Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 11,101-11,150 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "Again, I did not know you posted that in order for me to pat you on the back and say, " good job, Shannon".
I thought I was responding to your post with my own reactions.
Please put a disclaimer i..."


Whoa....

No.

Didn't want a pat on the back.

When you told me to tell my mother this and that ....

I thought you were, you know, telling me to tell my mother this and that, as if I hadn't already.

I didn't know you meant ....

I don't know.

If it were my mother, I'd just tell her that ....

Whatever. Your own reaction.

It seemed like a directive, which was confusing given that I'd already done it.

I agree. Let's move on.

What do you think about the point? Atheists serving as humanist chaplains on college campuses. Are you part of the group of non-believers who are against the use of the term, as discussed by the second man on the video? Or, are you cool with the use of religious terminology for non-religious groups, especially the terms for religious leaders?

I'm all for the groups and the leaders. I just can't figure out the use of the same terminology.

[Mary]

I think if you belong to the military or attend a college and counseling is a normal service provided but it is only available through religious affiliations, then everyone should be able to have the same access to counseling. If the bureaucracy and institutional framework can only accomplish this by using the terminology they have in place, such as "chaplain", then so be it. Calling a cow a horse does not make it one, but if it allows the cow the same services as the horse, then I won't complain.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "Here's a nice sound bite by the religious right about this.


"They don't believe anything," said Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) "I can't imagine an atheist accompanying a notification team as they go into some family's home to let them have the worst news of their life and this guy says, 'You know, that's it -- your son's just worms, I mean, worm food.'" "

Missed this ... well, forgot to comment.

This is a horrible thing to say. I totally agree. I've seen people say pretty crappy things about non-believers, etc....

I don't know what a non-believer would say as part of notification. I imagine it would be something like I'd say as a teacher, church and state. Refer to guidance. Offer to go with the child to guidance; though a member on the notification team might not do that. Offer apologies. But, I don't know....

I do think the worm food line is a cheap shot.

[Travis]

Mary wrote: "I think if you belong to the military or attend a college and counseling is a normal service provided but it is only available through religious affiliations, then everyone should be able to have t..."

The title thing is a bit wonky, but if you are a place/organization that requires you provide counseling then providing a 'chaplain' for everyone should be seen as a good thing.

wether you are an atheist, christian, muslim or jedi, the military is a pretty stressful job and they should all be getting whatever kind of hep and support we can give them.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "I think if you belong to the military or attend a college and counseling is a normal service provided but it is only available through religious affiliations, then everyone should be able to have t..."

Well, ....

I know people who are in the military. I dated a man in the army.

They have mental health counseling. They also have chaplains.

The man I dated suffered the death of a family member when oversees. He did counseling through their mental health services. I distinctly remember his talking with me about it on the phone. I asked if he also wanted to see a chaplain; his father was Catholic. He didn't. He went to a few counseling sessions through their mental health service. That was December of 2011, not long ago.

I also know a man who was assigned to a Captain who was a psychologist or psychiatrist. The man I knew worked under him and was in charge of using therapy animals, working with and caring for the therapy dogs. I'd say that was two years ago.

So, I know for a fact that they have counseling services, even in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, that have nothing to do with religious counseling. Totally scientific and secular.

Not sure about colleges. I never went to a counselor/guidance counselor or a chaplain when in college. I'd be shocked to find out that our colleges don't have secular counseling services. Maybe religious schools. Yes. But, the guy on the video mentioned a humanist chaplain at Harvard, which isn't a religious school. I'll have to check their site and see what they say about guidance services.

[Mary]

My brother, a captain in the army, says many soldiers do not seek mental health counseling out of worry they will be flagged as
A risk. So for more informal counseling you can see a chaplain without a paper trail or a " mental health issue" in your file.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "My brother, a captain in the army, says many soldiers do not seek mental health counseling out of worry they will be flagged as
A risk. So for more informal counseling you can see a chaplain withou..."

Ahhh.... That would make sense. I did ask the guy I was dating about stigma. He said the people he was with and serving under were about being fit to do the job and were okay with mental health services if it saw to it that you were fit.

I took that to mean there was a shift.

However, .... It very well could be a shift with the specific people he was with versus a shift in general. It also might be more of a stigma depending on which job you do within the military. That just popped into my head. I have family members who were pilots. Would a pilot, who went to mental health services, for example, be more stigmatized than others? Would there at least be a fear that they'd be grounded or something?

