Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Mary wrote: "What exactly is the difference between a same sex civil partner ship in the UK and a marriage? I'm talking mechanics. Civil partnership = same sex couples, all rights
Marriage= opposite c..."
That's not even getting into him wanting to count siblings as a civil partnership.
Between that and asking mary about her sex life, chris is never going to get away from 'icky'.
Mary wrote: "Chris I'm not going to explain the birds and the bees to you. Suffice it to say that's matung requires the joining of bodyparts with other people.... That's weird. It's enjoyable... But just a lit..."
LOL.... homosexuality is icky??? Lets see, a guy jumps a woman, sticks his penis into her and starts jumping up and down until he 'comes' which means he pumps living material into her body, which then commences to rot and run down her legs . . . .
Mary wrote: SO you truly are objecting to same sex couples using the word MARRIAGE? All rights are same. Just the word? You want opposite sex couples to have the ability to call their union a " civil partnership"? Even though rights are exactly the same?That is the best example if splitting hairs I have ever seen!
..."
You are shooting your self it the foot. If you consider it 'splitting hairs' that would then apply to both sides.
Splitting hairs about marriage when you already have a civil partnership.
Mary wrote: "Chris I'm not going to explain the birds and the bees to you. .."
Mary wrote:I think you misunderstood. It is my opinion that you think homosexuality is icky.
...and it is my opinion that you seem rather child like expressing yourself.
cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: SO you truly are objecting to same sex couples using the word MARRIAGE? All rights are same. Just the word? You want opposite sex couples to have the ability to call their union a " civ..."Really, Chris? Maybe you should look back at your own posts?
Chris. Is there a huge uproar in UK for married couples to call their union a civil partnership? I doubt it. This is a nonexistent issue you are grasping at. Both a civil partnership and a marriage in the UK have exact same rights... And if people choose to cohabitate without legalizing it then they forgo rights, regardless of their sexual orientation.
That's about as fair as you can get.
Your issue is you do not like that gay people can call their union a marriage.
Leiah wrote: "Mary wrote: "Chris I'm not going to explain the birds and the bees to you. Suffice it to say that's matung requires the joining of bodyparts with other people.... That's weird. It's enjoyable... B..."
I know, right?!! It's a weird thing to do!! Ha
The icky remark stems from this same debate with Chris several hundred posts ago, where all his arguments boil down to his distaste for homosexuality. He really doesn't like it when you say he thinks its icky. I really cannot see any other substance to his arguments, he just doesn't like that homosexual want to use the word marriage for their unions.
cHriS wrote: "It's not. But I think cerebus is over simplifying things by his 'no harm' rule. We would no longer have to debate a topic on it's merits, just on ano harm rule. Phew :) "
Bit of cherry picking there cHriS. If that were the only reason I had given in this discussion for supporting same-sex marriage rights then you might just have a point. As it is I have given other reasons. My comment about "no harm" relates to the fear-mongering by those relying on the slippery slope argument, or the "think of the children!!" argument. Nobody has been able to provide a single shred of evidence that allowing same-sex marriage will suddenly allow plural marriage or marrying your pet snail. Nor has any evidence been given to suggest it will make it easy, just the cowardly "it might". So just because people fear some ill-defined outcome that there is no evidence will occur, we should keep everything as it is now? I suggest those people should stay home in bed and not venture outside, who knows what "might" happen?
As for your own distraction of civil partnerships, there is an easy fix for that. Make it available to opposite-sex couples. And wait for the uproar!!! No, wait, no uproar.....no clamouring for civil partnerships between a man and his tree, or a woman and her television.
In one of your other posts you mentioned gun ownership, not sure if that was an attempt to distract, or reignite the earlier discussion on guns, but I'll bite....if you look at pretty much every other western country that has gun control laws you will see far less gun crime, mass shootings and accidental shootings. The love affair with guns in the US would seem to be more about their pathological fear of "the government" taking away their "liberties" than personal protection. Interestingly it is the same people who shout the loudest about this particular "liberty" who sit quietly by while that same government decimates their rights to privacy and due process. Or actively support local governments enforcing religion as science in their public schools.
cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: SO you truly are objecting to same sex couples using the word MARRIAGE? All rights are same. Just the word? You want opposite sex couples to have the ability to call their union a " civ..."Chris, In the US the two are not granted the same rights. And you have been saying in post after post that married couples cannot have a civil partnership in the UK...That was deceptive on your part. What you really meant is that its not CALLED a civil partnership for opposite sex couples. All rights are the same. You were not being completely honest.
Caregivers have other routes for legal rights in the US including conservatorships, guardianships, and power of attorney. I'm guessing the UK does too? So your "siblings' example is not an analogous comparison
If you are using my concern about 'future changes', that is fine, but you have had to add/change it to 'slippery slope' because some how 'slippery slope' sounds somewhat seedy and suggests connotations that were not there in my previous reply, then you are doing what mary did.Slippery slope isn't seedy, it's the term that covers concerns about future changes that stem from and action that maybe negative. Are you concerned about the positive changes that have potential or just the one you view as negative?
Mt previous reply stated.. that you allow one change now, more will follow.
The definition of a slippery slope and as I assume you aren't concerned of the potential positive outcome only the negative ones...
Shanna wrote: The Netherlands have had gay marriage legalized since 2001 no noticeable descent in to anarchy there, I think 12 years would be enough to see something don't you?
With restrictions and opposition to it. But that is not relevant anyway. I am speaking for the UK, what other countries do is up to them, those same sex marriages whether from the Netherlands or Canada are not recognised in the UK.
Did the rest of the UK agree to that?
There were and restrictions and oppositions to racial equality in the throes of it's birth too, is your point that we shouldn't upset those folks who like the status quo regardless of the harm it does?
You just can't ignore that in real life actual examples of the topic at hand, that refute your arguments.
Shanna wrote:I think cultural relativity for morality is wrong, I think people who stand back and permit women to be stoned, or little girls to under go FGM or little boys too, because it's a cultural thing are reprehensible. Cultural denial of human equity is disgusting and tolerance of intolerance is also.
..."
Apples and oranges. You are not comparing apples with apples, you are using emotive language for effect.
No you argued that some countries/culture might not be ready for it, I stated that I find cultural moral relativism a disgusting thing.
Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice. Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Mary wrote: "I think that Chris keeps saying that hetero couples in UK have more rights... But from what I can find, that's not true. In order for any type of couple to have rights, they have to make a legal commitment
. Civil partnership for same-sex partners and marriage for opposite sex. All rights same. Just different name
Is he objecting to the law allowing same sex partnerships a religious blessing as well?
Unless heteros are ONLY allowed a marriage in a church and not a courthouse, thenI fail to see what Chris is talking about "
Wait....
I thought you considered this type of post to be passive-aggressive....
How weird....
. Civil partnership for same-sex partners and marriage for opposite sex. All rights same. Just different name
Is he objecting to the law allowing same sex partnerships a religious blessing as well?
Unless heteros are ONLY allowed a marriage in a church and not a courthouse, thenI fail to see what Chris is talking about "
Wait....
I thought you considered this type of post to be passive-aggressive....
How weird....
cerebus wrote: "just the cowardly "it might""
:o
No, really.
:o
Are you calling a Supreme Court justice, appointed by a liberal president, cowardly?
:o
No, really.
:o
Are you calling a Supreme Court justice, appointed by a liberal president, cowardly?
Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "just the cowardly "it might"":o
No, really.
:o
Are you calling a Supreme Court justice, appointed by a liberal president, cowardly?"
Not specifically.
Shanna wrote: I assume you aren't concerned of the potential positive outcome only the negative ones......"
The positive is already here, why change it?
Shanna wrote: Did the rest of the UK agree to that?
Sorry I'm not sure what you are referring to; if it was not recognising same sex marriages from other countries....that's UK law.
Shanna wrote: There were and restrictions and oppositions to racial equality in the throes of it's birth too
'equality' In the UK at least there IS same sex equality. The use of the word 'marriage' is the discussion here and that has nothing to do with equality. Do you have equality in OZ?
Shanna wrote: I stated that I find cultural moral relativism a disgusting thing.
Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice
Providing that it is not just your perception of what you find as intolerance. If you are to make moral judgments across different people and cultures, it may just mean you do not see things the way they see them, you may not always be right.
It is very easy to sit in front of a keypad and express one's intolerance, but that is not the real world. I could say I am intolerant of the lack of effort to feed the starving people in third world countries, but I have to tolerate it. The most I can do is put a few coins in a box now and then.
Mary wrote: In the US the two are not granted the same rights. And you have been saying in post after post that married couples cannot have a civil partnership in the UK...That was deceptive on your part. ..."THEY CANNOT....THEY CANNOT....THEY CANNOT : That is not being deceptive. I have explained it three times to you Mary, if you still don't understand, that is fine and at the risk of boring anyone else who is reading these posts, I will explain it again if you want me to.....but don't imply I was being deceptive.
