What's your take on marriages?

[GoonerAlexandre]

can i ask you something cuk
you say religion is an ideology which you're right. But what isnt an ideology. The belief that everyone should be equal is an ideology what makes your ideology better than theirs?

My ideology isn't discriminating against anyone.
Better yet - I don't have to belive in an asshole of a God that will send me to the depths of hell to be a good person.

but i'm presuming you're ok with the law enforcement systems that keep people in check. You know police and jails things like that.

What do you mean by discriminating against anyone does that mean you treat every single person exactly the same?

if so why are you even talking about religious people specifically shouldnt you just be talking generally.

Gay people, for instance.

Religion does not discriminate against them, it merely asks them not to act on their sinful impulses

It's hard to even take statements like that seriously. If you don't think gay people have been discriminated against because of religious beliefs, then you have been under a rock for several years or are just flat out denying the obvious. Even asking them to not act on their natural impulses is a mild form of discrimination. Who the f**k are you and anyone else to tell them who they can and can't have sex with.

It only says in the bible that gay people should be killed, older versions of course, but if that ain't discrimination then I must not know what the word means.

I don't see it that way

[StLGooner]

Who the f**k are you and anyone else to tell them who they can and can't have sex with.

that was NAMBLA argument against pedophile laws.

Seriously, OMG please f***ing stop with your ridiculous statements and just plainly idiotic arguments. I think you and Alexis have clearly shown your bigotry and complete disrespect for certain types of people and groups and just plain ignorance.

but it was StL.
Im not saying that you are not right, im saying that it was 1 of the arguments.
ok so the conversation escalated too much.
i love you all guys, even cuki.
And just to clarify im not a christian, im a secular agnostic, a marxist post structuralist thinker who is interested in how humanity reacts to divinity, and how genocides occurs. And i feel that we are very close to one, and the rhetoric that the new atheist movement uses only push it closer in time.
if we really are about integration, love an caring our approach towards religion must be completly different, thats what im studing at the moment.

Who cares though, that had nothing to do with the conversation. It holds no weight to the point I was making, it was an idiotic comment used to provoke. Otherwise what is the point?

Your same argument that you use on us about our views on religion can also be turned back to you about your views on "new atheism". You and Alexis ask not to paint everyone with the same brush (which we never have, it's just your false assumptions), but you two are doing that very thing. There is nothing more to this "new atheism" besides atheist finally be brave and proud enough to stand up to religion, that's it. And just like in every group or race of people on earth, there are bad ones and there are good ones.

[Héctor24]

Yes.
Your incentive to do things, or to say it better, NOT to DO bad things is - JAIL.
You do a bad thing - you'll go to jail.

still doesnt explain why you would say this

I don't have to belive in an asshole of a God that will send me to the depths of hell to be a good person.

Why would you belittle religious people using incentives to not do bad things but be ok with it in pretty much every other situation?

Because my "actions" didn't take away any of Kim's basic human rights, while hers did.
She took away someones right to get married - which is guaranteed by the constitution of the USA - because of her religious belifes.

but her actions didnt take away from their right to get married all they had to do is go to someone who was willing to marry them. It may not be known to you because it isnt as widely reported but certain ministers and priests also reject marrying hetrosexuals based on lifestyle choices. You just move on until you find someone who will. Its like a christian going to a mosque and wondering why theey werent allowed to be married there. If many people take up your way of thinking and make a big point of it she could (she probably already has) lose her job. So what is worse someone losing their livelihood or someone not being able to get married. Now i already know your opinion on marriage we've already discussed this so i'm quite sure you dont even value marriage as important in this day an age.

In her case i know she isnt a priest but the problem here isnt her religion the issue is that they have a system where one person can stop an entire state from getting married if they want to. I'm not even sure why you need to have a license to get married.

I think you misunderstood something there mate.
I never told anyone how to live their life.
I merely stated that shed used her religion as an excuse to NOT do her job - for which she is paid for.
And my angle wasn't to "spread some kind of way of thinking".

come on now there's no point in even trying to claim this. Maybe you aren't explicitly but you're definitely trying to sway people a certain direction if you arent why would you even post. You started off criticising religion and you brought case in as evidence to justify your criticism. Whether or not you've conciously thought to spread you way of thinking doesnt matter no one presents an opinion with the intention of people ignoring it.

[Héctor24]

Who the f**k are you and anyone else to tell them who they can and can't have sex with.

that was NAMBLA argument against pedophile laws.

