Same sex marriage | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)
Where can I do the test (none / 0)
to proof that I know enough about evolution, to make sure that I'm no creationist?

"By what standards do you justify calling me a Nazi?"

You posted: "And you still haven't brought forward a good argument why you accept gays, although you think being gay is a disease..."
the connection between being sick and being accepted part of Nazi-ideology. A correlation between these two things wouldn't have crossed my mind.

"You know that chimpanzees are altruistic, too? Are they also self-reflective like we are?"

Either they are self-reflective, than they are able to act because reason justifies it, or they are not, in which case they don't act ethically. Ethics demand reflection. When action is not reflected it is controlled by instincts, not ethics. They act in a certain way because nature makes them act that way. You write that nature has nothing to do with ethics and still claim that animals act morally.
Either you separate nature and ethics or you don't. Choose!
Anyway humans justify what's considered right and wrong by ethical standarts. To realize that it really doesn't matter how long we are doing that, what was there first, the inhibition to kill or morals, all that is irrelevant.
What matters is what we define as ethical behaviour, nowadays.

"The idea of the evolution of ideas you got from me. So your "in case you didn't know" is incredibly arrogent yet idiotic. Influencing something does not make that process active."

It's neither arrogance nor idiocy, it's sarcasm. And influencing something makes you an active participant in it.

I wrote:
"I never tried to argue against nature. I argued against natural behaviours to be normative to human ethics.
Finding out as much about nature as possible is good and right, but saying something is natural, therefore it is good is wrong."

You replied with one word:

"Formative."

Then I answered:

"No, normative. In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong."

And now you write:

"Well, I wrote formative. Again: you can't just change the words I have used then argue against your distorsion. I meant nature is formative for ethics. And again, like I said before, nature knows no morals, she has no inherent values, there is no "ought to be" in nature, there is just an "is"."

WTF!
"And no, I did not distort any of your arguments. Maybe your horrible English did that for me."

Seems like that goes right back. Also I admitt that I would be much more eloquent if we could have this conversation in German.

"I have to bring your religion into this, because you are obviously a Christian who claims to accept gays. So why does your position differ from those of other Christians?"

Believe it or not, Christians are individuals and capable of making up their own mind. Not all Christians are idiots who claim that every word of the Bible is a literal truth. And some are even gay. Isn't that a crazy world we live in?
Are all atheists mass-murderers like Stalin?
Why does your position differ from that of other atheists?

"You OTOH judge evolution when you say how it ought to have happened to be morally acceptable."

Where did I do that. How often must I say that nature has nothing to do with discissions about ethics until you realize that maybe I'm not defending what you conceive as "the Christian position"?
I entered this thread to make clear that nature has nothing to do with (ethics and therefore ethics nothing with nature) and you keep attacking me because I judge nature on ethical standarts and then you call me stubborn.

Last but not least:

"Also, my argument not to discriminate against gays was not that it is natural but that it is not a deliberate choice. That is the very best argument there is,"

No, it isn't. The best argument there is is that they are not hurting anyone and there is no reason why we should discriminate against them. As long as they don't hurt anybody else whatever they do is just their own business.

On the other hand open tuberculosis is natural and not a choice, but I wouldn't like my children to be around anybody who has it.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/22/2009 04:56:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
One on the way... (none / 0)
to proof that I know enough about evolution, to make sure that I'm no creationist?

You don't have to know every detail, I don't know every detail, but if you acknowledge a principle you have to apply it every time. If you acknowledge that behavior in animals is shaped by evolutionary processes and you agree that humans have evolved then human behavior is shaped by evolution. You just cannot claim that you believe in evolution and then add: except when it comes to human behavior. Then you believe in something different that you just call evolution. Let's call it magiolution...

"And you still haven't brought forward a good argument why you accept gays, although you think being gay is a disease..." he connection between being sick and being accepted part of Nazi-ideology. A correlation between these two things wouldn't have crossed my mind.

I see. Well, I was referring to standard Christian ideology that regards being gay a disease which might be helped by spiritual healing/reconditionning. Not only the Nazis regarded being gay a (mental or moral) disease, but most of occidental Christianity (same goes for antisemitism btw). Also, I implied that you might have that stance because you said something like "if gay was natural then it could be considered a disease". And it is evidently natural, so I assumed you might think it is a disease.

Either [chimpanzees] are self-reflective, than they are able to act because reason justifies it, or they are not, in which case they don't act ethically.

Ok, that was a bad example because they might really be self-reflective. But then think lower, think capuccin monkeys. So, how does natural behavior become suddenly ethical when one is able to reflect upon it. Even free choice would still leave the evolutionary attained behavior the more moral choice (and animals have free choice, too). It is not ethical because it goes against nature, it is considered ethical because it was beneficial before that, so it got rationalized.