Mary wrote: You were not being completely honest.
...... oh yes I am. Your lack of understanding is to blame.
Mary wrote: So your "siblings' example is not an analogous comparison
Yes it is.
Mary wrote:Is there a huge uproar in UK for married couples to call their union a civil partnership? I doubt it.
.....no there is not. unmarried couples who do not want to marry want civil partnership.
cerebus wrote: My comment about "no harm" relates to the fear-mongering by those relying on the slippery slope argument, or the "think of the children!!" argument. Nobody has been able to provide a single shred of evidence that allowing same-sex marriage will suddenly allow plural marriage or marrying your pet snail. ."....yes but that it not in it's self a good enough reason to change things.
cerebus wrote: just the cowardly
Again from a UK perspective the argument for /against same sex marriage is about 50/50. So because 50% of a population have a different view than you, they are cowardly.
cerebus wrote: As for your own distraction of civil partnerships, there is an easy fix for that. Make it available to opposite-sex couples. And wait for the uproar!!! No, wait, no uproar.....no clamouring for civil partnerships between a man and his tree, or a woman and her television.
.... but this IS an issue, you can't just give a small section the right to have a civil partnership and not the others. It can be made to seem irrelevant by suggestion 'a man and a tree', but you know that it's go much deeper than that and it is a concern to a great number of people.
cerebus wrote: Interestingly it is the same people who shout the loudest about this particular "liberty" who sit quietly by while that same government decimates their rights to privacy and due process.
....um, exactly the same people, not a cross section, or a percentage. It's amazing how 'they' can work that out and be so precise.
Mary wrote: The icky remark stems from this same debate with Chris several hundred posts ago, where all his arguments boil down to his distaste for homosexuality..."Unless you can show where this so called 'distaste' appears, I think you should withdraw that remark.
This is another case of someone accusing me of something, and others who have not read the posts correctly or fully getting the wrong idea, and are so small minded that they don't think for themselves. I do not have a 'distaste for homosexuality' I have nothing against gay people or same sex couples and I support equal rights for everyone. But that does not mean that I have to agree with every thing or approve of everything or back everything that involves the gay community, or any other community.
This is the attitude of weak liberal lefties who's only defence in a debate is to shout, racist, or homophobic to put the other side down. They are the first ones to shout for something to be done for those in (for example) Syria and the first to protest if your own troops go in and are killed. You are the first ones to shout for rights and the last to come up with a workable solution.
....even an apology might be in order.
In my opinion, i would highly prefer to have science instead of religion. The reason being is that science is the cause for many cures. On the other hand, religion is the cause of many wars.
"Mary wrote: "Chris I'm not going to explain the birds and the bees to you. Suffice it to say that's mating requires the joining of bodyparts with other people...."
Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but mating (producing a child) no longer requires the joining of body parts! What it still does require is a woman's womb to incubate the embryo created...for now..
Shanna wrote: I assume you aren't concerned of the potential positive outcome only the negative ones......"
The positive is already here, why change it?
Not really...
Shanna wrote: Did the rest of the UK agree to that?
Sorry I'm not sure what you are referring to; if it was not recognising same sex marriages from other countries....that's UK law.
It was a joke, clearly a poor one... :) You said you speak for the UK....
'equality' In the UK at least there IS same sex equality. The use of the word 'marriage' is the discussion here and that has nothing to do with equality. Do you have equality in OZ?
Not as much as I'd like, though I do find in curious that the government counts same sex partnerships for the purposes of social services payments and still marriage is denied...
Shanna wrote: I stated that I find cultural moral relativism a disgusting thing.
Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice
Providing that it is not just your perception of what you find as intolerance. If you are to make moral judgments across different people and cultures, it may just mean you do not see things the way they see them, you may not always be right.
I think there are several things that as human beings that we can agree on the Rule of reciprocity covers them all
Arjun, after pages of people carefully explaining to the theists that science is not a religion, that it is a tool, then as much as you saying science is good is a great thing... saying its a religion is not helpful. I'm sure you don't follow dogmatic rituals and worship science.
I am a strong Christian and believe in Christianity very much, however, I always put logic before anything else. With that being said, to answer your question I would pick science only because of the medical and technological breakthroughs that have saved many people's lives. I do agree with Pandora though, that perhaps science would take it too far to the point of self-annihilation. To counter that argument, is religious extremism also not destroying the Middle East as we speak? It's a hard decision but I take science
Bea wrote: "Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but mating (producing a child) no longer requires the joining of body parts! What it still does require is a woman's womb to incubate the embryo created...for now.."True. But it's not the mating/producing that is the issue (at least to me) - it's giving the child that is produced either in the traditional way or scientifically in the future) a safe, secure, happy homelife - and that can be done by a person/couple of any sex, gay or straight.
