Religious Absurdity Vol 1: "I'm not gay. Go ahead, measure my asshole." - Page 3

But you forget: First, liberals like BR dictate that you're not allowed to believe it's wrong, lest you are a hateful bigot. Secondly, liberals constantly make their arguments by pulling at heart strings through the use of victims and human props. He's making nothing more than emotional argument. Of course, emotional arguments are not without merit entirely. However, they are invalid when one is making them from a position of intellectual dishonesty. Moreover, when made dishonestly and/or for purely political/tactical purposes, they constitute a sort of tacit ad hominem argument. The clear implication is that anyone who disagrees with the argument is also feeling-less monster.

Think of all the harm gays have endured over the years and still to this day, and you casually dismiss it as "pulling at heart strings" and "making nothing more than an emotional argument". Unbelievable.

And the "other side" is the same. The only support for their positions is "...because God said so."
If one can make up some authority figure out of thin air to back their position... Well, that's intellectual dishonesty as well. Worse, in fact, since they don't even pretend to base their beliefs on what's best for society.

You just did it again. You're not making a logical argument, you're making an emotionally-charged one. You're saying I should support gay marriage because of all the "harm" gays have endured, as if this was the compensatory round on a game show or something. In all seriousness, you don't even know my views on gay marriage. And you certainly can't deny the tactics that liberals use wrt victims and props:

• Healthcare: line up sick people, the poor, those who are denied coverage, those who can't afford coverage, people with cancer, etc.
  
• Social programs: Put a few 75 year old women up there and have them talk about choosing between dog foods for dinner.
  
• Tax Reform: Put some working poor class and middle lower income blue collar individuals on a soap box and have them state that with the proposed changes, millionaires "get" enough money to buy a new Lexus and they only get (literally this time) enough for anew muffler. "They ain't America!"
  
• Immigration: Line up immigrant after immigrant who tells his or her story of living in a trailer with 12 kids and being abused by the Border Patrol."

This is what Democrats do, Hands. They've been doing it for years. They use people as victims and props.


First, not all opponents of gay marriage have religious reasons. Secondly, what do you mean "make up some authority?" Because, it sounds like you're attacking every believer on this planet. Third, who gets to decide on what's best for society? And who decided that gay marriage was so? You, apparently.

Gay marriage is a complex issue. Like many issues though, it's been polarized and argued from points of extremism on both sides. The only thing I can do is give my beliefs that are based on facts (not the other way around):

>I believe gay marriage is eventually going to be the law of the land. Why? Because in our system, the people eventually get what they want. Polls now show that a narrow majority of the country says they "support" gay marriage. As for me, my position is this: I support civil unions (with all the benefits of marriage according to local, state and federal law). I don't think the government has a right to recognize one union between two people, and not the other.

That said, I don't support calling this "marriage." First, society itself and all major religions have defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman for thousands of years, with very little exception until recently. Therefore, we must accept that allowing gay "marriage" means that we change the definition of the term not just as a government, but as a society. This, in fact, is what many gay activists are seeking. They want the minority to force the majority of society to change. And that is where I get off the bus so to speak, because changing the definition in society attempts to force me to accept a definition of marriage with which I don't agree based on my religious beliefs. I don't seek to push those beliefs on others. I have no problem with the government allowing gay couples the same civil benefits. In fact, I think that is right thing to do. But if the government calls it "marriage," it acts as an advocate for society changing it's accepted definition. It also sends the message that religions who don't support gay marriage are wrong. This would be a defacto attack on those religions who don't support calling it "marriage," and in my opinion would violate the 1st Amendment.

There are two other reasons I don't support changing the definition of marriage: One is the root of homosexuality itself. Pro-gay rights folks rightly point out that homosexuality occurs in many animal species. What they fail to point out is that the "cause" of homosexuality in humans has not been shown to be exclusively a biological thing. Some evidence to that fact exists, but the research also shows environment contributes to sexual identity. This means there is at least SOME element of choice overall. My own personal belief is that most gays are "born that way." However, I believe some really do choose their orientation. This means that all arguments equating being gay to being a certain race are invalid. It's simply not the same, and research shows it. This leads to the last point....

Given the above, we must accept that we're not just changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples....we're changing the definition of marriage based on an element of choice. This begs the question...for what other choices will we change the definition? It's a slippery slope argument to be sure, but it's a valid one. For example, some people believe in marrying more than one person. Why not allow that? What if evidence comes to light showing that polygamy has a biological element to it? Given that we changed it for gay marriage, one what grounds can we deny polygamists the right to marry? One what grounds can we deny the right to marry animals for tax benefits alone? It might be an absurd example (well, strike that..it IS an absurd example!), but the point remains. If we do it for one, we have no moral or even legal grounds not to do it for everyone.

All of this points me in the direction of simply calling gay "marriages" civil unions. It avoids the trickiness of government redefining cultural norms. It eliminates the slippery slope arguments, because we're not using the same term. It avoids the problem of redefining the term when an element of choice is involved. It doesn't stomp on others religious beliefs. Most importantly, it gives gays the civil and legal rights they deserve as human beings. And this should be the goal. The goal should not be to alter the fabric of society as we know it.

Lord forbid we should point out people who are suffering and try to change things to reduce such suffering! How manipulative!

That is an interesting idea. I suppose that the Supreme Court agrees as well? If not, when the ruling is made then you will actually have the force of constitutional law to back your position too.

So you back away from the argument actually being made and attack the religion of the person. Got it.

Same song, third verse. . . \

No. The same old verse is people using religion as an excuse for bigotry.

I said there were exceptions to the definition. As for my religion, take your sense of moral supremacy and shove it up your ass.

It really doesn't matter what the argument is. Anything short of agreeing with your position of full support for gay marriage constitutes bigotry. Well done, Mr. open-minded liberal who respects all viewpoints.

No. You're perfectly free to oppose gay marriage in your church.

Nice.

Since when you do even believe in the concept of morality? Since when has the constitution mattered to you? I've got to say...you're literally her most intellectually dishonest person I've ever encountered.

There is no legitimate reason for the state to be involved in marriage. Get the state out of it and the endless arguments and tension will vanish.

I am free to oppose it anywhere I like, actually.

Does that mean the state will recognize no unions at all? There will be no joint tax returns, no joint checking accounts, no rights of survivorship, etc?

Still about the religion and not the laws.

That whole middle part rings very hollow reading your posts lately. Very hollow. Glad you are so superior to all Christians while you tell them the things you do. I am sure it increases the happiness of the most people when you do.

No, you are not. You are the one telling Christians everywhere, and many others the gems that you post on this forum daily. Spread the love man. Spread the love.

Agree. The state should recognize, for taxes and for legal rights, any union between any two adults, and they should not call it marriage, nor should they recognize any unregistered partnership, married in a church or not. Churches can decide for themselves their own definition of marriage. Of course that means gay inclusive churches can choose to accept gay marriage, as well.

No. It doesn't.

Honestly, SDW, I've never seen BR post anything with any appearance of a lack of morals, ever. I cannot say the same for you.

So if a church says to have sex with a goat or a child and someone opposite it due to their religion saying this is wrong, you have a problem with that?

I voted no on Prop 8 as well and believe New York has finally done homosexual marriage the right way by passing it through the legislature rather than having judges widen existing law through dubious legal reasoning. That doesn't mean your foundation for your beliefs is acceptable and the foundation for someone else's beliefs should exclude them from the political process. That reasoning renders them as sub-human in your mind and leads to abuse of rights.

Stop treating people badly.

Goats and children can't consent. It's been explained to you numerous times. I'll try again, as I am sure you're intelligent enough to understand. The question is whether you're honest enough to stop using this ridiculous false analogy.

Consent is a legal concept. Likewise you clearly are muddling legal concepts here. Consent is a concept that is used to excuse one from criminal liability. Thus if I am in possession of your car, I cannot be tried for the crime of stealing it because I have your consent. If I put my penis in your anus, it isn't rape because I have your consent.

When you have sex with an animal, it isn't against the law due to consent. You aren't raping an animal. The animal cannot excuse you from legal prosecution. You are implying consent where no exists.

Likewise you note with the child an area where even if consent is given, we do not accept it. We also do not accept consent from adults on a multitude of matters. No one can consent to be a slave as an example. If you and I go to a boxing club and beat on each other, and I turned around and attempted to charge you with assault, you'd declare the concept of consent excuses you from criminal liability.

As I've said before and you've ignored, consent is societal endorsement. The societal endorsement must have a sound legal basis. I specifically noted that anal intercourse in the past could not be consented to by two parties even when they were adults. We have plenty of areas now where consent is nothing more than an accepted norm with no real legal basis beyond being what the majority endorses. The age of 18 being the accepted age of maturity is prime example of that. Monogamy or relationship exclusivity is another example. They aren't science, they are religious barnacles mixed with years of legal reasoning and would fall if challenged to the same degree under the same legal reasoning.

However that aside, what BR has said is that if someone opposes a law based on religious reasoning, they ought not be allowed in the political process. They are imposing fairy tales on others. If one of their fairy tales involves not having sex with animals or children, should they be excluded from participation if the rational for passing such laws from them is "God said it is wrong."

Do you believe they have equal footing? Should their vote count equally? BR holds that his basis for his beliefs are superior and ought not be treated the same as inferior beliefs. He believes those with inferior beliefs need to be treated in an inferior manner. Do you endorse that?

Yes, you are the victim here, and I am the evil oppressor.

Also, you have something a cornered animal does not. Reason and logic above base instincts. An internet forum is not a cave, and you are not trapped here and in any danger. You lashing out at anyone cannot be defended and still afford you any kind of moral high ground afterwards.

Make sure to tell us which island to avoid when you lash out too far at the end. Also tell us who cornered Anders Breivik since the insane rationales that you spit out for treating people in a sub-human manner fall right in line with his craziness. I suppose he was just the cornered animal striking out against the "multikulti's" who should be yelling at themselves for his shootings.

Dude, get help.

No, you showed there were exceptions. And what you do with your ass is none of my concern.


So my morals are inferior because they are derived from an old text?

My two moral imperatives are to simply "do no unnecessary harm" [/quote]

Who decides what's necessary?


So basically, communism or socialism. Got it.


The invisible "asshole" doesn't threaten torture in case one fails. He offers forgiveness for failing.


Gays have every right to love each other and be together, hence my support for civil unions. They don't have the right to redefine what marriage is for the remaining 90 to 95% of the population.

The state should not give preferential treatment to one union over another. Its job is to protect rights, not grant them.

No. Voluntary associations (marriages, unions, partnerships, etc.) should not have to be "registered" with the state at all. Period.

Of course, that would mean the state would have to radically alter (or abolish) its current system of taxation, which I also wholeheartedly advocate.

First ... I never said religious zealots were the only opponents... but a casual observation seems to indicate that MOST opponents of gay marriage ARE basing their opposition on religious arguments.

Second... I mean those that do use religion to back up their opposition to gay marriage (or any other issue.) ... "God" is a made-up authority figure... show me that he's real and I'm willing to retract that statement and publicly admit I was wrong.

Third... It depends on what sub-set of society you live in.
The U.S ?... voters USUALLY get to decide issues like this (though in this particular case, the constitution already seems to indicate that all persons are to be treated equally under the law) ... sometimes it's just the elected reps ... sometimes it's decided by the select few persons sitting on the Supreme Court.
Or perhaps you live in Iran ... It'll be decided by Mr. Ahmadinejad, and anyone who doesn't like his decision can say so out loud and then be put to death.

So the principle you endorse here, people who love each other, aren't harming another party and just want to be happy is the only thing that matters? No matter the configuration, age and number of parties? Is that what you endorse?