And influencing something makes you an active participant in it.

Yeah, influencing the path of a train by jumping in front of it does change the schedule. But seriously, the most active part you can play in biologic evolution is unprotected sex. You can actively pursue memetic evolution, though, because in that case the ideas are being selected by people/brains.

"normative-formative nonsense"

Yeah, sorry, my bad. I should have explained that I thought you misrepresented my position and not just written one word and assumed you would know that you should replace that in your sentence to correct the statement to fit my original intent.

Are all atheists mass-murderers like Stalin?

Ladyfriend already told you that atheism is not an assertive position but a rejection... Stalin did not murder for his atheism. But most active Christians who are seeking influence base their actions and convictions on their faith.

Seems like that goes right back. Also I admitt that I would be much more eloquent if we could have this conversation in German.

Calm down, I was just joking. But we theoretically could have, even though my vocabulary of evolution is probably better in English. As long as we don't have to write in Finnish. I get headaches by too many double-ääs.

"You OTOH judge evolution when you say how it ought to have happened to be morally acceptable."

Where did I do that.

You said: "expect from a Nazi like you. "They are not healthy, so let's get rid of them. Evolution means survival of the fittest."

I thought you implied that survival of the fittest applied to humans is Nazi-like and morally objectionable. Upon second thought you also could have meant letting (supposed) evolution taking its course is inhuman and Nazi-like. But still your objection to the idea that human behavior is shaped by evolutionary processes seems to be that this would not allow for humans to act morally. Or that the same behavior that was just instict a few generations earlier suddenly becomes ethical by just being able to think about it. Btw: I never said that being able to think about it did not also have very big impact. But it did not change the origin of "morality".


The best argument there is is that they are not hurting anyone and there is no reason why we should discriminate against them.

Let's not argue what the best argument is, they are both valid. From what I understand, though, many Christians live under the impression that in their view morally questionable behavior is somehow infectious and also does some metaphysical damage to their own well-being (e.g. "gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of traditional marriage"). It also might provoke the wrath of god or something. So they do hurt them (metaphysically).

On the other hand open tuberculosis is natural and not a choice, but I wouldn't like my children to be around anybody who has it.

Yeah, again, this is a real danger to the well-being of the children and also the individual suffers (bodily) from tuberculosis. So there are good reasons to both isolate and treat someone who has tbc. Being gay cannot be reasonably seen as a disease by someone who thinks it is natural.

by eborujion on 11/22/2009 08:31:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nature not normative (none / 0)
"You just cannot claim that you believe in evolution and then add: except when it comes to human behavior."

Yes, I can. Evolution does not influence every single part of everything.
Evolution of Quarks?
Evolution of the universe? Come on, tell me about genetic advantages of the universes behaviour, or it's procreation.
Biology is influenced by evolution. Physics is not. Neither is ethics. (unless you count evolution of thought, but that is not the same as biological evolution, on many levels)

"Not only the Nazis regarded being gay a (mental or moral) disease, but most of occidental Christianity (same goes for antisemitism btw)."

The Catholic Church doesn't. Even the current, by no measure progessive or liberal pope admitts that gay people are created like that and there is nothing people can do about it. When it comes to sex and marriage the Catholic Church holds gay and straight people to the same standarts.
Sex is a sin, unless it is within a marriage and the reason is to procreate.
Don't start it, I don't agree with that position, I just wanted to show that being gay is not considered a disease by the majority of Christians.

"it is considered ethical because it was beneficial before that"

Ethical always involves the element of consideration. It is true that some natural behaviours are considered ethical, it is also true that not all are.
Ethics is the process of moving beyond biological imperatives and acting according to morality that will hopefully become objective at some point. Without reflection no ethics.

"You can actively pursue memetic evolution, though, because in that case the ideas are being selected by people/brains."

That's what I was tallking about.

"As long as we don't have to write in Finnish. I get headaches by too many double-ääs."

Hyvä, koska minun tietokonella ei ole ä ja ö. Minä myös puhun tosi vähä suomea, mutta haluan opiskele.;)

"Let's not argue what the best argument is, they are both valid."

That's where we differ, because I don't accept the normative character of nature and see no reason why nature should be normative.
That's why I entered this thread.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/23/2009 12:09:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Late arrival... (none / 0)
Evolution does not influence every single part of everything.
Evolution of Quarks?
Evolution of the universe? Come on, tell me about genetic advantages of the universes behaviour, or it's procreation.

Obviously there is even an evolution of creationists: they claim they believe in evolution now, you being one good example of that... If we are talking about living organisms, evolution means EVERYTHING. It all only makes sense in the light of evolution. That is why all of us fight so hard against you creationists. Because you deny the very basis for making sense of how life works. Even if you just want one little exception, one little supernatural interference in the process of life. With this one interference the whole theory does not make sense. And as long as there isn't ANY reason or evidence to accept your claim, I rather stay with the consistent theory of evolution and everything. I also think that gravity does not allow for flying horses or angels.