Cesar said: "I am a strong Christian and believe in Christianity very much, however, I always put logic before anything else. "I think that is an oxymoron. There are so many beliefs in Christianity that totally defy logic. Christians are asked to believe crazy things like the Trinity, fiery hell, floating on a cloud playing the harp in heaven, etc etc. None of those things are logical or Biblical.
Since this question involves a forced choice I choose science. I wouldn't be typing this message on a computer if it weren't for science. If science didn't exist, we would still be trying to appease a pantheon of gods and goddesses.
You're right, but when I say I put logic before anything else I mean that if someone tells me to jump off a bridge and Jesus will catch me, logic will tell me to walk away.Also in my personal opinion, the "crazy" things you speak of are metaphors and forms of symbolism for more realistic things. I'm not a preacher by any means and I am not going to preach anything here because I respect everyone's opinions and beliefs, but I think that a logiacl person will follow any religion as a means to live a righteous and clean life; more of guidelines rather than literal interpretation.
I would compare it to a fairy tale, where you know the characters and stories aren;t real but the author and his/her message to the reader is quite real.
Maria wrote: "Cesar said: "I am a strong Christian and believe in Christianity very much, however, I always put logic before anything else. "I think that is an oxymoron. There are so many beliefs in Christia..."
I think calling someone's beliefs crazy is extremely rude and disrespectful. If you want people to respect your beliefs then you should extend the same courtesy to them.
Thank you Leslie!
I don't care if someone respects my beliefs or not. If they are my beliefs then to me they are not crazy and I don't need the validation of others. Sorry if you and Cesar do.I was merely stating that to say you are a strong believer in Christianity and then also say you are a logical person, to me, is an oxymoron (a contradictory statement), because many Christian beliefs are not logical.
Let's take it down a notch lol no need to get upset! We're all here for friendly conversation
Agreed. It was not my intent to be rude or disrespectful. Sometimes logic is not part of believing. In the story of Noah and the ark, the fact that it was going to rain, let alone be a global flood, was not a logical thing for him to believe, but he did, and was not disappointed. He had faith that something totally illogical was true, and it was.
I see your point and I do respect your opinion on the subject, however, I think Leslie meant that while you are entitled to your own opinion, maybe using the word "crazy" was a tad over-board to describe something that millions believe in. I am not offended and I really hope that Leslie is not because she sounds like a great person and has very strong values.
Can we for the time being forget the whole ordeal and let the message board continue its course please?
Thanks !!!
Chris you can shout in capitals all day long, the it doesn't change the fact that there is no legal difference between a marriage and a civil partnership in the UK. No one is denied anything. You want marriage ( the word) to only mean what it did when you married. I get it. But your insistence that opposite sex couples are being denied something would only be true if marriages required something civil partnerships do not.. But they're the same in UK. You want tradition. You want things the way you remember them. You want it to have a religious connotation and mean only a man and woman. That's fine. Thats your opinion. Just say that. Don't wrap it all up in some legal argument that is misleading. If heteros in UK are truly upset that they can't use the term " civil partnership" then let them protest. But you are the only one I've heard complain. Do you want to use that term? I doubt it.
I have to concur with Maria. Believing in the unbelievable goes against logic. Therefore it seems crazy. i have heard many Christians themselves, refer to the beliefs of others as crazy. " Can you believe the Mormons believe that?"" 72 Virgins? Muslims are crazy" " Scientologists believe in aliens? Crazy" In thus case it means believing in something unbelievable.
If you have religious beliefs, at some point someone is going to call what you believe crazy. Goes with the territory.
I think this message board is a great place for people to discuss/debate/defend their beliefs, if they choose to. If not, no harm done, but it is really interesting to me to hear why people believe the way they do, and what Biblical basis they have, if any, for believing that way. Nothing snarky intended, just good old-fashioned discussion. So if anyone on this board wants to explain/defend their belief in the Trinity, whether we go to heaven/hell when we die, etc and quote some Scriptures to back it up, I think it would be a very interesting discussion and it can be done in a respectful manner.
Thank you, Mary. And like I said, if you have enough confidence in yourself and your beliefs, it will not offend you if someone calls you or your beliefs crazy. Especially someone on an online message board that you don't even know.And Cesar, you sound like a very nice, respectful person, but you are not this board's moderator. You can choose to stop responding to comments if you don't like the discussion, or you can change the subject.
But to say "let the message board continue its course" is a little condescending to the ones who are commenting, as if their comments are not appropriate to the conversation.
Cesar wrote: "I see your point and I do respect your opinion on the subject, however, I think Leslie meant that while you are entitled to your own opinion, maybe using the word "crazy" was a tad over-board to de..."Thank you Cesar. That is what I meant. I was getting ready to explain myself when I saw your post. I'm not personally offended as I myself am not a Christian. It's just that in my line of work I see how much harm can be done by people using off-handed terms like "crazy", "strange", or other derogatory terms about a persons beliefs. Not just religious beliefs either. They could be talking about political views, parenting views, ect. IMO it causes derision and that is never a good thing.
True Maria. I also think that if Christianity is the predominant belief system where you live and grew up, then you probably didn't hear a lot if criticism of your beliefs. So for some it seems an affront. But for many who believe in something outside Christianity, they have heard criticism often, often by Christians.Beliefs are hard to defend, because you trying to prove your unbelievable thing is more real than someone else's unbelievable thing.
I admit that "crazy" may not have been the best word for me to have used. I meant that I don't think the beliefs I mentioned are Biblical and it has always astonished me that Christians who use the Bible as their holy book can believe things that are clearly not in there, and ignore other things that are.
I apologize for sounding like that but what I meant to say is that I did not want our conversation to engulf this message board since I'm sure other people want to answer the actual question that this board asks. By no means do I mean to sound condescending. Like I said before I respect everyone's opinions, but I just wanted to end any negative arguments so that we could continue having a respectful conversation, which eneded up happening anyway!
OH, Cesar - this board is all over the place. We have addressed so many topics that have nothing to do with the original question! That's why I like it.I never know when I pop in whether what the discussion will be about!
I see, I was driven by the notion that we should try to stay on topic but I guess it's more interesting when everyhting is discussed. Well I feel like I have given my opinion and defended it as I saw fit so I think I am done.
Thank you all for your input! It was a fun discussion.
Wish you all the best!
This discussion has strayed considerably from the question. I have noticed that many people are unwilling to choose either religion or science but choose both. So to get to the question: assume you can only choose one, and with that choice you couldn't have the other, and the other would never eventually arise. What would you choose?
Also, I answered the questionn a few posts back but it got lost in the controversy.
I'd rather live in a world without religion.
I believe that miracles have happened before and can happen again, is this something that science can not explain or is it part of religion?
Jim, to what miracles are your referring?
Miracles that occurred at Lourdes for example
Mary wrote: Don't wrap it all up in some legal argument that is misleading."You are confusing ‘misleading’ with your inability to understand. It suggests to me that you are either stupid or you are trying to cover your previous mistakes with more inaccuracies. Or maybe you just can’t back up the accusations you made to me and you are trying to deflect away from that by suggesting my knowledge is not as good as yours about UK law.
What I have said is fact. Google it and read it. If you are unable to grasp it, get someone you know to google it for you and then explain it to you.
You originally asked me a question in message 11392: and I took considerable time explaining to you, in at least three separate posts, what you wanted to know. I gave you the benefit of not understanding the way the UK laws works on this subject, and that is why I took the time. You then for reasons I don’t understand made false accusations against me. Accusations you are not able to verify.
What you did is typical of what lots of people do, throw around accusations because you don’t like someone else’s point of view, or they don’t agree with yours. You are like the playground bully who would not dare pick a fight of your own, but are quite happy to watch others start and you then join in and put the boot in, and quietly fade into the background.
Your last post is just a smoke screen to deflect from explaining you remarks.
Hypocrite comes to mind. Normally I laugh off a lot of remarks made on this thread, but you must have caught me on a bad day because I find your sentiment distasteful..."
Mary, my suggestion is just to ignore Chris. Lots of us on this thread made the decision to do that last year on this thread when he was going by the name "cs". He started out ok, but then his posts became more like this last one, condescending and name-calling.
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...
Civil partnership = same sex couples, all rights
Marriage= opposite couple, all rights.
It's my understanding that both can have a religious aspect, is it mandatory to have a religious service? Or can both chose to have civil service?
AND no couple of any sexual orientation is allowed rights without going through the above legal process? Right?
SO you truly are objecting to same sex couples using the word MARRIAGE? All rights are same. Just the word? You want opposite sex couples to have the ability to call their union a " civil partnership"? Even though rights are exactly the same?
That is the best example if splitting hairs I have ever seen!