So, yes, you definitely have a point there. Sadly.... I mean, it's sad that there's still such a stigma. Of course, that's also an issue here in the US. It's unfortunate.

I wonder, though, at the terminology. I'd sooner see them attempt to pass legislation that allows for religious counselors and humanist counselors, if you know what I mean. But, ....

For sure, non-believers should have the ability to seek counseling services without a paper trail ... just as believers are able to do through their chaplains.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: So I asked if you feel it does impact opposite sex couples, and how?


Maybe I have not explained enough this time round. I don’t know if it has any impact on opposite sex couples, I doubt it should and I am not sure why that is your line of attack, so to speak.

Marriage…the word…not the ceremony or the cake or the ride to the church or what ever, or the honeymoon, or the dress or even the church….just the word; it means the union between one man and one woman and should not be redefined.

It is that simple. It has nothing to do with not wanting same sex couples to have the same rights. They can have the ceremony and all that go with it, and they do now anyway, (in the UK at least), just don’t try and redefine the meaning of the word.

Once that happens marriage has lost it true meaning and it will have opened the doors for more changes further down the line.

And (speaking from the UK viewpoint) if gay marriage was sanctioned, same sex couples would have the choice of marriage or civil partnerships. Opposite sex couples only have marriage, they are not allowed civil partnerships.

You may please a very small percentage of gay couples by allowing them to have a marriage, but you would be opening a whole new can of worms for a very large percentage of the rest of society.

Mary wrote:And any change to the use of that word causes you fear that things will change for the negative?

Fear, no. Concern that we will have a different kind society than we have now yes, and will that society be better, no.

Unless governments include a clause that marriage which would include same sex couples, could never again be amended, altered or changed.... that could be a compromise of sorts.

[Mary]

cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: So I asked if you feel it does impact opposite sex couples, and how?


Maybe I have not explained enough this time round. I don’t know if it has any impact on opposite sex couples, I d..."

Okay. I get it. You want to keep the word sacred. You are afraid use of the word by same sex couples would degrade the word. You are concerned that if same sex couples use the word marriage, then we will have a different kind of society than we have now.
The one we have now allows Kim Kardashian to honor the sanctity of marriage by staying married for a full 72 days! It allowed Prince Charles to marry and be unfaithful the entire time. Now those are very public figures, but us normal folks suffer the same issues daily.
So, as long as it's a man and woman, they can call it marriage, and they can then proceed to do whatever they want. Cheat on each other, be abusive, or just plain get tired of each other and divorce. In the US 1/2 of all marriages fail. I understand in England its closer to 42%. But As long as it's just a man and a woman, society will be intact? Seems like we need more than just a sacred word.

I have no problem with marriage being a ceremony performed only in a church. They can keep the word. Its the actions and commitments of the couple that determines the success of the union, not the terminology.
As long as everyone is afforded the same legal rights by the government for the union, call it whatever you want. This has not happened yet in the US, but seems to be on its way.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: I have no problem with marriage being a ceremony performed only in a church. They can keep the word. Its the actions and commitments of the couple that determines the success of the union, not the terminology.
As long as everyone is afforded the same legal rights by the government for the union, call it whatever you want. This has not happened yet in the US, but seems to be on its way.
.."

Mary it seems that you want to have your proverbial cake and eat it..... regarding this issue.

Your words above are almost saying what I am saying yet before them you said.......

Mary wrote: The one we have now allows Kim Kardashian to honor the sanctity of marriage by staying married for a full 72 days! It allowed Prince Charles to marry and be unfaithful the entire time. Now those are very public figures, but us normal folks suffer the same issues daily.
So, as long as it's a man and woman, they can call it marriage, and they can then proceed to do whatever they want. Cheat on each other, be abusive, or just plain get tired of each other and divorce. In the US 1/2 of all marriages fail. I understand in England its closer to 42%. But As long as it's just a man and a woman, society will be intact? Seems like we need more than just a sacred word.

...aggressive words, that have no relevance at all to the point I made. If marriage is that bad, why advocate others join in. You should dissuade same sex couples from wanting to join in.

Rather than put the above blame on marriage put it on today’s changing (for the worst)society.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Rather than put the above blame on marriage put it on today’s changing (for the worst)society. "


Not on the same sex marriage topic but on the topic of today's changing society....