But even before and outside of life, you can apply evolutionary principles and deduce evolutionary paths towards more stable states, e.g. for chemical systems, but also for astrophysical systems like our solar system or even entire galaxies.

Do you think a sky pixie conjured the first cell? No, that cell lastly developed from "anorganic" molecules and before that, there was a chemical evolution wherein molecules raced for dominance until DNA won out.

The Catholic Church doesn't. Even the current, by no measure progessive or liberal pope admitts that gay people are created like that and there is nothing people can do about it.

Of course, as the single biggest reservoir of closetted homosexuals in denial, I expect the Catholic Church to have a lenient stance on homosexuality. But let us listen to Ratze first:

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." Cardinal Ratzinger, 1986

Intrinsic moral evil... Objective disorder. OK, not disease, disorder, my bad.

The Catholic Church holds gay and straight people to the same standarts.
Sex is a sin, unless it is within a marriage and the reason is to procreate.

But they are not allowed to marry! So, same standards, my ass... That is a cruel joke, right? LIke taking someone's hand to slap him while asking: "Why are you hitting yourself?".

Ethical always involves the element of consideration. It is true that some natural behaviours are considered ethical, it is also true that not all are.
Ethics is the process of moving beyond biological imperatives and acting according to morality that will hopefully become objective at some point. Without reflection no ethics.

That is a-priori thinking. I get, I get it, solipsism, matrix, baby jesus, eternal damnation, alrighty. You think the concept of ethics or morality existed before there was anyone to adhere to. That is not how scientists and especially me assess the cosmos. I don't see how the exact same behavior that is beneficial and has evolved, will change in quality if someone can think about it, because the origins and the beneficiality stays exactly the same. By that standard, can't you also judge the behavior of animals, babies and mentally handicapped people (or even other cultures with different morals than you) as immoral, if they don't act the way you think is moral? It should not matter who is able to think about the behavior as moral or immoral, right?

It is true that some natural behaviours are considered ethical, it is also true that not all are.

Examples, please. I argue that there is no natural behavior that is absolutely unethical under any circumstances.

That is also why it does not make sense to say that ethical behavior is moving beyond biological imperatives. The biological imperatives are what you consider ethical! Some may have been amended or distorted, though...

>>"You can actively pursue memetic evolution, though, because in that case the ideas are being selected by people/brains."

>That's what I was tallking about.

But that still does not change the fact that the most sensible and deepest rooted ethics have a huge overlap with evolutionary acquired societal functions. And by that I obviously mean the latter cause the first.

That's where we differ, because I don't accept the normative character of nature and see no reason why nature should be normative.

Oh, noez, not again... I tried to explain that nature does not impose morals on beings, it is not normative. Nature has no goal and no intent. It is formative for morals and ethics, though, in the sense that behavior that is beneficial gets rewarded. And, as stated above, it is no coincidence that our so called moral values are based on these biological rules.

by eborujion on 11/27/2009 08:44:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Chihuahua (none / 0)
How's that as an aswer when you say that man is not able to influence biological developments. Is this little sick dog outside of evolution? Is it an idea and not an animal?

Another example:

Let's start talking about gene manipulated food and evolution.

"But even before and outside of life, you can apply evolutionary principles and deduce evolutionary paths towards more stable states, e.g. for chemical systems, but also for astrophysical systems like our solar system or even entire galaxies."

Now evolution has a direction? What has become of nature has no goal? And you can also deduce paths towards less stable states, e.g. decay and dying stars.
To me it seams that you have just substituted God with "fate" or "evolution" or whatever. If evolution (and natural laws in general) determines everything than evolution is almighty. It developed from a state that didn't obey physical rules, a state that was by definition metaphysical. When you now also tell me that you enjoy life you believe in something that came from a metaphysical state, is allmighty and benelovent. What does that sound like? Are you starting to become one of us? One of us... One of us... One of us...

"Intrinsic moral evil... Objective disorder. OK, not disease, disorder, my bad. "

In this very thread a pro-gay person called being gay "technically a disorder". When you consider sex that hasn't the aim of procreation a moral evil, then gay sex is always evil. It's the same with contrceptives.
Impotent men aren't allowed to be married either, or infertile people.
 Just accept that the Church says that the way they see it being married means that you have found a partner you want to father (mother?) kids with. When you take this definition of marriage it is impossible to marry gay men, because they can fuck as much as they want, but the result will never be offspring.
As I said: I don't agree with that, but at least it is consequent and propably a moral value that is not based on biological rules.
Hurting or even eating your own children happens in nature. I would like to hear when it is ok to eat your children?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/27/2009 10:53:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wha' abou' the chil'ren? (none / 0)
How's that as an aswer when you say that man is not able to influence biological developments.