Seriously, OMG please f***ing stop with your ridiculous statements and just plainly idiotic arguments. I think you and Alexis have clearly shown your bigotry and complete disrespect for certain types of people and groups and just plain ignorance.

but it was StL.
Im not saying that you are not right, im saying that it was 1 of the arguments.
ok so the conversation escalated too much.
i love you all guys, even cuki.
And just to clarify im not a christian, im a secular agnostic, a marxist post structuralist thinker who is interested in how humanity reacts to divinity, and how genocides occurs. And i feel that we are very close to one, and the rhetoric that the new atheist movement uses only push it closer in time.
if we really are about integration, love an caring our approach towards religion must be completly different, thats what im studing at the moment.

Who cares though, that had nothing to do with the conversation. It holds no weight to the point I was making, it was an idiotic comment used to provoke. Otherwise what is the point?

Your same argument that you use on us about our views on religion can also be turned back to you about your views on "new atheism". You and Alexis ask not to paint everyone with the same brush (which we never have, it's just your false assumptions), but you two are doing that very thing. There is nothing more to this "new atheism" besides atheist finally be brave and proud enough to stand up to religion, that's it. And just like in every group or race of people on earth, there are bad ones and there are good ones.

it's a valid rebuttal though.

The basic argument

'who are you to tell people who thry can and cannot sleep with' is simply a poor argument and one that falls apart even with the slightest pressures.

We are told by law that we cannot sleep with family memebers and by law that we cant sleep with children. If people are arguing we should be allowed full consensual sexual freedom then you have to take it all the way. If you accept that there has to be some controls then you have to base it on consistent and justifiable criteria.

[Maradonna]

Who the f**k are you and anyone else to tell them who they can and can't have sex with.

that was NAMBLA argument against pedophile laws.

Seriously, OMG please f***ing stop with your ridiculous statements and just plainly idiotic arguments. I think you and Alexis have clearly shown your bigotry and complete disrespect for certain types of people and groups and just plain ignorance.

but it was StL.
Im not saying that you are not right, im saying that it was 1 of the arguments.
ok so the conversation escalated too much.
i love you all guys, even cuki.
And just to clarify im not a christian, im a secular agnostic, a marxist post structuralist thinker who is interested in how humanity reacts to divinity, and how genocides occurs. And i feel that we are very close to one, and the rhetoric that the new atheist movement uses only push it closer in time.
if we really are about integration, love an caring our approach towards religion must be completly different, thats what im studing at the moment.

Who cares though, that had nothing to do with the conversation. It holds no weight to the point I was making, it was an idiotic comment used to provoke. Otherwise what is the point?

Your same argument that you use on us about our views on religion can also be turned back to you about your views on "new atheism". You and Alexis ask not to paint everyone with the same brush (which we never have, it's just your false assumptions), but you two are doing that very thing. There is nothing more to this "new atheism" besides atheist finally be brave and proud enough to stand up to religion, that's it. And just like in every group or race of people on earth, there are bad ones and there are good ones.

dude:
1) Im have no idea who alexis is? you mean sanchez? i dont get it. for real.
2)i see a very evolved thinking from you whitch makes me really happy because it means that with every argument you and i both progress in our understanding, this is only good.
3) Scientifict approach towards religion is as old as philosophy, what have changed is that now you dont have to go to a library to get inform, you just do a google search. another thing that happened is that someway the definition of religion got twisted due to fundamentalism so now you have a guy like your bro Harris, who is no expert on the field, talking about it with no level of sophistication whatsoever and doing the same that the fundamentalist, making a literary interpretation of the scripture and mixing religion with institutions.
freud was brutal with religion in the XVIII
http://www.bartleby.com/290/5.html
http://www.freud.org.uk/education/topic ... pic/40006/
Nihilism as a consequence of the mercantilist approach that XIX thinkers took over divinity and religion.
its not new, and its not the first time that happened through history, Nietzsche killed god at the beginning of the XX century,
i can be a moron because im very passionate about the topic it happens to be what im studing at the moment (i was like this a couple of years ago but with jails and criminology)
atheist have always been brave. Reza Aslan (a very mediatic figure that tries to bring a more sophisticated and academic aproach to the discussion) "I think the principle fallacy of not just to the so-called New Atheists, but I think of a lot of critics of religion, is that they believe that people derive their values, their morals, from their religion. That, as every scholar of religion in the world will tell you, is false."
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/re ... wrong.html

i have nothing but respect for the atheist, it is in a way a belief system, i have no respect for illiteracy on the topic.
There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy. Thus Spoke Zarathustra

[Maradonna]

i like hector24.
are you a proffesional in some way?
because you have a very elastic mind, that requires some exercise.
do you have any credentials? if not kudos because it looks like you do.
you brain can do some very nice backflips.

[Héctor24]

i like hector24.
are you a proffesional in some way?
because you have a very elastic mind, that requires some exercise.
do you have any credentials? if not kudos because it looks like you do.
you brain can do some very nice backflips.

bro i just observe the world and try and look at things from every perspective even if that perspective isnt as popular.

[CukiZeGerman]

I'll bite, I cannot resist

still doesnt explain why you would say this

I don't have to belive in an asshole of a God that will send me to the depths of hell to be a good person.

Why would you belittle religious people using incentives to not do bad things but be ok with it in pretty much every other situation?

because the incentive of religious people is subject to interpretation and can be "missused" - and has been throughout history countless times.
For instance, a person can kill someone, justify it by saying that "they were doing gods mission" and think they'll still go to heaven - even tho' they killed someone.

My incentive is REAL, not subject to interpretation.
So, you have fundamentalist believers that will do anything to go to "heaven" and live their life by bible / quran or w/e. And even tho' they'll break laws - they will still think they did "gods work" and think they did nothing wrong.
Murderers throughout history used the lines "gods work" "god told me to do so" etc.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Someone who takes this bullcrap 1:1 is going to do a lot of harm - regardless of the laws of countries.

but her actions didnt take away from their right to get married all they had to do is go to someone who was willing to marry them.

Why should they ? Why should they have to travel out of town to get married ?
The US Supreme Court said that gay couples could get married - PERIOD.
It was her JOB to which she was ELECTED to give out marriage licenses. She didn't do it based on her religious beliefs. Even tho' she violated those same beliefs countless times before. She USED her religion as an excuse for her bigotry - it is really that simple.

Conscientious objection is bullshit in every sense of the way.

It may not be known to you because it isnt as widely reported but certain ministers and priests also reject marrying hetrosexuals based on lifestyle choices.

Why should I care ?
Those people didn't walz into a church. They were inside a STATE BUILDING. Their lifestyle choices or sexaul orientation are completely irrelevant when it comes to obtaining a marriage license.

Its like a christian going to a mosque and wondering why theey werent allowed to be married there.

no it's not.
This was a STATE BUILDING.
And by LAW of that state - gay couples HAVE the right to get married.
She has to abide the law just like everybody else. She didn't abide it because of her "religious beliefs".

If many people take up your way of thinking and make a big point of it she could (she probably already has) lose her job.

That is the whole point.
She had a job (for which she is paid) and she didn't do it - she SHOULD be fired / impeached. And I hope she will be.

Now i already know your opinion on marriage we've already discussed this so i'm quite sure you dont even value marriage as important in this day an age.

Church marriage - i don't give a damn about.

come on now there's no point in even trying to claim this. Maybe you aren't explicitly but you're definitely trying to sway people a certain direction if you arent why would you even post. You started off criticising religion and you brought case in as evidence to justify your criticism. Whether or not you've conciously thought to spread you way of thinking doesnt matter no one presents an opinion with the intention of people ignoring it.

I'm not trying to sway anyone into anything.

[StLGooner]

Who the f**k are you and anyone else to tell them who they can and can't have sex with.

that was NAMBLA argument against pedophile laws.

Seriously, OMG please f***ing stop with your ridiculous statements and just plainly idiotic arguments. I think you and Alexis have clearly shown your bigotry and complete disrespect for certain types of people and groups and just plain ignorance.

but it was StL.
Im not saying that you are not right, im saying that it was 1 of the arguments.
ok so the conversation escalated too much.
i love you all guys, even cuki.
And just to clarify im not a christian, im a secular agnostic, a marxist post structuralist thinker who is interested in how humanity reacts to divinity, and how genocides occurs. And i feel that we are very close to one, and the rhetoric that the new atheist movement uses only push it closer in time.
if we really are about integration, love an caring our approach towards religion must be completly different, thats what im studing at the moment.

Who cares though, that had nothing to do with the conversation. It holds no weight to the point I was making, it was an idiotic comment used to provoke. Otherwise what is the point?

Your same argument that you use on us about our views on religion can also be turned back to you about your views on "new atheism". You and Alexis ask not to paint everyone with the same brush (which we never have, it's just your false assumptions), but you two are doing that very thing. There is nothing more to this "new atheism" besides atheist finally be brave and proud enough to stand up to religion, that's it. And just like in every group or race of people on earth, there are bad ones and there are good ones.

it's a valid rebuttal though.

The basic argument

'who are you to tell people who thry can and cannot sleep with' is simply a poor argument and one that falls apart even with the slightest pressures.

We are told by law that we cannot sleep with family memebers and by law that we cant sleep with children. If people are arguing we should be allowed full consensual sexual freedom then you have to take it all the way. If you accept that there has to be some controls then you have to base it on consistent and justifiable criteria.

No you don't. Adults having sex with children and two consensual adults having sex is not even close to being the same thing. And then to have a set of beliefs and dogma that criticize a group of people based on their sexual preference is just wrong.

[Maradonna]

love how people quoted scripture to be taken literally, then they complain about fundamentalist.

[CukiZeGerman]

love how people quoted scripture to be taken literally, then they complain about fundamentalist.

Considering that a lot of people take it literally it's alarming.
There are also a lot of people which take the quran literally (Wahhabism).

[GoonerAlexandre]

Usual rhetoric, but mention North Korea, and suddenly, it's not all representative.

No wonder we have Hell, we have people here who wouldn't even repent if they found all of it was real, so proud

[StLGooner]

love how people quoted scripture to be taken literally, then they complain about fundamentalist.

Considering that a lot of people take it literally it's alarming.
There are also a lot of people which take the quran literally (Wahhabism).

Right! That is part of our argument. It's only taken literally by the hypocritical people that already live their life that way. When they don't agree or don't already live their life that way, then it's suppose to be metaphorical, or not taken literally. The double standard, the hypocrisy, and contradiction is what we're complaining about.

The problem is, everyone has their own version of something that many feel should only have one version. And of course, many think their version and their interpretation is the correct one. But who's to say who's is right or wrong.

[Héctor24]

I'll bite, I cannot resist

still doesnt explain why you would say this

I don't have to belive in an asshole of a God that will send me to the depths of hell to be a good person.

Why would you belittle religious people using incentives to not do bad things but be ok with it in pretty much every other situation?

because the incentive of religious people is subject to interpretation and can be "missused" - and has been throughout history countless times.
For instance, a person can kill someone, justify it by saying that "they were doing gods mission" and think they'll still go to heaven - even tho' they killed someone.

My incentive is REAL, not subject to interpretation.
So, you have fundamentalist believers that will do anything to go to "heaven" and live their life by bible / quran or w/e. And even tho' they'll break laws - they will still think they did "gods work" and think they did nothing wrong.
Murderers throughout history used the lines "gods work" "god told me to do so" etc.

You have people that will do anything for fame, anything for money, anything for their country etc some people even kill so that they wont go to jail. Fame and country in particular arent tangible incentives but we all know that it doesnt have to be tangible for people to be incentivised. Why because ultimately people do things to make themselves feel more comfortable and happier. Someone killing in the name of their country is no better than someone killing in the name of a religion. The end result is still the same. Realistically however the reasons for such things go way beyond country, fame and religion.

I'm not sure why it matters if they believe they were right or wrong to you. Does any criminal truely believe they did the wrong thing or more importantly do they care that they did a wrong thing. I would say in the vast majority of the cases no.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Someone who takes this bullcrap 1:1 is going to do a lot of harm - regardless of the laws of countries.

you're right but i'm yet to see a person take it literally. I've seen people use stuff like this when they need a justification for their own doings but i just have a feeling that someone who truly takes this literally will be find pretty early in their lives (probably as a child/teenager) when they have put a dissenting child to death or atleast requested it.
As you said people just use religion to hide behind. The same way countries also use democracy to hide behind.

but her actions didnt take away from their right to get married all they had to do is go to someone who was willing to marry them.

Why should they ? Why should they have to travel out of town to get married ?
The US Supreme Court said that gay couples could get married - PERIOD.
It was her JOB to which she was ELECTED to give out marriage licenses. She didn't do it based on her religious beliefs. Even tho' she violated those same beliefs countless times before. She USED her religion as an excuse for her bigotry - it is really that simple.

Conscientious objection is bullshit in every sense of the way.

It may not be known to you because it isnt as widely reported but certain ministers and priests also reject marrying hetrosexuals based on lifestyle choices.

Why should I care ?
Those people didn't walz into a church. They were inside a STATE BUILDING. Their lifestyle choices or sexaul orientation are completely irrelevant when it comes to obtaining a marriage license.

Its like a christian going to a mosque and wondering why theey werent allowed to be married there.

no it's not.
This was a STATE BUILDING.
And by LAW of that state - gay couples HAVE the right to get married.
She has to abide the law just like everybody else. She didn't abide it because of her "religious beliefs".

i wasnt familiar with who she was but i researched a bit midway through my last response and that is why i added this bit

In her case i know she isnt a priest but the problem here isnt her religion the issue is that they have a system where one person can stop an entire state from getting married if they want to. I'm not even sure why you need to have a license to get married.

The issue isnt that she's a bigot the issue is that one bigot is able to cause so much havoc. I'm not even sure why there's a system in place where people need to ask permission before they're married. The only thing that should be checked is whether or not people are currently married.

[Héctor24]

No you don't. Adults having sex with children and two consensual adults having sex is not even close to being the same thing. And then to have a set of beliefs and dogma that criticize a group of people based on their sexual preference is just wrong.

i gave incest as an example too. That can be between two adults. For example to adult siblings cannot get married.

But in response to what you said. I said consensual and in anticipation to what i believe you might say. Who are you to tell a person no matter what age they are what they can and cannot consent to.