Someone I know was telling a story the other day. She's older. She was picked on one day, bullied, by her classmates. Her teacher called all of the parents, who showed up at my colleague's house that night, children in tow to apologize.

I was so struck by that.

At first, I was so sad that our society has changed so much. I saw all the times parents have made excuses for children flash through my head. Today, it seems it's always someone else's fault. Not a big deal. Or, worse.... More and more, parents will say something like .... "You should see what he's like at home. Now you know what I have to deal with. It's awful. I can't do anything about him at all."

I felt so sad.

Then, of course, as I was driving home, I wondered if society has changed as much as I thought. Was I flashing on just a handful of students and parents, who happen to get more attention than any others?

I actually don't know.

But, at first blush, it seems like our society has changed. A lot. Obviously, it's changed for the better in enumerable ways. Having said that, I feel like it's also changed in horrible ways!

I don't know what's behind the changes. I have a feeling there are a lot of things in play.

[Mary]

cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: I have no problem with marriage being a ceremony performed only in a church. They can keep the word. Its the actions and commitments of the couple that determines the success of the uni..."


Chris, I am pointing out that the word "marriage" is not what makes two people successful in their commitment to each other.
I am questioning your attachment to the word. You said, you don't care about the ceremony, the party, the dress, the cake...those are unimportant. Just the word.
I then pointed out how the word marriage is often attached to a man and a woman who did not care so much about it's sanctity. Not aggressive, just true. I chose two very public examples, but you could go to a church in your town, or a market and find men and women who have experienced infidelity, or abuse, or divorce. Its common. So maybe focus on the word, instead of the actions, is not what's needed.

I'm not blaming marriage. Far from it. People make up marriages, not words. You are the one saying that the word marriage should only be used for a man and a woman, and other usage might cause detrimental effects in society. I'm saying, it's not the word.....

I've been happily married for 27 years, so I'm not dissuading anyone from marrying. I just don't think a single word ensures success.

My question to you Chris would be, if using the word marriage for anything other than opposite sex couple have a negative effect on society, how does keeping the word marriage only for a man and a woman have a positive effect?

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: My question to you Chris would be, if using the word marriage for anything other than opposite sex couple have a negative effect on society, how does keeping the word marriage only for a man and a woman have a positive effect?"

It does not have a more positive effect by excluding same sex couples, if that is your point, it has the effect it has always had, which in it's self is positive, except for maybe the last decade when the Tony Blair government undermined marriage.

I tried to explain a few posts ago when I gave the Universal Benefit example. Once you alter something you give the ok to keep on altering it. It will then loose it's meaning altogether and will be lost forever.

Same sex this time around and in ten years get rid of the bigamy laws and open the door for polygamous marriages. Why not use the word marriage for any couples who want to hook up and make a commitment to each other? Then we can invent another word that is appropriate to use for a man and a woman who want to marry and if they can start a family and have their children within that commitment.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Not on the same sex marriage topic but on the topic of today's changing society....
"

Shannon, today's changing society. There will always be change, but not always for the better. I can only comment on the Uk but I guess it may not be a lot different in the US.

Political correctness, immigration, human rights, civil rights, multiculturalism, bureaucracy, data protection, compensation culture; all these should have a positive effect on society, but they are all having the reverse. They have all gone to far.

Children are born into a society of 'fear', the adults fear that if they do or say the wrong thing they are looked upon as the criminal. Children do not have the boundaries they once had because society is breaking down.

Marriage is part of the glue that holds society together.

[Shanna]

So cHriS, If marriage is the glue that hold society together, why is homosexual marriage "glue" damaging?
Why is gluing more people together in the bonds of love a bad thing?

[Mary]

So Chris exactly how far back do we need to go to get to " the good old days". When exactly was it so much better? What criteria do you use to determine " better"? I know we had this discussion before, and your admiration of Victorian values. But the good old days was usually only good for white, middle class or wealthy males.

[[deleted user]]

I think there likely were things that held society together better in the past ... though I'm sure not always.

One thing I wonder about is the family/extended family structure.

In the US, not long ago, the majority of Americans lived in or near their hometowns. Not just with their parents but with extended family members. I wonder at the difference. This is still the case for some, in some areas. But, ... many of us are scattered to the four winds.

I can't help but think that added to stability to the society. I'm sure it also had challenges. However, .... When someone got sick or lost a job or died or left, other family members were there. My grandfather died when my mother was very little. It was hell, and she's still somewhat damaged by it. Having said that, they lived a town over from family. Both sets of grandparents. Aunts and uncles. Cousins. Their uncles stepped in and routinely, weekly and sometimes daily, went over to help out and play with the kids. While it was hard, my mother and her siblings made it through. Housed, fed, cared for ... went through school, got good grades, didn't get in trouble, got good jobs, lived good lives.

Separate and apart from family, there's a certain sense of community that's lost. People live in towns and cities with very little real contact with people other than their small circle of friends. What does that do to us?

I was driving to work the other morning, the kids of my town lined up on the street for the bus. As I was pulling out, into an intersection and down a street, I saw an elderly man fall. He'd been walking and just wiped out. Down and off the sidewalk into the road. I just about stopped my car right in the intersection and thought better of it, kept driving a bit. I checked my rearview, prepared to pull over and help ... but he got up. Not one of the kids, all middle school and high school kids, went over to help him. They were standing right there, two to three feet away, and they didn't move an inch. Whether stranger danger or disinterest, I don't know. If adults were there, would they have helped? I don't know. But, I have to say, I found that chilling. Now, I live in a larger town; we call it a city, but, please.... I work in a small community. I shared the story with my advisory, without commentary, and asked what they thought. They couldn't believe the kids didn't help. One of the boys said, "I don't like people. I actually really can't stand people, but I'd have rushed over to help him." I believe it. I asked what they thought the difference might be. Living in a city. They said ... you don't see things and don't care. That's what they said.

Obviously, all was not well in our past. Many things are so much better now, including the rights of women.

Some things, though, were better then. I think the key is to figure out what did hold society together, in a stronger and healthier way, and find ways to get back to that or enact bits and pieces of it.

[Travis]

Shanna wrote: "So cHriS, If marriage is the glue that hold society together, why is homosexual marriage "glue" damaging?
Why is gluing more people together in the bonds of love a bad thing?"

I never quite got how being inclusive can be a bad thing, especially with family.
Being married and having kids is hard and you could use all the support you could get, why not bring more people in?

How is it helping kids or family, by making sure you keep some of them out of the club house and make sure to let them know their family doesn't count?
must be a religion thing, as my poor atheist mind doesn't get it.

When did the word become more important than the people?

[Bea]

Do people really comprehende and appreciate that humanity has evolved into recognising human individuality amongst the masses?

At THE time, several individuals were the forerunners of this message and it has been passed on by various means, but the strongest means was still an organised religion that infiltrated the masses?

The message may have been distorted by those using it to their own ends but isn't that the way it was/is/and always will be?

If that message of individual worthiness gets through then organised religion is no longer relevant to any society where the masses are individually self aware ...it then becomes a social group to connect to for the individual to feel at home in and still a means of social control by the powerful...

Buddhism was forced to become a 'religion' in Western cultures when at it's very base it was never a religion...are athiests being forced into their own form of religion? ...picking and choosing a religion is the surest sign that an individual has no need of religion and yet the name still exists as a means of grouping people!

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: So cHriS, If marriage is the glue that hold society together, why is homosexual marriage "glue" damaging?
Why is gluing more people together in the bonds of love a bad thing?
?"

Oh Shanna, You really must read my posts in full before you miss quote me. You are getting as bad as Travis and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. :)

[Jennifer]

throughout the history of man, ever see a war break out over differences in opinions of science?? religious beliefs cause wars, not science - i'd gladly give up a world with religion over science any day.

[Ron]

Chris and Mary The names create a surreal effect.
I can see mother and son talking over a glass of wine after the last supper.

[Jim]

Interesting, reading Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel, Galileo, man of Science is on fighting with the church (Biblical) Earth as Center of the Universe, vs. Science (Sun center of the Universe).

It was a dangerous world for a man of science.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: So Chris exactly how far back do we need to go to get to " the good old days". When exactly was it so much better? What criteria do you use to determine " better"? I know we had this discussion before, and your admiration of Victorian values. But the good old days was usually only good for white, middle class or wealthy males.
."

It depends. Today will be the good old days for some folk when they look back in years to come. But I think you are getting confused with Victorian times and Victorian values.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: When did the word become more important than the people?
..."

When you failed to understand the concept.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Some things, though, were better then. I think the key is to figure out what did hold society together, in a stronger and healthier way, and find ways to get back to that or enact bits and pieces of it.
..."

You are right, find ways to get in back. The answer we already know, it is boundries. Everyone has them, knowing what lines not to cross. But with children, in a lot of cases these lines have faided.

On the radio today there was a phone-in about the two million single parents in the UK, the biggest percentage are female and in many parts of the country it is these children/teenagers who are out of control. No father influence in their life.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/moth...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6542031...

[[deleted user]]

Jennifer wrote: "throughout the history of man, ever see a war break out over differences in opinions of science?? religious beliefs cause wars, not science - i'd gladly give up a world with religion over science a..."

Differences of opinions within the field of science?

No.

Over technology attained through "science" ... science?

Yes. My brain is pinging on the Hittites. They had an unfair advantage regarding ironmaking. I'm pretty sure people wanted their technology and tried various ways of getting it, including warfare.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Some things, though, were better then. I think the key is to figure out what did hold society together, in a stronger and healthier way, and find ways to get back to that or enact bi..."

Being raised by single parents is also on the rise here. I've seen articles that argue a greater percentage of those children have teen pregnancies, go to jail, etc..., but I've seen articles that claim that's false. Most of the research I've looked at seems to point to a greater percentage of those children having various issues later in life.

It would be interesting to study how and why this shift took place. Why are "we" so ready to divorce or never marry at all, even though "we" have children. There are all sorts of reasons, I'm sure. Some are likely to the benefit of all those involved. People refusing to stay in abusive relationships; leaving abusive partners was rare until recently. Then, we have the opposite, negative changes in our culture. I'd want to look at and tackle the latter ... though I'm sure not everyone would want to do so.

It's a difficult topic, with many moving pieces.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_...

[Mary]

Jim wrote: "Interesting, reading Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel, Galileo, man of Science is on fighting with the church (Biblical) Earth as Center of the Universe, vs. Science (Sun center of the Universe).
..."

Very interesting book. No one today would ever believe that people were put death for stating that the Earth goes round the sun and not the other way around. Any questioning of the world around you could result in being called a witch or suspected of demonic possession. Galileo's time was definitely a time when religion was not a loving, benevolent force in the world.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "Galileo's time was definitely a time when religion was not a loving, benevolent force in the world. "

...the Christian religion in Europe...beginning to push elsewhere due to European expansion.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: It would be interesting to study how and why this shift took place. Why are "we" so ready to divorce or never marry at all, even though "we" have children"

Single parent families has been a big talking point here in the UK during that last few days on the news and talk programmes. It does seem to be related to the decline in marriage and the rise of the so called partnerships to some extent.

Where as a marriage does seem to suggest 'commitment' and usually gives a couple time to get to know each other better, plan a date for marriage and find a place to live and set up home and then think about children, a Partnership more or less evolves from a couple living together without much commitment or as a result of an unplanned baby.

An unplanned child is just as likely to end a partnership as it would form a commitment. Leaving the mother holding the baby.

Rather than tinker with marriage any more, it might be best to go back to what it was, as Mary said 'the good old days' when ever they were, and take the best bits of marriage and maybe have children at the appropriate time.

It the UK it was an easy way for a teenager girl to get a place to live. Get pregnant and jump the social housing list housing. Baby first, place to live second, and a commitment third, if the father was still around.

Of course that is not every single mother I am talking about, there are other reasons way a mother may be single and I am not generalising. But I am making a case for marriage being a secure environment to have bring up children. Not as an absolute, but as a starting point.


As a foot note, the lack of discipline in schools was mentioned as a major cause for child miss behaviour . Again the lack of a male figure, in the home and at school (because there is not enough male teachers) was suggested as at least part of the cause.

And I do think that a father from a divorce is more likely to support their child than one from a short lived partnership.

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: So cHriS, If marriage is the glue that hold society together, why is homosexual marriage "glue" damaging?
Why is gluing more people together in the bonds of love a bad thing?
?"

Oh..."

I did I'm still waiting for you to explain how homosexual marriage devalues hetero marriage, how is destroys the societal glue leading it to descend into chaos and anarchy just like Canada and New Zealand... I think we all are...

[Shanna]

Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "So cHriS, If marriage is the glue that hold society together, why is homosexual marriage "glue" damaging?
Why is gluing more people together in the bonds of love a bad thing?"

I ne..."

Inclusivity is fine just make it's just the "right" people :P

[cerebus]

cHriS, are there any studies around the issues you raise? I ask this in all honesty.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: I did I'm still waiting for you to explain how homosexual marriage devalues hetero marriage, "

devalues? is that your word or mine?

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: are there any studies around the issues you raise?."

Politicians on both sides are saying this, it has been a news topic for the last few days and yes this is the views of many, including teachers. Of course there are other points of view which are equally as valid, including poverty, fewer jobs and children who's parents have not worked since their children were born. In other words all the child sees is the father sitting at home. It is a mix of everything.

Are there studies? I am sure there are but I have not seen them personally. It was said yesterday on a radio programme that a study showed that that some of the most disruptive children in a class were from one parent families. They are boy who's mother had no control over them at home, they did as they pleased, and at school many had female teachers who they would treat in the same way they did their mother. Classrooms are being disrupted and the pupils who want to learn are loosing out..

…a previous link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/moth...



It is a view that we are loosing the fabric of our society. My glue comment was is relation to this. And I and many others see that marriage was/is a main part of that fabric.

Once you allow something like marriage to be altered/ amended or what ever, it is no longer marriage as we know it; the door is then open to more changes and it will happen.

Footnote;
Shanna and Travis either don't want to or are unable to understand what I am saying. I don't expect you or them to agree, but I hope that they are not using same sex marriage, just to have a bash at religion.

[cerebus]

Apologies for the tangent, but we lost one of the greats. In a generation there are some that stand head and shoulders above, and Iain Banks was one of them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/...

[cerebus]

cHriS, single parent is not the same as same-sex, two parent relationships. I understand, whilst disagreeing, with your position on same sex marriage. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, when it comes down to a vote on same-sex marriage I'd hope both our positions would be similarly ignored and the evidence that there is no harm to children of same-sex marriages would prevail. Oddly I think we could claim to be on the same side of the argument, and both exclaiming "but think about the children!", but with me appealing to the evidence that says it does no harm to the children, and you saying...?

[Travis]

cerebus wrote: "cHriS, single parent is not the same as same-sex, two parent relationships. I understand, whilst disagreeing, with your position on same sex marriage. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, whe..."

While chris is against same sex marriage, most of his examples seem to apply to marriage in general.
Nothing that can be traced specifically to gay marriage, just a general 'change is bad' statement.

The gay couples I know with children are couples, two parent families.
So, they should be seen as a good thing, the positive thing chris claims we need, but because they are a gay couple he lists them as part of the problem, rather than being part of the glue.

he has decided that change is bad, when change is mostly just different.
The good old days were not always that good and they aren't coming back.

[cerebus]

Travis, I agree....I think where cHriS and I disagree is on points of opinions, and I hope that opinions are ignored in favour of evidence.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: are there any studies around the issues you raise?."

Politicians on both sides are saying this, it has been a news topic for the last few days and yes this is the views of many, inc..."

I will stop 'bashing' religion when it stops doing the stuff I'm 'bashing' them about.
I'm not just making this stuff up, I'm 'bashing' religion for stuff it has actually done.

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: "Iain Banks ..."

I never got to read Iain Banks or Ian M Banks.

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: single parent is not the same as same-sex, two parent relationships.

I am not sure what this has got to do with what I am saying.

cerebus wrote: I understand, whilst disagreeing, with your position on same sex marriage.."

I really don't think you do understand.

Travis wrote: While chris is against same sex marriage,

...and I'm not sure if you do not want to understand.

cerebus / Travis

I do not want marriage altered. As I keeeeeeep saying once governments start to alter 'marriage' then what will they do with it next? My view really has nothing to do with same sex marriage. I don't want marriage altered, and that's it.

Travis may want to have two wives, I don't know. That
may be next on his agenda. If we alter marriage now, why not alter it again for Travis?

My example of Universal Benefits, I though explained my position quite well, although I did not get any feed back, maybe because those who read it agreed.

Universal benefit means universal. Repeating myself....

If the government give a benefit to say, everyone over 65, then everyone over 65 gets it. The poor and the very rich. In theory the very rich should not get it, as they don't need it.

But once you stop it being universal and only give it to those say who's income is less that 100.000k. Each future government can reduce this until almost no one receives it.

I don't agree the rich should receive it, but I also think the benefit should stay as a 'universal' benefit. So I would rather keep giving it to the rich so that it stays universal.