Where have I said that? Of course humans can influence biological developments, especially in other animals and plants (or whole environments), but also within our own species.

>>towards more stable states, e.g. for chemical systems, but also for astrophysical systems like our solar system or even entire galaxies."

>Now evolution has a direction?

No, it has not the way you seem to imply. Trending towards or trying to maintain a stable state at every point is not a goal, there is no telos. It is only a direction in a very limited and short-term sense, like you adjusting your leg muscles to maintain an erect position is not the meaning of your life (I hope :). But that is more or less what evolution has in common with physical and chemical processes.

And you can also deduce paths towards less stable states, e.g. decay and dying stars.

Actually, decay and entropy are more stable states than growth and "extropy", and ultimately the whole universe supposedly tends towards that. But of course it is not impossible that there are regions that change towards lower entropy.

If evolution (and natural laws in general) determines everything than evolution is almighty. It developed from a state that didn't obey physical rules, a state that was by definition metaphysical.

I don't think I am able to follow you there. Evolution is not a being, it can't be almighty. (I can barely prevent myself from using the C-word again, as many creationists impute that atheists or materialists must put evolution in the place of a god. Atheism is not a religon, and evolution is even less so).

I did not claim that the abiological processes are identical to evolution, but that there are some analogous principles. Maybe a theory of evolution of matter can be formulated but I am not aware that it has been done yet or called that way. I tend to not make any claims about the state of the early universe because I don't know enough about it. But I challenge the notion that the early universe was metaphysical by definition, it was rather prophysical (as in: before our physical laws applied) or paraphysical (as in: different laws applied) or simply "unknown". "God did it" or "Hocus Pocus", though, do not seem like valid answers to me. You can personify natural forces and the laws of physics as much as you want, that does not really make them godlike entities. BUT, as I have stated in this forum before (not to you, IIRC): I think deism is a valid philosophical position. I don't hold it though.

">>Intrinsic moral evil... Objective disorder. OK, not disease, disorder, my bad. "

>In this very thread a pro-gay person called being gay "technically a disorder".

It does not matter what a particular pro-gay person concedes in a debate. I bet there even are or were many gays who consider(ed) their sexuality a disorder, sinful, morally corrupt or sick themselves, being conditionned by a bigotted society. The fact remains that there is no defendable objective "orderly state" that corresponds to a presumed disorder.

When you consider sex that hasn't the aim of procreation a moral evil, then gay sex is always evil. It's the same with contrceptives.

That is why we as a society have grown beyond the concept of intrinsic moral evilness. At least for now.

Impotent men aren't allowed to be married either, or infertile people.

That really is news to me! And I don't buy it. Are there specific tests whereby a priest tests how potent the applicants are? I bet there are many priests who are yearning to perform such tests...

Just accept that the Church says that the way they see it being married means that you have found a partner you want to father (mother?) kids with. When you take this definition of marriage it is impossible to marry gay men, because they can fuck as much as they want, but the result will never be offspring.

Oh, big misunderstanding. What the churches accept or what they define as marriage I could not care less about. Also, I do not care whether the churches believe gays deserve salvation. Because that concept does not exist to me. What I want though is that the churches and the believers just stfu about what other people can or cannot do with their lives. I also care about the secular recognition of the right of gay couples to form a civil union that is equal to marriage.

As I said: I don't agree with that, but at least it is consequent and propably a moral value that is not based on biological rules.

If infertile couples or older couples really were not allowed to marry, and if marriages would be annuled if one of the partners became infertile or the woman reaches menopause, it would be consistent. But what is the definiton of marriage as a bond for procreation if not a biological rule??? The exclusiveness is solely based on the biological fact that they can produce offspring... Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Hurting or even eating your own children happens in nature. I would like to hear when it is ok to eat your children?

Like I said at least 2 times before: it does not matter what occurs elsewhere in nature, it only matters for humans what humans have done and do. And there is of course a major psychological (which I'd argue is hardwired, Kindchenschema/small child pattern etc.) inhibition to kill or eat children. There is not so much restraint, though, to hurt children because it can be beneficial to immediately punish bad behavior to prevent fatal future consequences.

But I will paint a scenario wherein I considered it ethical to eat your children: In a major famine, if the children have died and there is a chance that you survive if you eat their bodies and you most certainly die if you don't. I would argue, though, that the inhibition in this case is so strong that not many people would be able to overcome it and rather die/kill themselves. I certainly would do the latter.

I don't really know what to make of the fact that you lost your obsession with just killing and replaced it with eating children.

by eborujion on 11/27/2009 07:13:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who cares? