For me, deal breakers would be about hurting others. Did the person have a trait or quality or habit or ... that would lead to him/her willfully to hurt other people ... or me? "
I'm in full agreement with you on this Shannon :)
True story .... my hubbie won't pick up a sock to save his life; he'd rather just buy a new pair and hope that the offending sock either disappears or eventually dissolves into it's component parts ... lol. For me, this isn't a deal breaker at all as I don't think that he can do laundry to my exacting standards anyway.
However, I do know people for whom this would be a deal breaker.
Different strokes and all that ... lol :)
Shannon wrote: "I think the question becomes ... which are deal breakers? For me, deal breakers wouldn't be if a person was Jewish or an atheist or gay ... or if the person squeezed the toothpaste from the middle.
For me, deal breakers would be about hurting others. Did the person have a trait or quality or habit or ... that would lead to him/her willfully to hurt other people ... or me?
But, I'm guessing that question is answered differently by different people."
Aye. Definitely. For me the 'deal breaker' would be unapologetic prejudice. Nobody, I think, is completely free from prejudice, but people can strive to be better than it. But if someone has a prejudicial view of a group of people based on unsupported dogma or assumption, then that I do not like.
Though I also have little time for the incurious and indifferent, which is why a lot of pupils irritate me...
A world without religion. To me, science equals knowledge. Knowledge can be seemingly more frightening and challenging than faith; but faith without knowledge is just mental subterfuge. It is a convenient way to define one's world without having to think or act too deeply. Someone else has done the thinking and defining for the individual.And as far as atrocities go, there have been far more atrocities committed in the name of religion than science. Also, many of the atrocities attributed to science are not derivative of science itself, but rather a result of human psychology.
Anyone that wants to debate this topic probably needs to embrace anthropology, which encompasses the history of science, religion and humanity in general.
To me there are only two categories: people who believe that everything occurs due to 'cause and effect' principles i.e. those believe in science; and others who see everything as miracle i.e. so called religious people. To me religion is nothing to do with the BELIEF in god or scriptures. A religious mind is never associated with anything like caste, community, and god. From the day I was born I have identified myself as a Hindu this doesn't mean that I am a religious person. A religion is nothing to do with whether one believes in god or not. Only atheists and theists fall for this kind of belief. Ones belief is strongly based upon the place one is born and the way one is brought about. This is what is called ‘conditioning’ of the mind and heart. A conditioned mind can never realize what religion is. I am a Hindu; a Muslim; a Christian is the ‘identification’ that my mind got associated from the day I was born in this world. Unless I come out of these conditioning I will not know what being religious is and what religion is. How I come out of this conditioning is through meditation, which is not a myth but a technology if used will give me the realization. The caste, community, culture, tradition, scriptures, holy books are misunderstood for religion. Religion is not these.
I prefer to live in a world that has science, which is surely taking human life to next higher level…simply evolving. Whereas, in the ‘name’ of religion the exploitation of lives is a deteriorating effect right now. If everyone drops the identification of what one is and contemplate on a higher level, which is possible through meditation, then we can also live in a world that has religion.
I prefer to live in a world that has science, which is surely taking human life to next higher level…simply evolving. Whereas, in the ‘name’ of religion the exploitation of lives is a deteriorating effect right now. If everyone drops the identification of what one is and contemplate on a higher level, which is possible through meditation, then we can also live in a world that has religion.
"A" - If you identified yourself as a Hindu to me, that would give me the impression that whatever beliefs and principles that Hindus adhere to (forgive my ignorance) are what you adhere to. I think if someone labels himself to others as something, then that automatically implies they believe and practice what that group does.It's like saying you're a non-practicing (fill in the religion)....if you're non-practicing, then you are not a member. Just because your parents raised you as such - unless you do it yourself as an adult, you are not part of it. You may believe what they believe, but unless you also walk the walk, I don't think you have the right to label yourself as one of them.
Religion is not like a nationality - you are whatever race you are from birth - no brain power involved and you don't become another race if you move to another country - you can't change your race.
With religion, you have to decide what you believe - if you don't believe it anymore you can change it, remove it, etc. It involves personal choice, whereas race or nationality does not.
Maria wrote: ""A" - If you identified yourself as a Hindu to me, that would give me the impression that whatever beliefs and principles that Hindus adhere to (forgive my ignorance) are what you adhere to. I thi..."
I believe in what Hindus follow but that is not what religion is all about to me. I am only saying that Hinduism is not a religion.
I believe in what Hindus follow but that is not what religion is all about to me. I am only saying that Hinduism is not a religion.
C-Cose wrote: "True story .... my hubbie won't pick up a sock to save his life; he'd rather just buy a new pair and hope that the offending sock either disappears or eventually dissolves into it's component parts ... lol. For me, this isn't a deal breaker at all as I don't think that he can do laundry to my exacting standards anyway."
Funny .... ;)
It's a good thing you don't both feel the same about socks and laundry. You be buried in socks and bills for socks by now. ;)
Funny .... ;)
It's a good thing you don't both feel the same about socks and laundry. You be buried in socks and bills for socks by now. ;)
A - I stand corrected - Hinduism is more of a way of life - that also has some core religious beliefs intertwined. That's a bit different that some of the mainstream religions I was referring to in my post. However, I still believe that for the most part, if someone says, for instance "I am a Catholic" - but hasn't set foot in a Catholic church, been to confession, etc. - if they still believe ALL the teachings, I guess they can call themselves Catholic.
But, as I've said several times before on this discussion thread, personally, I don't think you can cherry-pick which tenets of a religion to believe and which ones to reject and still call yourself a member of that particular religion. Unless you believe ALL the teachings, and not only believe them but also live your life accordingly - then you can say without hypocrisy "I am a ______________.
Gary wrote: How do you draw that conclusion? Prejudice is inevitable when a society promotes uniculturalism, as anyone outside of the preferred culture would thus be in a prejudice viewpoint by the majority. That's logic.Uniculturalism, would make a better society than a multicultural one. Unity amongst people has to be better than multiculturalism which means we all do our own thing and separate off into groups, areas of towns and cities.