I don't agree that marriage should be tampered with, so I am not able to support same sex marriage, or any other alteration in marriage.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote:I will stop 'bashing' religion when it stops doing the stuff I'm 'bashing' them about.

Like science, it is the people you should be bashing, the one who you don't agree with regarding religion.

[Maria]

I have to say that in a way I agree with Chris - family life and family values have gone so far down hill in our society - and children have been the ones to suffer.

Having said that, I don't think that the sex of the couple has a lot to do with that. I think that two people (two men, two women, man and woman) who are in a committed, monogamous relationship (call it "married" or not) can and should provide a loving, secure home for children.

Having it be a man and a woman vs. same sex does not guarantee that loving, secure home. The home could be horrible or wonderful, no matter what sex the two parents are.

My cousins (one male and one female) were raised by two women, not gay, just two unmarried sisters, their aunts, from about age 8 into adulthood. It was a loving, caring home with lots of Italian traditions, lots of family around, and they are happy, well adjusted people now with kids of their own. And they were raised by "same sex" parents pretty much their entire lives.

So, again, it depends entirely on the people involved and how they treat their children and what kind of family life they provide - not at all to do with what sex they are.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:I will stop 'bashing' religion when it stops doing the stuff I'm 'bashing' them about.

Like science, it is the people you should be bashing, the one who you don't agree with regarding..."

I do, but that includes going after religion as well, as it is the thing they use to justify wrong ideas and behavior.

[Steviejoh]

Freedom to enjoy both is so often curtailed by those polarized into their own position. Tolerance is something we can all practice

[Leiah]

Shannon wrote: "Leiah wrote: "His. He. Him. That is the very problem with religion - it sets up a male identity, which encourages the idea of the strong over the weak.
"

Not for all religions, Leiah. Just wante..."

True . . . I studied Wicca for years. If someone wants a TRULY good and loving religion, I HIGHLY recommend Wicca!

[Leiah]

cerebus wrote: "Rachel, I actually respect the fact you say you're thinking about the same sex thing (and I should also say, I don't expect my opinion on your opinion to matter, it doesn't....that we can discuss i..."

Some gay people are anti-same-sex-marriage for the same reasons that some straight people are. Buying into the corporate mindset and the control of their lives by government and social mores. I am not saying whether I fall on one side or the other, I simply believe that if you want to do it, you should be able to. Same-sex couples pay taxes, raise children, work right next to you. If I don't tell you if I am gay or straight and you are someone I know and interact with on a daily basis, such as in an office setting, does one or the other make me evil if you suddenly find out I am one or the other?

It is my personal opinion that religion and state do NOT mix. And that was, supposedly, the whole point of the beginning of this country - so that we would not be persecuted for our beliefs.

HOWEVER.

I have no problem with any person having religious beliefs (well, as long as the belief doesn't include abuse, torture, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.) BUT just because you have your right to worship the way you wish to - - - that does NOT give you the right to try to beat me over the head with your to the detriment of mine! Fine, believe in some all powerful guy who can control everything you do. That is your right. But I also have a right to believe in what _I_ wish to believe in without someone else sticking their nose in and saying I am wrong just because I don't share a particular belief.

Beliefs can be twisted in horrific ways (see Spanish Inquisition, the takeover of the American Continent, Muslim terrorists, etc.) If everyone would keep their noses out of everyone else's business and play in their own sandbox, thereby leaving others to play in their own, it would be a much better world.

There was a "West Wing" episode where the President made just this point to a religious zealot. I would have to watch episodes to find the right one for a quote, but he basically asked her if he should kill his daughter, Zoe, because she sometimes didn't mind her father. I think you get where I am going with this . . .

[Leiah]

Shannon wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Look at all the conflicts in the world today and 99% of them are religion orientated. Common sense, respect and love for, as the Dalai Lama would say all sentient beings is all it ..."

@ Shannon:
War in Iraq and Afghanistan: religion Muslim vs Christian.
Unrest in African countries: Tribal religions of all sorts vs tribal religions of all sorts.
Unrest in Middle Eastern countries other than above: Muslim vs Jihadist vs Christian vs Jew

Shi'ite vs Sunni Muslims, secular vs religious, the list goes on ad-nauseum.

Clarification please: what world unrest isn't based, in your opinion, on religion? I am not trying to be snarky, I am just curious?