-
@ACT-Crusader said in Religious type discussion:
@RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:
@ACT-Crusader said in Religious type discussion:
@RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:
The Marriage Equality debate here in Australia will display those traits in a very typically ugly way!
Isn't that the same "ugliness" that is on display now from some supporters of same sex marriage who label those that don't share their view as bigots, homophobes, out of touch, etc
Those are rather ugly lables but they are often at the heart of the matter.
And let me say, this debate is not "same sex marriage". To put this more correctly, this is about "Marriage Equality". Yes, there is a subtle but very important distinction.
And quite frankly, I find it disgusting that anybody should want to deny any other human being from the joy of being able to celebrate the love they have for another person.
That is where this debate should start and end.
Marriage is not a religious construct. It is a civil act and should have no bearing on religion except for those who wish to get married in a place of religion. But it is most often those with "religion" that want to deny this right of marriage to other human beings.
It is a quite simple fact that marriage equality will not result in any harm to any religious person or any religion yet it is most often the religious and those representing religions who are most staunchly opposed and those who wish to impose their own beliefs on others.
The tone of your post is akin to how you were describing theists in your previous post.
You are talking in absolutes using terms like "is not" and "simple fact".
The highlighted part you are being definitive about where things should start and finish. Some may think differently and prosecute it as passionately.
You are making the mistake of putting religion into the same basket as human traits.
To deny someone the right to get married based on their sexuality, which is a human trait that they cannot change, is discrimination. End of story.
Criticism of religion is criticism of an idea. Criticising ideas is absolutely fine across all forums... except religion for some strange reason. It's just an idea! Like all ideas, it should be properly critiqued to ensure it's not a stupid one.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Religious type discussion:
@RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:
@ACT-Crusader said in Religious type discussion:
@RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:
The Marriage Equality debate here in Australia will display those traits in a very typically ugly way!
Isn't that the same "ugliness" that is on display now from some supporters of same sex marriage who label those that don't share their view as bigots, homophobes, out of touch, etc
Those are rather ugly lables but they are often at the heart of the matter.
And let me say, this debate is not "same sex marriage". To put this more correctly, this is about "Marriage Equality". Yes, there is a subtle but very important distinction.
And quite frankly, I find it disgusting that anybody should want to deny any other human being from the joy of being able to celebrate the love they have for another person.
That is where this debate should start and end.
Marriage is not a religious construct. It is a civil act and should have no bearing on religion except for those who wish to get married in a place of religion. But it is most often those with "religion" that want to deny this right of marriage to other human beings.
It is a quite simple fact that marriage equality will not result in any harm to any religious person or any religion yet it is most often the religious and those representing religions who are most staunchly opposed and those who wish to impose their own beliefs on others.
I don't think it's just religious people who are opposed. There are also the traditionalist who believe marriage is between a man and woman. This was after all the policy position of all the major parties until very recently. I can't believe they were all bigots and homophobes back then,
Personally, I don't care myself. If gays want to call their civil unions marriages then good luck to them. At the end of the day, that's what it's all about. But I do understand that some people might be opposed to using the term marriage in this manner. That doesn't mean that they have anything against gays or gay unions. It simply means that they feel that traditionally the term marriage is used to describe a union between a man and a woman.
Like I said, if gays want to call it marriage then go for it. But I don't think screaming bigot or homophobe will help get this thing passed.
Well first RS, who says what is "Traditional"?
And the secondly, what forms or provides the basis of a belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman" only?
If someone has this "traditionalist" view they really need to look at what is the real basis for this view. I would hazard to guess that for the majority, it would ultimately be based on some religious indoctrination. For others it will simply be homophobia or bigotry or some other irrational fear.The idea that the family unit is comprised of a man and a woman and their biological children has long ago been discarded as the norm in Australia. Single parent, same sex parents, step parents, adopted children, etc have been the norm in Australia and most western countries as divorce rates are near 50%.
And as No Quarter has consistently made the excellent point, and that is to deny same sex couples the ability to get married is purely discrimination and ultimately should not be tolerated. If we stop same sex couples from getting married, then this is effectively the same as stopping myself and my wife from getting married because we are not of the same race, I am anglo and she is asian.