Why a judgement from the tone? Some people are eloquent others not. Some people are justifiably angry at their treatment while it doesn't effect others.
I was speaking from a forum point of view. All we have is the tone we detect in some ones posts. Unless they reveal more about themselves.
Part of combating prejudice is making people aware they are prejudice. I have had to undergo that revelation myself, and Shannon was expanding on her similar experience..
But this contradicts your previous statement when you say ‘Why a judgement from the tone’. Unless someone admits to being prejudice or is so obvious in what they say, how would you separate the prejudice from just not being that eloquent in getting what they mean into words.
But that's what you are doing, by assuming you are right and demanding to be convinced otherwise. Have you never demanded the same convincing for your original point of view?
Why did you replace my word ‘willing’ for ‘demanding’? Was this an error or for effect?
Angelina wrote: "Anyone that wants to debate this topic probably needs to embrace anthropology, which encompasses the history of science, religion and humanity in general."I quite agree, though I also feel that some of anthropology is though academic, it doesn't necessarily follow scientific techniques of modelling and data confirmation. There was a similar article about history in a journal recently that was fascinating, where a mathematician/scientist turned his hand to the study of history using scientific techniques and has apparently met a lot of resistance because his theories look at patterns and populations rather than personages and events.
A wrote: "To me there are only two categories: people who believe that everything occurs due to 'cause and effect' principles i.e. those believe in science"Well for a start "cause and effect" is a very simplistic view of something a lot more complex and subtle when you move beyond the human scale. Second again I would say that anyone who 'believes' in science automatically fails at science.
A wrote: "To me religion is nothing to do with the BELIEF in god or scriptures."
Well the dictionary definition of the word would disagree with you, but how exactly would you define a religion then?
A wrote: "A religion is nothing to do with whether one believes in god or not."
Actually I agree with that part of the statement. A religion is a belief structure, whether that belief is in gods, magic, mysticism or aliens.
The important word is "belief", and meaning belief in the conviction rather than the temporary acceptance of a concept until proven otherwise.
A wrote: "Ones belief is strongly based upon the place one is born and the way one is brought about. This is what is called ‘conditioning’ of the mind and heart. A conditioned mind can never realize what religion is."
Indeed, but you will find that most 'atheists' have broken from their cultural mould, and many go on long journeys through religious concepts until finally rejecting belief altogether.
A wrote: "The caste, community, culture, tradition, scriptures, holy books are misunderstood for religion. Religion is not these."
There is a predilection for people to try to redefine the word "religion" to serve their particular religion. George W. Bush was upset by the US armies decision to include Wiccan chaplains because he did not 'consider Witchcraft to be a religion'.
A wrote: "I prefer to live in a world that has science, which is surely taking human life to next higher level…simply evolving."
Higher level is a value judgement. How can this be a scientific assessment unless you define what your unit of measurement of this 'value' is? This is a common misconception with the process of evolution as well. Evolution does not have a direction from lower lifeforms to higher, evolution just goes in all directions and goes from less adapted to an environment to more adapted.
A wrote: "If everyone drops the identification of what one is and contemplate on a higher level, which is possible through meditation, then we can also live in a world that has religion. "
That is a belief. The belief that meditation will lead to a hypothetical "higher level" a level which again is a belief as much as the belief in heaven is.
Personally I tried meditation a lot some time ago. I found it really isn't for me. Does that make me unevolved or a 'dead end' in your eyes?
"Personally I tried meditation a lot some time ago. I found it really isn't for me. Does that make me unevolved or a 'dead end' in your eyes?"Gary, I know you were talking to cs, but I had to respond. I tried meditation as well, and I simply could not do it. I cannot empty my mind, no matter what, there are several thought processes going on in there, work problems being solved, family issues being hashed out, songs playing, etc. It got to be rather comical - I think it has a lot to do with being a Type A personality - there is always conscious thought going on!
cHriS wrote: "Uniculturalism, would make a better society than a multicultural one. Unity amongst people has to be better than multiculturalism which means we all do our own thing and separate off into groups, areas of towns and cities."Actually uniculturalism means suppressing all cultures except one. It may make a more orderly and stable society, but only at the costs of freedom. As you have said repeatedly "we are not all the same".
Multiculturalism isn't separate groups, that is apartheid, which is a method of attempting to preserve uniculturalism from "contamination" by segregating the population. Multiculturalism requires cultures to be free to mingle and to take the best from each other, not segregate.
Oh but I agree that this has to come from both sides. When Muslims or other faiths or creeds seclude themselves from others, that is again uniculturalism on a small scale and a perfect recipe for resentment and conflict.
Integration without dissolution is the key to multiculturalism.
cHriS wrote: "I was speaking from a forum point of view. All we have is the tone we detect in some ones posts. Unless they reveal more about themselves. "
Or people can provide logical reasons for their points of view?
cHriS wrote: "But this contradicts your previous statement when you say ‘Why a judgement from the tone’. Unless someone admits to being prejudice or is so obvious in what they say, how would you separate the prejudice from just not being that eloquent in getting what they mean into words."
Easy, when somebody shows a bias and is completely unable to justify that bias except that it is "what they believe", then that is likely a form of prejudice.
cHriS wrote: "Why did you replace my word ‘willing’ for ‘demanding’? Was this an error or for effect?"
I wasn't quoting you, I was pointing out that starting from a polarised viewpoint without a justification, and then asking for a reason to change that viewpoint seems to me to be demanding evidence on one side while not requiring it on the other.
I could replace the word "demand" with "ask" if you think it is too harsh, but I feel that on such important issues (to the people effected if not you) then asking for people to justify their right to be treated fairly seems somewhat demanding to me, unless you have a clear justification for your willingness to vote to deny them that right.
Perhaps I was indeed judging you on tone, it would be better to understand your reasons.
Maria wrote: "Gary, I know you were talking to cs, but I had to respond. I tried meditation as well, and I simply could not do it. I cannot empty my mind, no matter what, there are several thought processes going on in there, work problems being solved, family issues being hashed out, songs playing, etc. It got to be rather comical - I think it has a lot to do with being a Type A personality - there is always conscious thought going on! "I think it was "A" actually, but feel free :-) it's a public forum.
In my case my tutor put me in touch with my 'deep inner self'. Finally we kind of decided that my deep inner self is someone no one needs to be in touch with :-D :-D :-D
They are totally intertwined....the more facts we know about science,,,the more God as Creator makes sense
@ Maria and Gary
I try answering whatever I understood. Religion is not exclusive. It includes everything. Religion cannot be confined to one organized group alone. It does not have any belief or dogma or tradition. I am not a hypocrite. I said I believe the Hindu way of living and I am ready to know and will even accept some other organized group traditions, culture etc but all these does not mean that I am religious and I follow a religion. Religious is like revolutionary. I am not religious. I am only a believer who has chosen Hinduism a way of my living. I have no 'definition' for what 'religion' means. Because I do not know what it is. Only when I drop my conditioning or identification after thorough enquiring I will know what is religious and what religion is. Till then it is a mere exchange of thoughts and ideas that I gained through my various means. I think relious mind has no nationality. It is like science that moves from one fact to another fact. The one difference that I find is the scientist keeps expanding his knowledge through these facts and religious mind probes deeply into one particular thing, enquires in totality and see it as a false and deny that false only after contemplation and this denial brings a new quality which is revolutionary and religious. A religion cannot follow some particular path. Only a self knowledge, this is nothing to do with spiritually going higher. That is dropping the gathered ideas that I acquired during my life and being aware of the here and now will reveal a clear picture (again a belief!). But I would definitely not say that I am a religious person because I believe in Hindu rituals, etc. These believes are created for safety and security purposes. The non believers too are not religious unless they drop the ideas and ideals that they carry in order to know what religion is.
And about science and evolution... yes, I think evolution is also meant as 'change'. This evolution is not written to mean that all scientific aspects are for the betterment... or moving from lower to higher. No. I meant that any scientific advancement that is done is aimed at two things: either to study the basics...i.e. keep experimenting on the species or concepts or just deepening the knowledge about that particular thing or whatever. The next research is always for the higher purpose... that is 'technology' to make use for living creatures. Now this science is evolution or change. Nothing to do with betterment.
religion does not have any authority or conformation or it cannot please any organized group. Scientists, economists, sociologists, anthropologist are restricted to some particular line and religion takes life in totality. This self knowledge is acquired by psychological enquiry too for a start.
And meditation... to sit in meditation is rather absurd. A mind free of thoughts is not that will happen through some mantra (a word or a sound). All the more a mind that is full of thoughts is actually made or manipulated to concentrate on a different thought like mantra, or god with form. This is not meditation. This repetition will make a mind insane or dull. To watch out thoughts and to be with it and not create more thoughts is meditation. Now this I cannot describe in words. Not some kind of secret but I actually do not know how to put these in words. But I can say that not East or West meditation will work. It is for breaking that conditioning. Of course the first step to take is to drop the sacred book, god, rituals, nationality, past experiences, what we already learnt about our dogma, caste, culture. Unlearning to be done.
I try answering whatever I understood. Religion is not exclusive. It includes everything. Religion cannot be confined to one organized group alone. It does not have any belief or dogma or tradition. I am not a hypocrite. I said I believe the Hindu way of living and I am ready to know and will even accept some other organized group traditions, culture etc but all these does not mean that I am religious and I follow a religion. Religious is like revolutionary. I am not religious. I am only a believer who has chosen Hinduism a way of my living. I have no 'definition' for what 'religion' means. Because I do not know what it is. Only when I drop my conditioning or identification after thorough enquiring I will know what is religious and what religion is. Till then it is a mere exchange of thoughts and ideas that I gained through my various means. I think relious mind has no nationality. It is like science that moves from one fact to another fact. The one difference that I find is the scientist keeps expanding his knowledge through these facts and religious mind probes deeply into one particular thing, enquires in totality and see it as a false and deny that false only after contemplation and this denial brings a new quality which is revolutionary and religious. A religion cannot follow some particular path. Only a self knowledge, this is nothing to do with spiritually going higher. That is dropping the gathered ideas that I acquired during my life and being aware of the here and now will reveal a clear picture (again a belief!). But I would definitely not say that I am a religious person because I believe in Hindu rituals, etc. These believes are created for safety and security purposes. The non believers too are not religious unless they drop the ideas and ideals that they carry in order to know what religion is.
And about science and evolution... yes, I think evolution is also meant as 'change'. This evolution is not written to mean that all scientific aspects are for the betterment... or moving from lower to higher. No. I meant that any scientific advancement that is done is aimed at two things: either to study the basics...i.e. keep experimenting on the species or concepts or just deepening the knowledge about that particular thing or whatever. The next research is always for the higher purpose... that is 'technology' to make use for living creatures. Now this science is evolution or change. Nothing to do with betterment.
religion does not have any authority or conformation or it cannot please any organized group. Scientists, economists, sociologists, anthropologist are restricted to some particular line and religion takes life in totality. This self knowledge is acquired by psychological enquiry too for a start.
And meditation... to sit in meditation is rather absurd. A mind free of thoughts is not that will happen through some mantra (a word or a sound). All the more a mind that is full of thoughts is actually made or manipulated to concentrate on a different thought like mantra, or god with form. This is not meditation. This repetition will make a mind insane or dull. To watch out thoughts and to be with it and not create more thoughts is meditation. Now this I cannot describe in words. Not some kind of secret but I actually do not know how to put these in words. But I can say that not East or West meditation will work. It is for breaking that conditioning. Of course the first step to take is to drop the sacred book, god, rituals, nationality, past experiences, what we already learnt about our dogma, caste, culture. Unlearning to be done.
Shannon wrote: Does that mean I shouldn't get married? Based on your definition. Come on Shannon you know what I mean. If one has to include a caveat with every statement we would be here all day. All I mean is that it should be like it was, when it was.
I think it does. Further, it might limit more people than you've considered.
What I find provoking is that when I give my opinion; and in this case, it is regarding the word ‘marriage’ being reserved for man and woman and the raising up of children in a family unit, instead of addressing that point, all sorts of negatives are raised which have nothing to do with the issue. I have not said that I want to exclude anything that was previously included.
The single issue is do you agree with the word ‘marriage’ in gay marriage?
I agree with civil partnerships and all the rights that go with it and gay adoption. I do not agree with the inclusion of the word ‘marriage’. I may be in a minority here, but I am not in a minority outside of this forum. I am in a minority here because this type of religion v science debate will attract atheists like bees around a honey pot. Most people with a belief don’t want to be bothered explaining their belief to an atheist because the atheist only wants to elucidate that belief as false.
Whats that got to do with gay marriage, when I have already stated that my reasons have nothing to do with religion. Well, if this discussion was taking part on a more relevant forum you would have a more realistic cross section of opinion. I have listened to tv and radio debates where gay couples are happy with the civil partnership and don’t want to go down the marriage route. They understand that there is controversy surrounding gay marriage, and civil partnerships are a compromise, which they are happy with. They have even said that some gay people don’t want marriage but they want the right refuse it.
What I find suspicious on this thread is the comment that if one is willing to be convinced otherwise, the view (not yours Shannon) is that they have to be wrong in the first place. What that suggests to me is that some here are convinced that what they write is always correct and that indicates that their agenda is one of informing rather than discussing.
Walker wrote: "They are totally intertwined....the more facts we know about science,,,the more God as Creator makes sense"I see your point - like the amazing universe, etc. But alas, most scientists do not believe in a Creator, they seem to think that all those amazing things happened by chance, not by intelligent design.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Does that mean I shouldn't get married? Based on your definition.
Come on Shannon you know what I mean. If one has to include a caveat with every statement we would be here all day. All I mean is that it should be like it was, when it was.
I think it does. Further, it might limit more people than you've considered.
What I find provoking is that when I give my opinion; and in this case, it is regarding the word ‘marriage’ being reserved for man and woman and the raising up of children in a family unit, instead of addressing that point, all sorts of negatives are raised which have nothing to do with the issue. I have not said that I want to exclude anything that was previously included. "
I'm likely going to take this in chunks, cHriS ... likely the beginning and the ending first.
Usually when people who are against gay marriage define marriage, they say marriage is and should be a union between a man and a woman. Interestingly, that's not how you defined it ... though I have heard your definition before. I think, in my opinion and based on my experience, your definition is .... I'm hesitating because I don't want to label it. It's a definition that has been used historically and, I think, has is tied to the creation story of the Jews and Christians. I know you didn't say this .... My mind, on its own, went to times throughout history when people were told by the church and believed that the purpose of marriage (...and sex) was to procreate. I actually flashed on Hawaii and the missionary who was loathe to make love to his wife when she was pregnant, etc.... It was a sin, in his eyes, unless the act was performed for the purposes of procreation. Again, I know you didn't go there. I did on my own ... but based on the latter part of your definition.
After my brain went to all of those places, I thought about my situation. Given the fact that I can't/shouldn't have children, does that mean I shouldn't marry?
Here's the thing. You wrote it; that was your definition. And, .... I try, very hard, to read people's words ... to respond based on what people say ... not based on what I think they're saying, what I assume they're saying, what other people I know have said. I try. Hard. That can lead me to be very, very literal. In fact, I think I've been accused of that here before. Guilty. But, ultimately, I'd much rather be literal than, for all intents and purposes, label someone given my assumptions.
You said marriage should be between one man and one woman in order to raise children. Given that, I don't think my response was unreasonable ... in the least.
I wasn't trying to provoke you, cHriS. Did you think I was? If so, could you tell me what part of my response was provoking? I've been flip before. I think I was flip in some responses the end of last week. I know when I'm flip. That sort of attitude can be provoking. Today's response .... It wasn't flip. It was well-meaning and honest. I was sharing a part of myself and my life and asking a question based on your words.
I misspeak sometimes. It's a human condition, after all. When you gave your definition of marriage, did you misspeak ... a little bit? Did you really mean marriage is between one man and one woman? Is that what you really meant ... because that's what you really believe? Or, do you really make a strong connection between marriage and raising a family? Regarding caveats, well ... I do think we need to focus on saying exactly what we mean. But, then again, I tend to be pretty wordy. Understatement.
I stand behind my statement regarding limiting people. That goes beyond you. There's this idea that is present in certain societies that equates a good life, a fulfilled life, with marriage and children.
I could ask. Are you a man or a woman? Are you single or married? A parent or childless? I don't know if you're willing to share that or share your experience. So, I'll just go on my experience and the experience of some of the people I know. I know what it's like to be a single woman ... now in her early 40's. I know what it's like to introduce myself to new people. It doesn't take long for them to hint around and ask questions about my "status" ... married? ... children? Maybe they're just curious. Sure. But, I also known what it's like to see the look in some of their eyes when I say I don't have children. I don't always get this look, but I get it more often than not. It's short of the look in people's eyes when they hear someone has a terminal illness .... Yup. But, it's a look ... usually one of confusion and pity. Once or twice, it was a look of absolute disgust. And, .... I'm not the only single woman, especially of a certain age, who has been on the receiving end of those looks. Have you ever been on the receiving end of that look? If so, perhaps you'll understand where I'm coming from. If not, .... You might and you might not.
"Limiting people" .... You can't be truly happy and truly fulfilled unless you marry and have children. I know you didn't say that cHriS, but I've heard it before. In words and in looks. Marriage is about raising children? Really? What if we can't? Limits are being set. Then, you have the other individuals who would be limited by that definition and by similar thoughts. People who happen to be homosexual. For both, I imagine, it's as if people in society have drawn this box and named it happiness ... success ... fulfillment. Hmm... The box is named ... How to live a happy and successful life and find fulfillment? In that box are certain things, likely depending on the people and society. Things like a job and a house and a spouse and children. Oops.... What if you don't fit inside that box ... because you can't or because you're not allowed to?
Yeah ... actually ... I'll just take the first part for this post ....
Come on Shannon you know what I mean. If one has to include a caveat with every statement we would be here all day. All I mean is that it should be like it was, when it was.
I think it does. Further, it might limit more people than you've considered.
What I find provoking is that when I give my opinion; and in this case, it is regarding the word ‘marriage’ being reserved for man and woman and the raising up of children in a family unit, instead of addressing that point, all sorts of negatives are raised which have nothing to do with the issue. I have not said that I want to exclude anything that was previously included. "
I'm likely going to take this in chunks, cHriS ... likely the beginning and the ending first.
Usually when people who are against gay marriage define marriage, they say marriage is and should be a union between a man and a woman. Interestingly, that's not how you defined it ... though I have heard your definition before. I think, in my opinion and based on my experience, your definition is .... I'm hesitating because I don't want to label it. It's a definition that has been used historically and, I think, has is tied to the creation story of the Jews and Christians. I know you didn't say this .... My mind, on its own, went to times throughout history when people were told by the church and believed that the purpose of marriage (...and sex) was to procreate. I actually flashed on Hawaii and the missionary who was loathe to make love to his wife when she was pregnant, etc.... It was a sin, in his eyes, unless the act was performed for the purposes of procreation. Again, I know you didn't go there. I did on my own ... but based on the latter part of your definition.
After my brain went to all of those places, I thought about my situation. Given the fact that I can't/shouldn't have children, does that mean I shouldn't marry?
Here's the thing. You wrote it; that was your definition. And, .... I try, very hard, to read people's words ... to respond based on what people say ... not based on what I think they're saying, what I assume they're saying, what other people I know have said. I try. Hard. That can lead me to be very, very literal. In fact, I think I've been accused of that here before. Guilty. But, ultimately, I'd much rather be literal than, for all intents and purposes, label someone given my assumptions.
You said marriage should be between one man and one woman in order to raise children. Given that, I don't think my response was unreasonable ... in the least.
I wasn't trying to provoke you, cHriS. Did you think I was? If so, could you tell me what part of my response was provoking? I've been flip before. I think I was flip in some responses the end of last week. I know when I'm flip. That sort of attitude can be provoking. Today's response .... It wasn't flip. It was well-meaning and honest. I was sharing a part of myself and my life and asking a question based on your words.
I misspeak sometimes. It's a human condition, after all. When you gave your definition of marriage, did you misspeak ... a little bit? Did you really mean marriage is between one man and one woman? Is that what you really meant ... because that's what you really believe? Or, do you really make a strong connection between marriage and raising a family? Regarding caveats, well ... I do think we need to focus on saying exactly what we mean. But, then again, I tend to be pretty wordy. Understatement.
I stand behind my statement regarding limiting people. That goes beyond you. There's this idea that is present in certain societies that equates a good life, a fulfilled life, with marriage and children.
I could ask. Are you a man or a woman? Are you single or married? A parent or childless? I don't know if you're willing to share that or share your experience. So, I'll just go on my experience and the experience of some of the people I know. I know what it's like to be a single woman ... now in her early 40's. I know what it's like to introduce myself to new people. It doesn't take long for them to hint around and ask questions about my "status" ... married? ... children? Maybe they're just curious. Sure. But, I also known what it's like to see the look in some of their eyes when I say I don't have children. I don't always get this look, but I get it more often than not. It's short of the look in people's eyes when they hear someone has a terminal illness .... Yup. But, it's a look ... usually one of confusion and pity. Once or twice, it was a look of absolute disgust. And, .... I'm not the only single woman, especially of a certain age, who has been on the receiving end of those looks. Have you ever been on the receiving end of that look? If so, perhaps you'll understand where I'm coming from. If not, .... You might and you might not.
"Limiting people" .... You can't be truly happy and truly fulfilled unless you marry and have children. I know you didn't say that cHriS, but I've heard it before. In words and in looks. Marriage is about raising children? Really? What if we can't? Limits are being set. Then, you have the other individuals who would be limited by that definition and by similar thoughts. People who happen to be homosexual. For both, I imagine, it's as if people in society have drawn this box and named it happiness ... success ... fulfillment. Hmm... The box is named ... How to live a happy and successful life and find fulfillment? In that box are certain things, likely depending on the people and society. Things like a job and a house and a spouse and children. Oops.... What if you don't fit inside that box ... because you can't or because you're not allowed to?
Yeah ... actually ... I'll just take the first part for this post ....
cHriS wrote: "The single issue is do you agree with the word ‘marriage’ in gay marriage?
I agree with civil partnerships and all the rights that go with it and gay adoption. I do not agree with the inclusion of the word ‘marriage’. I may be in a minority here, but I am not in a minority outside of this forum. I am in a minority here because this type of religion v science debate will attract atheists like bees around a honey pot. Most people with a belief don’t want to be bothered explaining their belief to an atheist because the atheist only wants to elucidate that belief as false.
Whats that got to do with gay marriage, when I have already stated that my reasons have nothing to do with religion. Well, if this discussion was taking part on a more relevant forum you would have a more realistic cross section of opinion. I have listened to tv and radio debates where gay couples are happy with the civil partnership and don’t want to go down the marriage route. They understand that there is controversy surrounding gay marriage, and civil partnerships are a compromise, which they are happy with. They have even said that some gay people don’t want marriage but they want the right refuse it. "
Well, I'm for civil unions. For sure. I also think I'm for marriage. I was for marriage, totally ... then .... Something was mentioned today that concerns me. Churches who refuse to marry gay couples could be accused of discrimination and lose tax exempt status. Why do I envision some people, who are anti-religion, giggling and rubbing their hands together?
I want homosexuals to be allowed to marry. Having said that, while I'm against discrimination, I cringe at the idea of 70 and 80 year old parishioners being forced to allow gay marriage within their sanctuaries ... or lose tax exempt status ... which, ultimately, could close some local churches. The truth of the matter is many churches are against gay marriage. Some are for it. Many against. I'm not okay with discrimination. However, I don't know that forcing the churches to marry couples who are gay, pony up with money, or close is right. This point stumps me a bit.
Taking that out of it .... I don't much care who marries whom. That's for individuals to decide. Heck, I've known heterosexuals who, in my opinion, had no business marrying. But, the thing of it was ... it really wasn't my business. I truly don't believe it's for me to say. I mean, ultimately, if I were to make such things my business ....
I wouldn't let men who have power and control issues and who never met a woman they didn't want to hit marry. I wouldn't let liars marry people who are honest. I wouldn't let cheaters marry people who are faithful. I wouldn't let pedophiles marry women with young children. I wouldn't allow teachers to marry their students once they turn 18 ... after having molested them for years.
I think, ultimately, it would be good for me to stay out of the business of saying who should marry and who shouldn't. Although ....
That "although" is a darned scary thought. Right ....
I agree with civil partnerships and all the rights that go with it and gay adoption. I do not agree with the inclusion of the word ‘marriage’. I may be in a minority here, but I am not in a minority outside of this forum. I am in a minority here because this type of religion v science debate will attract atheists like bees around a honey pot. Most people with a belief don’t want to be bothered explaining their belief to an atheist because the atheist only wants to elucidate that belief as false.
Whats that got to do with gay marriage, when I have already stated that my reasons have nothing to do with religion. Well, if this discussion was taking part on a more relevant forum you would have a more realistic cross section of opinion. I have listened to tv and radio debates where gay couples are happy with the civil partnership and don’t want to go down the marriage route. They understand that there is controversy surrounding gay marriage, and civil partnerships are a compromise, which they are happy with. They have even said that some gay people don’t want marriage but they want the right refuse it. "
Well, I'm for civil unions. For sure. I also think I'm for marriage. I was for marriage, totally ... then .... Something was mentioned today that concerns me. Churches who refuse to marry gay couples could be accused of discrimination and lose tax exempt status. Why do I envision some people, who are anti-religion, giggling and rubbing their hands together?
I want homosexuals to be allowed to marry. Having said that, while I'm against discrimination, I cringe at the idea of 70 and 80 year old parishioners being forced to allow gay marriage within their sanctuaries ... or lose tax exempt status ... which, ultimately, could close some local churches. The truth of the matter is many churches are against gay marriage. Some are for it. Many against. I'm not okay with discrimination. However, I don't know that forcing the churches to marry couples who are gay, pony up with money, or close is right. This point stumps me a bit.
Taking that out of it .... I don't much care who marries whom. That's for individuals to decide. Heck, I've known heterosexuals who, in my opinion, had no business marrying. But, the thing of it was ... it really wasn't my business. I truly don't believe it's for me to say. I mean, ultimately, if I were to make such things my business ....
I wouldn't let men who have power and control issues and who never met a woman they didn't want to hit marry. I wouldn't let liars marry people who are honest. I wouldn't let cheaters marry people who are faithful. I wouldn't let pedophiles marry women with young children. I wouldn't allow teachers to marry their students once they turn 18 ... after having molested them for years.
I think, ultimately, it would be good for me to stay out of the business of saying who should marry and who shouldn't. Although ....
That "although" is a darned scary thought. Right ....
Gary wrote: "Angelina wrote: "Anyone that wants to debate this topic probably needs to embrace anthropology, which encompasses the history of science, religion and humanity in general."I quite agree, though I..."
Gary wrote: "Angelina wrote: "Anyone that wants to debate this topic probably needs to embrace anthropology, which encompasses the history of science, religion and humanity in general."
I quite agree, though I..."
That sounds like a very interesting article. Do you remember where you read it? Sounds like something in which I,d be interested.
I doubt there is widespread resistence to scientific modeling in anthropolgy, though. The last anthropology class I took, almost ten years ago, was a geological survey based on the historical/cultural documentation of the "Oracles." Using the histories and combining them with ancient maps and newer geological maps and studies, the researchers were able to find the actual seat of the "Oracle." The seat or stand was located over a crack in the surface that let out noxious gases, which were likely the cause of both the Oracles' visions and their early deaths. The whole point of the class was how much better our information gathering becomes when we apply interdisciplinary learning, teaching, research, etc.
Shannon wrote: You said marriage should be between one man and one woman in order to raise children. Given that, I don't think my response was unreasonable ... in the least."cHriS wrote; I give my opinion; and in this case, it is regarding the word ‘marriage’ being reserved for man and woman and the raising up of children in a family unit,
Shannon I think you are taking what I said out of context to make copy. As I have previously said, twice, all that I am against is the use of the word 'marriage', nothing more and nothing less.
Here is the UK we are loosing what is known as 'Family values' values that hold a family together and we need to stop this erosion. Preserving marriage and the word 'marriage' is essential to retaining these values.
My comment said 'man and woman and the raising up of children'.
Man & woman & children. I did not say man & woman TO raise children.
I am saying man & woman or man & woman & children.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: You said marriage should be between one man and one woman in order to raise children. Given that, I don't think my response was unreasonable ... in the least."
cHriS wrote; I give m..."
cHriS,
I don't take things out of context to make copy.
cHriS wrote; I give m..."
cHriS,
I don't take things out of context to make copy.
Shannon wrote: "...I cringe at the idea of 70 and 80 year old parishioners being forced to allow gay marriage within their sanctuaries ... or lose tax exempt status ... which, ultimately, could close some local churches. The truth of the matter is many churches are against gay marriage. Some are for it. Many against. I'm not okay with discrimination. However, I don't know that forcing the churches to marry couples who are gay, pony up with money, or close is right. This point stumps me a bit."Greetings Shannon :)
I bet you suspected that I'd have something to contribute on this point ... lol :)
My understanding of the argument of "forcing churches" to solemnize same-sex marriages / unions / partnerships is a complete and total myth. It is an argument brought out--generally of the shed of useless excuses--by politicians that want to "assure" religious leaders that they (the politicians) have "got their backs".
I have yet to see a crowd of gay men and women picketing outside a church, mosque, or temple demanding that they solemnize same-sex weddings. I have also not seen leaders of various faiths sit at the same table as these same men and women to discuss this issue. I have yet to see a same-sex couple choose not to get married because one or other church wouldn't perform the ceremony.
What do they do? They get a civil wedding ... which, to my knowledge, is still the only type of union legally recognized in the West. It's a little thing called a Marriage License ... issued by civil authorities.
Not only that, but there are several Religions that will solemnize same-sex marriages: the United Church of Canada, Unitarian Fellowship, and MCC are but three of many that will do so in Canada.
Alternately, what I do see, again in Canada and the U.S., is immigrants from countries that allow polygamous marriages to have their spouses equally recognized under law and polygamous communities such as the FLDS demanding and insisting that their marriages are legal (when it suits them) and then turning around and calling secondary spouses "spiritual" or "sister" wives in order to side-step laws prohibiting the very marriages that they otherwise want recognized.
So where does that leave us? Well .... many gay men and women want the legal right to marry--regardless of eventual children or not. Many non-gay persons do not want this for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) religious objections, prejudice, the "ick factor", or because homosexuality is "unnatural". Then we have politicians that do what they have done for aeons ... they pander and twist themselves into pretzels to please a certain "faction" in the hopes that pleasing that group will get them re-elected. We get the occasional politician that will take a stand based on their own beliefs or that of the community that they legally represent .... a woefully small number of these politicians.
We also have a number of persons that couldn't give a whit one way or the other as long as the NIMBY principle is respected.
Where was I going again? ...
Ah yes .... the "forcing" of churches to marry same-sex couples is nothing more than extremely poor and obvious mending of a garment that is worn by politicians of various stripes. It is an example of The Emperor's New Clothes where the child-hero of the story is those that can see past the obvious subterfuge and see things for what they are.
cHriS wrote: "My comment said 'man and woman and the raising up of children'.
Man & woman & children. I did not say man & woman TO raise children.
I am saying man & woman or man & woman & children. "
In Message 7353, you said,
"I believe the word marriage signifies the union of one man and one woman with the intension of raising children."
In my mind, saying marriage signifies the union of one man and one woman with the intention of raising children means ... a man and a woman marrying with the purpose of raising children. To intend to do something or have an intention is to have a plan ... is to ... to do something. But, now you say it can be for the purpose of simply marring or for the purpose of marrying and having children. Fine.
You've also said,
"As I have previously said, twice, all that I am against is the use of the word 'marriage', nothing more and nothing less."
Okay. In my mind, that means you just don't like connecting the word "marriage" with homosexual unions. Do you want them to have rights? Yes. You're for civil unions. Do you think they should be able to adopt? Yes.
In Message 7394, you said, "I agree with civil partnerships and all the rights that go with it and gay adoption."
Okay. And, I think that's great, by the way....
Given this opinion, however, I'm somewhat confused by the following statement made in your last post.
You said,
"As I have previously said, twice, all that I am against is the use of the word 'marriage', nothing more and nothing less.
Here is the UK we are loosing what is known as 'Family values' values that hold a family together and we need to stop this erosion. Preserving marriage and the word 'marriage' is essential to retaining these values."
This is confuses me....
First, if you believe in the rights available under civil unions and believe in the right of homosexuals to adopt, why do you oppose to the use of the word "marriage" ...? One thing that pops to my mind is whether or not marriage affords more rights. If it does, it wouldn't be an issue of "nothing more and nothing less" ... I don't think. If the rights are the same and you agree with the rights offered under civil unions, what would be wrong with using the word "marriage" .... My friend's grandson, despite getting older, insists on calling chicken "dead chickie" .... Whether it's called "chicken" or "dead chickie" ... well, heck, it's still chicken. Does it really matter? If the rights involved are the same, why does the label matter? If the rights aren't the same, it's not nothing more and nothing less.
But, then, you talk about family values and said values eroding. You mention that ... "Preserving marriage and the word 'marriage' is essential to retaining these values."
I think I need clarification. When you made that statement, were you thinking about gay marriage and gay adoption? Because, ultimately, you believe in civil unions and gay adoption. That wouldn't make sense. Or, were you thinking about single people who have children out of wedlock? My confusion deals with the fact that ... if you are okay with civil unions and gay couples adopting, I'm guessing that means you think there is value in both. If that's the case, how could a gay couple, living together and raising their children, pose a threat to family values ... if they say they're married or have a gay marriage? Or, are you saying you're okay with civil unions and gay adoption but, deep down, think such things would wear away at family values?
Finally, I don't, personally, think the use of a word can destroy or uphold values. For me, it's just a word. If that's what we're talking about, a simple word, how could it have the power to destroy values? Or, in all reality, are we talking about more than a word?
So, in the end of this, I'm requesting that you put your words in context ... because ... I don't want to assume things, be confused and/or take them the wrong way.
Thanks.
Man & woman & children. I did not say man & woman TO raise children.
I am saying man & woman or man & woman & children. "
In Message 7353, you said,
"I believe the word marriage signifies the union of one man and one woman with the intension of raising children."
In my mind, saying marriage signifies the union of one man and one woman with the intention of raising children means ... a man and a woman marrying with the purpose of raising children. To intend to do something or have an intention is to have a plan ... is to ... to do something. But, now you say it can be for the purpose of simply marring or for the purpose of marrying and having children. Fine.
