[KYA]

I'm amused. I intentionally did not argue the religious aspect of this topic and yet you all went there.


I'll even clarify my "in your opinion" comment:

Your assessment of your own viewpoints is based on...wait for it...your viewpoints. To claim that religious people have the circular validation in effect and ignoring your own is a denial of human nature.

Of course you think you're right. Who doesn't go around thinking their viewpoint(s) is right?

Furthermore, we all have a different reference point. Arguing that the Bible says this on this topic is moot. Why? Reference points. If you dislike/disagree with Scientist A you're probably not going to quote his paper.

[Videege]

KYA, on 09 November 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

I'm amused. I intentionally did not argue the religious aspect of this topic and yet you all went there.

To what were you referring then? Your silly argument about how current law is not discriminatory because all people have the choice to engage in a heterosexual marriage?

I would've thought the aforementioned analogy to interracial marriage could clear this up. Even though you may feel amused that you think you've got us all caught in your "It isn't discrimination!" logic, you miss the point entirely. The government denying legal marriage rights to homosexual couples not only violates the spirit and the language of the 14th amendment, it is just plain stupid: married couples produce increased socioeconomic benefits, and therefore our government has (wisely) granted economic boons and social (civil) protections to these couples, so why does our government deny homosexual couples these benefits and protections? Because they already have a choice to go out and get a heterosexual marriage?

No, it's because religious bigots can't deal with it.

KYA, on 09 November 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

I'm amused. I intentionally did not argue the religious aspect of this topic and yet you all went there.


I'll even clarify my "in your opinion" comment:

Your assessment of your own viewpoints is based on...wait for it...your viewpoints. To claim that religious people have the circular validation in effect and ignoring your own is a denial of human nature.

Of course you think you're right. Who doesn't go around thinking their viewpoint(s) is right?

Furthermore, we all have a different reference point. Arguing that the Bible says this on this topic is moot. Why? Reference points. If you dislike/disagree with Scientist A you're probably not going to quote his paper.

Replying to your edit:

Of course I think I'm right. But do I know I'm right? Of course not - who can know for certain? All I know is the evidence, that scientific common ground (by which you likely judge the large majority of all the perspectives you hold), is way more on my side than yours.

[dorknexus]

"Evidence is for schmucks." ~Christians

Quote

I'm amused. I intentionally did not argue the religious aspect of this topic and yet you all went there.

We kept calling you out on your shitty "it's not discrimination" logic and you kept side stepping it or repeating it so we moved on to more abstract issues.

[Videege]

I'll just add another interesting point here: why are you trying to defend the God hypothesis and attack atheism with logic?

Furthermore, why are you trying to defend the Christian God hypothesis with logic? I mean, come on. You talk about "circular viewpoints" and try to spin logic traps and you somehow don't see the logical contradiction of, say, infinite regression when you posit a God, much less an omniscient, loving, all-powerful, jealous, genocidal, maniacal, personal God?

Turn that razor-sharp logic knife on your own beliefs, and tell me how they come out of the crucible.

Honestly, I thought Christian theologians abandoned the logic front a long time ago.

This post has been edited by Videege: 09 November 2010 - 09:05 PM

[supersloth]

Dark_Nexus, on 09 November 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

"Evidence is for schmucks." ~Christians

Quote

I'm amused. I intentionally did not argue the religious aspect of this topic and yet you all went there.

We kept calling you out on your shitty "it's not discrimination" logic and you kept side stepping it or repeating it so we moved on to more abstract issues.

also, other people brought the christian argument up. we know he falls into that category from post history. not a hard leap.

[dorknexus]

quite the extrapolation good sir!

[Choscura]

Just a recap for everyone else who's looking at this thread and saying "what, another one of these shit-storms?" and avoiding reading any of it at all until it grows another 5 pages:

Somebody asked if attention whores are bad.

Lots of people agreed that they are bad.

Somebody brought up religion as a reason that they're bad.

Somebody argued that religion is bad.

Every once in a while somebody replies who hasn't read the whole thread and just wants to agree that attention whores are bad.

Everybody thought that their opinion about other people's invisible friends was so eloquent that it needed to be shared, because NONE OF THE OTHER IDENTICAL OPINIONS OF THE HUNDRED OR SO LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE IN EACH GROUP HAD APPARENTLY BEEN SAID OFTEN OR LOUDLY ENOUGH.


I'm all for open minded and fair discussion but this is ludicrous.

[Videege]

Choscura, on 09 November 2010 - 09:41 PM, said:

Just a recap for everyone else who's looking at this thread and saying "what, another one of these shit-storms?" and avoiding reading any of it at all until it grows another 5 pages:

Somebody asked if attention whores are bad.

Lots of people agreed that they are bad.

Somebody brought up religion as a reason that they're bad.

Somebody argued that religion is bad.

Every once in a while somebody replies who hasn't read the whole thread and just wants to agree that attention whores are bad.

Everybody thought that their opinion about other people's invisible friends was so eloquent that it needed to be shared, because NONE OF THE OTHER IDENTICAL OPINIONS OF THE HUNDRED OR SO LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE IN EACH GROUP HAD APPARENTLY BEEN SAID OFTEN OR LOUDLY ENOUGH.


I'm all for open minded and fair discussion but this is ludicrous.

Welcome to an old school forum. People engage in discourse.

[alias120]

The argument will keep going until either God appears to us all or we learn that space aliens created us. Even then, i'm sure somebody will argue that gay marriage is disrespecful to the aliens.

[Gorian]

but, what is the aliens are gay, or asexual?

[alias120]

Then I suppose we'll be fighting the aliens for the right to marry those of the opposite sex.

[Gorian]

Darn aliens, ruining everything

[Choscura]

how do you explain the concept of marriage to an asexual being?

"what we do is, we put bits of ourselves inside of each other and leave some of ourselves there."
"ew. why?"
"uh... well we don't do it all the time. in fact it's taboo to do it in public."
"I hope it becomes taboo to do it in private too."
"well mostly it's taboo in private too, unless you're married or in a relationship"
"what's married?"
"it's when you agree to only share bits with one person and to give them everything you own if you ever stop sharing bits."
"hahaha, what? you really do this?"
*embarassed silence*

[alias120]

Those selfish asexuals, keeping all their bits to themselves.

[baavgai]

As long as an alien isn't looking at you with an anal probe and a gleam in it's little black eye, it probably doesn't matter how it plans to reproduce.