And as I said previously, marriage is simply NOT a religious construct. Religions do not own anything to do with marriage. Marriage significantly predates monotheism and most other religions. In fact for the great majority of the history of mankind, marriage has effectively been an early form of a contract and has been primarily about property and chattels.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Religious type discussion:
@RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:
@ACT-Crusader said in Religious type discussion:
@RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:
The Marriage Equality debate here in Australia will display those traits in a very typically ugly way!
Isn't that the same "ugliness" that is on display now from some supporters of same sex marriage who label those that don't share their view as bigots, homophobes, out of touch, etc
Those are rather ugly lables but they are often at the heart of the matter.
And let me say, this debate is not "same sex marriage". To put this more correctly, this is about "Marriage Equality". Yes, there is a subtle but very important distinction.
And quite frankly, I find it disgusting that anybody should want to deny any other human being from the joy of being able to celebrate the love they have for another person.
That is where this debate should start and end.
Marriage is not a religious construct. It is a civil act and should have no bearing on religion except for those who wish to get married in a place of religion. But it is most often those with "religion" that want to deny this right of marriage to other human beings.
It is a quite simple fact that marriage equality will not result in any harm to any religious person or any religion yet it is most often the religious and those representing religions who are most staunchly opposed and those who wish to impose their own beliefs on others.
The tone of your post is akin to how you were describing theists in your previous post.
You are talking in absolutes using terms like "is not" and "simple fact".
The highlighted part you are being definitive about where things should start and finish. Some may think differently and prosecute it as passionately.
LOL... Sure then please be my guest and correct these mistakes I have made.
Let us just make this very clear that it is religions and generally in this country it is the monotheistic religions (christians being the majority) who claim that marriage is somehow tied into their religion and that somehow their religion can dictate the definition of what is a marriage to the rest of society.
It is a simple fact of history that marriage predates all of the monotheistic religions by hundreds if not thousands of years. Therefore, what gives any religion the right to try to absorb this civil practice and turn it into a religious practice that they feel that they own?
By trying to co-op the civil practice of marriage and turn it into a religious event is utter bullshit.
And this is where almost all religions fail and in particular those "abrahamic" religions where by design and effectively by definition, they want to dictate to others how to think and act and be controlled.
All religion is man made in order to control and dictate to other men.
“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion.”
Robert M. Persig -
Well traditional in the sense that that is what has been practiced for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. People don't have to be religious to oppose change and I don't believe same sex marriage has ever been the norm or widely accepted in our recorded history (but I'll stand corrected if that is not the case).
Ultimately you don't necessarily need to be religious or a raving homophobe to be skeptical about gay marriage.
Again, I stand corrected, but my understanding is that civil unions between gay couples are basically recognised as marriages under law, it's just that the term marriage cannot be used. So the issue isn't gay couples not being able to enter into legally recognised unions but the word they can use to describe those unions.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Religious type discussion:
Well traditional in the sense that that is what has been practiced for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. People don't have to be religious to oppose change and I don't believe same sex marriage has ever been the norm or widely accepted in our recorded history (but I'll stand corrected if that is not the case).
Ultimately you don't necessarily need to be religious or a raving homophobe to be skeptical about gay marriage.
Again, I stand corrected, but my understanding is that civil unions between gay couples are basically recognised as marriages under law, it's just that the term marriage cannot be used. So the issue isn't gay couples not being able to enter into legally recognised unions but the word they can use to describe those unions.
But if one is not objecting on religious or homophobic grounds, then why would one care about the particular describing word used?
Words in our language change meaning all the time. I can't see any logical basis in people caring deeply about the precise meaning of the word "marriage" above all other words in our language. Unless they are religious or homophobic enough to use it as a way to ensure two other people can't express their love for each other in the same way as other married people. Which is a dick move IMO.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Religious type discussion:
Well traditional in the sense that that is what has been practiced for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. People don't have to be religious to oppose change and I don't believe same sex marriage has ever been the norm or widely accepted in our recorded history (but I'll stand corrected if that is not the case).
Sure but marriage changed repeatedly, 1000 years ago you didn't need the couple to consent, they just had to be there. So you could be married off (legally) against your will. 200 years ago only the church could marry people. So would you be against marriages with consent being called marriages? As they are against tradition up to that point. What about registar office marriages? They have been non traditional for the majority of human history. Should we call them something else?
People use tradition to cover up for bigotry or self interest.
-
@TeWaio said in Religious type discussion:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Religious type discussion:
Well traditional in the sense that that is what has been practiced for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. People don't have to be religious to oppose change and I don't believe same sex marriage has ever been the norm or widely accepted in our recorded history (but I'll stand corrected if that is not the case).
Ultimately you don't necessarily need to be religious or a raving homophobe to be skeptical about gay marriage.
Again, I stand corrected, but my understanding is that civil unions between gay couples are basically recognised as marriages under law, it's just that the term marriage cannot be used. So the issue isn't gay couples not being able to enter into legally recognised unions but the word they can use to describe those unions.
But if one is not objecting on religious or homophobic grounds, then why would one care about the particular describing word used?
Words in our language change meaning all the time. I can't see any logical basis in people caring deeply about the precise meaning of the word "marriage" above all other words in our language. Unless they are religious or homophobic enough to use it as a way to ensure two other people can't express their love for each other in the same way as other married people. Which is a dick move IMO.
As I said - tradition. I'm talking about the "that's the way things have always been" type of people. The ones who actually take the "death do us part" thing seriously. Some traditions are sacred to people. As silly as it is, they're just objecting to the use of a word, not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal or that gay unions can't be recognised by law.
Gollum:
Marriage (whether arranged or not) has still traditionally been between a man and a woman . I don't agree with their views, but claiming traditionalists are only hiding bigotry or self-interest is a trifle unfair. -
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Religious type discussion:
@TeWaio said in Religious type discussion:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Religious type discussion:
Well traditional in the sense that that is what has been practiced for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. People don't have to be religious to oppose change and I don't believe same sex marriage has ever been the norm or widely accepted in our recorded history (but I'll stand corrected if that is not the case).
Ultimately you don't necessarily need to be religious or a raving homophobe to be skeptical about gay marriage.
Again, I stand corrected, but my understanding is that civil unions between gay couples are basically recognised as marriages under law, it's just that the term marriage cannot be used. So the issue isn't gay couples not being able to enter into legally recognised unions but the word they can use to describe those unions.
But if one is not objecting on religious or homophobic grounds, then why would one care about the particular describing word used?
Words in our language change meaning all the time. I can't see any logical basis in people caring deeply about the precise meaning of the word "marriage" above all other words in our language. Unless they are religious or homophobic enough to use it as a way to ensure two other people can't express their love for each other in the same way as other married people. Which is a dick move IMO.
As I said - tradition. I'm talking about the "that's the way things have always been" type of people. The ones who actually take the "death do us part" thing seriously. Some traditions are sacred to people. As silly as it is, they're just objecting to the use of a word, not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal or that gay unions can't be recognised by law.
Gollum:
Marriage (whether arranged or not) has still traditionally been between a man and a woman . I don't agree with their views, but claiming traditionalists are only hiding bigotry or self-interest is a trifle unfair.The problem with the bolded bit is that it doesn't really exist, or only exists in a narrow beholder-defined timeframe. Nothing has "always been the way it is" - neither the meanings of words like marriage, nor the idea of marriage itself. Nearly everything anthropological changes over time.
Saying "that's the way things have always been" is really saying "that's the way things were for me growing up when I developed my own specific world view (and maybe for one generation prior to that) and I'm going to use that as a stick to beat people because they have a different world view than me"
-
@TeWaio said in Religious type discussion:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Religious type discussion:
@TeWaio said in Religious type discussion:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Religious type discussion:
Well traditional in the sense that that is what has been practiced for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. People don't have to be religious to oppose change and I don't believe same sex marriage has ever been the norm or widely accepted in our recorded history (but I'll stand corrected if that is not the case).
Ultimately you don't necessarily need to be religious or a raving homophobe to be skeptical about gay marriage.
Again, I stand corrected, but my understanding is that civil unions between gay couples are basically recognised as marriages under law, it's just that the term marriage cannot be used. So the issue isn't gay couples not being able to enter into legally recognised unions but the word they can use to describe those unions.
But if one is not objecting on religious or homophobic grounds, then why would one care about the particular describing word used?
Words in our language change meaning all the time. I can't see any logical basis in people caring deeply about the precise meaning of the word "marriage" above all other words in our language. Unless they are religious or homophobic enough to use it as a way to ensure two other people can't express their love for each other in the same way as other married people. Which is a dick move IMO.
As I said - tradition. I'm talking about the "that's the way things have always been" type of people. The ones who actually take the "death do us part" thing seriously. Some traditions are sacred to people. As silly as it is, they're just objecting to the use of a word, not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal or that gay unions can't be recognised by law.
Gollum:
Marriage (whether arranged or not) has still traditionally been between a man and a woman . I don't agree with their views, but claiming traditionalists are only hiding bigotry or self-interest is a trifle unfair.The problem with the bolded bit is that it doesn't really exist, or only exists in a narrow beholder-defined timeframe. Nothing has "always been the way it is" - neither the meanings of words like marriage, nor the idea of marriage itself. Nearly everything anthropological changes over time.
Saying "that's the way things have always been" is really saying "that's the way things were for me growing up when I developed my own specific world view (and maybe for one generation prior to that) and I'm going to use that as a stick to beat people because they have a different world view than me"
But it's always been that way for them and was the case for many many years prior to that. I'm not saying their view is logical, but I can understand it and it is not necessarily the product of religious fervour or bigotry.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Religious type discussion:
But it's always been that way for them and was the case for many many years prior to that. I'm not saying their view is logical, but I can understand it and it is not necessarily the product of religious fervour or bigotry.
Thsats pretty much the definition of bigotry tho' isn't it? The idea the way its been for them is the only valid way & anyone different should be stopped.
Thats no different from "In my day blacks knew their place" "you could hit kids, I was hit & it did me no harm", "you could call islander coconuts". Etc.
Anyone saying "I am not OK with this because its not what I am used to", can't really complain about being called bigoted - well, at least not when the thing they are against relates to people.
-
@gollum said in Religious type discussion:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Religious type discussion:
But it's always been that way for them and was the case for many many years prior to that. I'm not saying their view is logical, but I can understand it and it is not necessarily the product of religious fervour or bigotry.
Thsats pretty much the definition of bigotry tho' isn't it? The idea the way its been for them is the only valid way & anyone different should be stopped.
Thats no different from "In my day blacks knew their place" "you could hit kids, I was hit & it did me no harm", "you could call islander coconuts". Etc.
Anyone saying "I am not OK with this because its not what I am used to", can't really complain about being called bigoted - well, at least not when the thing they are against relates to people.
Use of a word traditionally used to describe a union between a man and a woman versus advocating slavery, child abuse and racial slurs.
No it isn't the same thing.
-
I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time. - Isaac Asimov
-
My pet fucking HATE at the moment is when people say that criticising a religion or adherents to a religion is racist.... and the media never pull them up on it.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Religious type discussion:
My pet fucking HATE at the moment is when people say that criticising a religion or adherents to a religion is racist.... and the media never pull them up on it.
Only the one pet hate?
-
Interestingly my (already very shaky) faith has pretty much disappeared since my wife got seriously ill a couple of years back. Under those circumstances you would perhaps think that prayer and all that would help, but I've gone completely the other way. It's not like I'm strongly against it, I just recognise it as being a complete waste of time.
By all means people can tell me they're praying and thinking about her and I appreciate that and know they mean well, but ultimately she'll be saved by science and medicine, not some all seeing all knowing entity.
-
I grew up Catholic, I even wanted to be pope as a kid, my hero was John Paul II. And although I do respect some religious entities ie current pope and his somewhat radical move in becoming more modern I'd have to say now I am a complete Atheist..with a surprising lack of tolerance for god botherers that push there faith on me if I'm at the pub.
My click over point was when a good friend my age, who was an atheist, a couple years back got diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer (after months of mis-diagnosis). He was totally at piece with his Atheism and even did an interview for Channel 4 in the UK prior to his death. (available on youtube if anyone wants to watch it just pm me). Anyway his last few months had a pretty lasting impact on me and had me change my priorities in life somewhat, but I'll tell you what it takes every ounce of restraint not to ram a fork into someones eye when they tell me his passing was god's plan to help me change my life.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Religious type discussion:
My pet fucking HATE at the moment is when people say that criticising a religion or adherents to a religion is racist.... and the media never pull them up on it.
What's ridiculous about that is that these are often people who otherwise rage against religion. Yet despite having a religion that is absolutely tailormade to be attacked due to it's completely open views about gays and women, they'll passionately defend it because a large number of adherents are exotic brown people. How ridiculous is that.
The same applies to this website. Insult and abuse the Christian religions and nobody cares. Suggest Muslims need to reform their religion and you get called a racist bigot.
Religious type discussion