You've also said,
"As I have previously said, twice, all that I am against is the use of the word 'marriage', nothing more and nothing less."
Okay. In my mind, that means you just don't like connecting the word "marriage" with homosexual unions. Do you want them to have rights? Yes. You're for civil unions. Do you think they should be able to adopt? Yes.
In Message 7394, you said, "I agree with civil partnerships and all the rights that go with it and gay adoption."
Okay. And, I think that's great, by the way....
Given this opinion, however, I'm somewhat confused by the following statement made in your last post.
You said,
"As I have previously said, twice, all that I am against is the use of the word 'marriage', nothing more and nothing less.
Here is the UK we are loosing what is known as 'Family values' values that hold a family together and we need to stop this erosion. Preserving marriage and the word 'marriage' is essential to retaining these values."
This is confuses me....
First, if you believe in the rights available under civil unions and believe in the right of homosexuals to adopt, why do you oppose to the use of the word "marriage" ...? One thing that pops to my mind is whether or not marriage affords more rights. If it does, it wouldn't be an issue of "nothing more and nothing less" ... I don't think. If the rights are the same and you agree with the rights offered under civil unions, what would be wrong with using the word "marriage" .... My friend's grandson, despite getting older, insists on calling chicken "dead chickie" .... Whether it's called "chicken" or "dead chickie" ... well, heck, it's still chicken. Does it really matter? If the rights involved are the same, why does the label matter? If the rights aren't the same, it's not nothing more and nothing less.
But, then, you talk about family values and said values eroding. You mention that ... "Preserving marriage and the word 'marriage' is essential to retaining these values."
I think I need clarification. When you made that statement, were you thinking about gay marriage and gay adoption? Because, ultimately, you believe in civil unions and gay adoption. That wouldn't make sense. Or, were you thinking about single people who have children out of wedlock? My confusion deals with the fact that ... if you are okay with civil unions and gay couples adopting, I'm guessing that means you think there is value in both. If that's the case, how could a gay couple, living together and raising their children, pose a threat to family values ... if they say they're married or have a gay marriage? Or, are you saying you're okay with civil unions and gay adoption but, deep down, think such things would wear away at family values?
Finally, I don't, personally, think the use of a word can destroy or uphold values. For me, it's just a word. If that's what we're talking about, a simple word, how could it have the power to destroy values? Or, in all reality, are we talking about more than a word?
So, in the end of this, I'm requesting that you put your words in context ... because ... I don't want to assume things, be confused and/or take them the wrong way.
Thanks.
C-Cose wrote: "Ah yes .... the "forcing" of churches to marry same-sex couples is nothing more than extremely poor and obvious mending of a garment that is worn by politicians of various stripes. It is an example of The Emperor's New Clothes where the child-hero of the story is those that can see past the obvious subterfuge and see things for what they are. "
Believe it or not, I did think you'd likely share your thoughts. ;) I believe Gary mentioned this particular point .... When cHriS talked of compromise, churches not being forced to perform such marriages, Gary said that had been suggested but mentioned this would be a way for churches, who refuse, to lose their tax exempt status. When certain people talk, other people often listen. ;)
That particular statement confused the matter for me a bit.
I'd love it if more churches were accepting. That's something to work toward. But, ultimately, I want everyone to be able to live, to the greatest extent possible, the lives they choose for themselves. I'd like to see gay marriage and churches who, if they choose, ...(cringe) ... only marry heterosexual couples, if that is part of their belief system.
Believe it or not, I did think you'd likely share your thoughts. ;) I believe Gary mentioned this particular point .... When cHriS talked of compromise, churches not being forced to perform such marriages, Gary said that had been suggested but mentioned this would be a way for churches, who refuse, to lose their tax exempt status. When certain people talk, other people often listen. ;)
That particular statement confused the matter for me a bit.
I'd love it if more churches were accepting. That's something to work toward. But, ultimately, I want everyone to be able to live, to the greatest extent possible, the lives they choose for themselves. I'd like to see gay marriage and churches who, if they choose, ...(cringe) ... only marry heterosexual couples, if that is part of their belief system.
A wrote: "@ Maria and GaryI try answering whatever I understood. Religion is not exclusive. It includes everything. Religion cannot be confined to one organized group alone. It does not have any belief or ..."
Beautiful A ....
Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "My comment said 'man and woman and the raising up of children'.Man & woman & children. I did not say man & woman TO raise children.
I am saying man & woman or man & woman & childr..."
I agree with Shannon ...whats the big difference id the word marraige is used. Hetrosexual couples do not have a copyright over it if i remember things right.
How is this aboutfamily values getting eroded ? . You were CONDITIONED to believe that a mom dad and children are a family unit !!!!!!....IT is values, character ,behaviour which characterises a goood family unit along with spiritiual beliefs now some of you may not agree with the spritual beliefs part ...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Then its not inevitable with anything.
How do you draw that conclusion? Prejudice is inevitable when a society promotes uniculturalism, as anyone outside of the preferred culture would thus be in a prejudice viewpoint by the majority. That's logic.
cHriS wrote: "This can be used in more than one context. But how do we really know if it is manufactured? We make a judgement from the tone of the debate."
Why a judgement from the tone? Some people are eloquent others not. Some people are justifiably angry at their treatment while it doesn't effect others.
Surely it is best to judge from independent evidence in a rational and fair manner?
cHriS wrote: "You pointed out in detail the errors and deceptions in the arguments, thats fine, I assume the reader understands this and does not have to have to pointed out to them."
Part of combating prejudice is making people aware they are prejudice. I have had to undergo that revelation myself, and Shannon was expanding on her similar experience.
cHriS wrote: "Because it can sometimes seen arrogant, to assume one is always right. "
But that's what you are doing, by assuming you are right and demanding to be convinced otherwise. Have you never demanded the same convincing for your original point of view?