Why aren't atheists agnostic?
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Why should I not be able to marry a woman?
Why don't you just live with her? Even Christians would fully recognize the fact that you're living with a woman, and probably wouldn't bother you about it, anymore than they do fornicating heterosexuals. Is it just about the money? We have gay "civil unions" -- what's insufficient about that?
I don't care whether other people recognise my relatioship or not. I'm not interested in what random Christians think. I want the same rights and protection for my relationship that straight couples can get (ie. visiting rights in hospital).
Civil unions would be fine for me as long as they have EXACTLY the same legal rights/benefits as marriage. Although, TBH, I still don't see why it can't be called marriage. Separate but equal doesn't really work too well with me.
Here, in England, they're the same thing...well, sister ships basically. I've been operating on the assumption that there was no legal provision for same-sex couples in America.
_________________
<a href="http://www.kia-tickers.com><img src="http://www.kia-tickers.com/bday/ticker/19901105/+0/4/1/name/r55/s37/bday.png" border="0"> </a>
pbcoll wrote:
gekitsu wrote:
proclaiming scientific findings as true fact is the same as proclamiming bible verses as true fact. no difference. (before you start complaining: get a grip on your science theory).
Except that scientific statments are backed by EVIDENCE (and no, saying 'my book is true because it says it is' is not evidence, nor is blatantly cherry-picking a few archeological findings and making huge leaps of logic based on them). For example, photosynthesis is accepted because of numerous experiments that show plants produce oxygen in the rpesnece of light, that the bulk of their mass does not come from the soil, etc. science is based on experiments with published methodologies, not on revelation. There are assumptions, but unlike religion these will be thrown out the window if the evidence disproves them. I'm sorry, but statements based on reproducible experimental results are NOT the same as statements based solely on what is written in a book that people claim is true because they believe it is (and not because it can and has been verified). Scientific truths change with time precisely because they are based on evidence - new evidence may rule out what was once thought true.
Example: the Inquisition said the Sun goes around the Earth because the Bible says so. Galileo said it was the other way around because that's what he deduced from astronomical evidence. Instead of presenting counterarguments, the Inquisition told him to recant or face execution. I know whose arguments I'd rather accept.
(They just won't hear the words I'm saying; they just decide I'm saying something else, and on it goes. Even people who hotly disagree with me can usually quote me correctly.)
Excuse me, the Bible makes thousands upon thousands of DISPROVABLE CLAIMS, not a one of which has been disproven at the hands of historical researchers, professional archaeologists, and even literary experts who judge a work based on it own merits in consistency and non-contradiction.
You show me how a two-thousand-year-old, five-and-a-half-megabyte book, written by about fifty different guys over several centuries, manages to not contradict itself ONE SINGLE TIME, further manages to not be disproven by even the most modern methods of all branches of scientific investigation (and in many, many cases, is actually corroborated by same methods), and not thereby indicate devine guidance.
It so funny , you guys attack me for not being okay with letting gays marry, while at the same attacking me for my belief -- backed by overwhelming evidence -- that the Bible is true! You can't let me have that belief, but you CAN castigate me for not approving of gay marriage. Hypocrites.
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Why should I not be able to marry a woman?
Why don't you just live with her? Even Christians would fully recognize the fact that you're living with a woman, and probably wouldn't bother you about it, anymore than they do fornicating heterosexuals. Is it just about the money? We have gay "civil unions" -- what's insufficient about that?
I don't care whether other people recognise my relatioship or not. I'm not interested in what random Christians think. I want the same rights and protection for my relationship that straight couples can get (ie. visiting rights in hospital).
Civil unions would be fine for me as long as they have EXACTLY the same legal rights/benefits as marriage. Although, TBH, I still don't see why it can't be called marriage. Separate but equal doesn't really work too well with me.
Well, welcome to pluralistic society. It's interesting that you don't care what Christian people would think about your gay marriage or civil union, as it would be supported, at least in my country, by their taxes. I think that, if gays want to invent and live within their own version of marriage, they should pay their own way in it, without asking people who deeply disagree with it to support it with their own hard-earned pay! That's wrong! (I'm using an American governmental model, since I'm less familiar with other countries' exact laws.)
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Why should I not be able to marry a woman?
Why don't you just live with her? Even Christians would fully recognize the fact that you're living with a woman, and probably wouldn't bother you about it, anymore than they do fornicating heterosexuals. Is it just about the money? We have gay "civil unions" -- what's insufficient about that?
I don't care whether other people recognise my relatioship or not. I'm not interested in what random Christians think. I want the same rights and protection for my relationship that straight couples can get (ie. visiting rights in hospital).
Civil unions would be fine for me as long as they have EXACTLY the same legal rights/benefits as marriage. Although, TBH, I still don't see why it can't be called marriage. Separate but equal doesn't really work too well with me.
Well, welcome to pluralistic society. It's interesting that you don't care what Christian people would think about your gay marriage or civil union, as it would be supported, at least in my country, by their taxes. I think that, if gays want to invent and live within their own version of marriage, they should pay their own way in it, without asking people who deeply disagree with it to support it with their own hard-earned pay! That's wrong! (I'm using an American governmental model, since I'm less familiar with other countries' exact laws.)
It works both ways, you know? Gay people pay taxes too.
Why should my taxes go towards straight Christians then if the straight Christians don't want me tog et married as well? Gay people should get tax breaks then... At the moment, exactly what you are describing is happening to me!
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Why should I not be able to marry a woman?
Why don't you just live with her? Even Christians would fully recognize the fact that you're living with a woman, and probably wouldn't bother you about it, anymore than they do fornicating heterosexuals. Is it just about the money? We have gay "civil unions" -- what's insufficient about that?
I don't care whether other people recognise my relatioship or not. I'm not interested in what random Christians think. I want the same rights and protection for my relationship that straight couples can get (ie. visiting rights in hospital).
Civil unions would be fine for me as long as they have EXACTLY the same legal rights/benefits as marriage. Although, TBH, I still don't see why it can't be called marriage. Separate but equal doesn't really work too well with me.
Well, welcome to pluralistic society. It's interesting that you don't care what Christian people would think about your gay marriage or civil union, as it would be supported, at least in my country, by their taxes. I think that, if gays want to invent and live within their own version of marriage, they should pay their own way in it, without asking people who deeply disagree with it to support it with their own hard-earned pay! That's wrong! (I'm using an American governmental model, since I'm less familiar with other countries' exact laws.)
It works both ways, you know? Gay people pay taxes too.
Why should my taxes go towards straight Christians then if the straight Christians don't want me tog et married as well? Gay people should get tax breaks then... At the moment, exactly what you are describing is happening to me!
Gays are 1 in 10. That's hardly an equal split of tax dollars. There's a higher percentage of Christians in my country than in yours. And, as a solution to the taxes-going-to-the-wrong-causes dilemma, I invite all gays to find a big island somewhere and start their own country -- it's not that hard -- which would be 100% gay-supportive. Then they wouldn't have to keep whining at us to change our faith, and we wouldn't keep having to ask them to kindly back off.
Ragtime wrote:
Gays are 1 in 10. That's hardly an equal split of tax dollars. There's a higher percentage of Christians in my country than in yours. And, as a solution to the taxes-going-to-the-wrong-causes dilemma, I invite all gays to find a big island somewhere and start their own country -- it's not that hard -- which would be 100% gay-supportive. Then they wouldn't have to keep whining at us to change our faith, and we wouldn't keep having to ask them to kindly back off.
What? I'm not whining at your to change your faith. I don't give a s**t about your faith, all I want is for you to keep it out of MY life. If gays are 1 in 10 then gay marriages would be around 1 in 10 as well. So the tax argument doesn't work. Why should my taxes only go to straight marriages, yet I can't marry a woman?
It wouldn't actually be that easy for me to find my own island full of gay people actually either. I shouldn't have to leave my family anyway just because some weird Christians don't want me to have equal rights.
Sopho wrote:
sigholdaccountlost wrote:
It comes down to personal beliefs vs. putting your personal belifs on everyone
And I am allowing Christians to be Christian. I just don't want them forcing their Christianity on me.
Exactly my point. I think forced education is wrong. But when I grow up, my taxes will still go to schools.
_________________
<a href="http://www.kia-tickers.com><img src="http://www.kia-tickers.com/bday/ticker/19901105/+0/4/1/name/r55/s37/bday.png" border="0"> </a>
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Gays are 1 in 10. That's hardly an equal split of tax dollars. There's a higher percentage of Christians in my country than in yours. And, as a solution to the taxes-going-to-the-wrong-causes dilemma, I invite all gays to find a big island somewhere and start their own country -- it's not that hard -- which would be 100% gay-supportive. Then they wouldn't have to keep whining at us to change our faith, and we wouldn't keep having to ask them to kindly back off.
What? I'm not whining at your to change your faith. I don't give a sh** about your faith, all I want is for you to keep it out of MY life. If gays are 1 in 10 then gay marriages would be around 1 in 10 as well. So the tax argument doesn't work. Why should my taxes only go to straight marriages, yet I can't marry a woman?
It wouldn't actually be that easy for me to find my own island full of gay people actually either. I shouldn't have to leave my family anyway just because some weird Christians don't want me to have equal rights.
I'll keep out of anyone's life who doesn't interfere with the practice of my faith. The Christian faith is a way of living, permeating every interaction with others -- it's not simply praise-n-worship time on Sundays, or somesuch thing that can be "kept to oneself". When I was little, my friend's mom told me that I should keep my Christianity to myself -- an exhortation we often hear today. Only problem with it is it's the definition of a biblical Christian to share his or her faith. It's not a selfish religion, where we say, "Good for us; let everyone else burn", or, "Live and let damn." Not sharing the vitally necessary truth of Christ with the rest of the world would be an act of pure hatred on our parts! One Greek word for the Christian faith is "scandalon", from where we get "scandal", originally meaning "offense". Christ said that His message always offends initially, by its very nature, because it points out the truth that we are all in the wrong. No one wants to hear that, but in the end, that truth sets them free after they accept it and its solution.
sigholdaccountlost wrote:
It comes down to personal beliefs vs. putting your personal belifs on everyone
I know it doesn't sound like it to you, but in fact, your statement presents a false dichotomy. "Evangelicals" are, well, evangelical. You can't be isolatedly evangelical, now can you?
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Gays are 1 in 10. That's hardly an equal split of tax dollars. There's a higher percentage of Christians in my country than in yours. And, as a solution to the taxes-going-to-the-wrong-causes dilemma, I invite all gays to find a big island somewhere and start their own country -- it's not that hard -- which would be 100% gay-supportive. Then they wouldn't have to keep whining at us to change our faith, and we wouldn't keep having to ask them to kindly back off.
What? I'm not whining at your to change your faith. I don't give a sh** about your faith, all I want is for you to keep it out of MY life. If gays are 1 in 10 then gay marriages would be around 1 in 10 as well. So the tax argument doesn't work. Why should my taxes only go to straight marriages, yet I can't marry a woman?
It wouldn't actually be that easy for me to find my own island full of gay people actually either. I shouldn't have to leave my family anyway just because some weird Christians don't want me to have equal rights.
I'll keep out of anyone's life who doesn't interfere with the practice of my faith. The Christian faith is a way of living, permeating every interaction with others -- it's not simply praise-n-worship time on Sundays, or somesuch thing that can be "kept to oneself". When I was little, my friend's mom told me that I should keep my Christianity to myself -- an exhortation we often hear today. Only problem with it is it's the definition of a biblical Christian to share his or her faith. It's not a selfish religion, where we say, "Good for us; let everyone else burn", or, "Live and let damn." Not sharing the vitally necessary truth of Christ with the rest of the world would be an act of pure hatred on our parts! One Greek word for the Christian faith is "scandalon", from where we get "scandal", originally meaning "offense". Christ said that His message always offends initially, by its very nature, because it points out the truth that we are all in the wrong. No one wants to hear that, but in the end, that truth sets them free after they accept it and its solution.
You should not have the right to legally and politically inflict your beliefs on me though. I think Christianity is weird and pointless, it irritates me. Yet I do not try and prevent you from going to church, praying to your 'god,' believing whaterv you want to believe. What if my religion dictated that it was wrong to be straight, and only gay people get into heaven? Should I then campaign to ban heterosexual marriage? Try and see this from my point of view. If the majority of society was gay, how would you feel if we stopped you having the same rights on the basis that we believed it was wrong?
Ragtime wrote:
sigholdaccountlost wrote:
It comes down to personal beliefs vs. putting your personal belifs on everyone
I know it doesn't sound like it to you, but in fact, your statement presents a false dichotomy. "Evangelicals" are, well, evangelical. You can't be isolatedly evangelical, now can you?
But you shouldn't be able to LEGALLY prevent people from doing X, Y or Z. You can knock on my door preaching about shite all you want. But you shouldn't be able to prevent me from having equal rights just because your weird beliefs don't fit in with my life.
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
sigholdaccountlost wrote:
It comes down to personal beliefs vs. putting your personal belifs on everyone
I know it doesn't sound like it to you, but in fact, your statement presents a false dichotomy. "Evangelicals" are, well, evangelical. You can't be isolatedly evangelical, now can you?
But you shouldn't be able to LEGALLY prevent people from doing X, Y or Z. You can knock on my door preaching about shite all you want. But you shouldn't be able to prevent me from having equal rights just because your weird beliefs don't fit in with my life.
Sopho, as much as I agree with you, I don't think there was any call for you to call the beliefs 'weird'
_________________
<a href="http://www.kia-tickers.com><img src="http://www.kia-tickers.com/bday/ticker/19901105/+0/4/1/name/r55/s37/bday.png" border="0"> </a>
There's a big difference between Christians (or any other religion) being allowed to preach their faith, and forcing the tenets of their faith on others, i.e. telling others what to do or how to live (or what not to do). It's like the difference between allowing the Catholic Church not to religiously re-marry divorcees, and legally banning divorcees, whatever their religion, from re-marrying.
I find it extremely annoying when people whose advice I never asked for tell me how to live, whether they're religious or not.
_________________
I am the steppenwolf that never learned to dance. (Sedaka)
El hombre es una bestia famélica, envidiosa e insaciable. (Francisco Tario)
I'm male by the way (yes, I know my avatar is misleading).
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
How come some millennials are lucky and others aren't? |
22 Dec 2024, 7:13 pm |
Tories: Lunch is for wimps and sandwiches aren't real food |
14 Dec 2024, 1:15 pm |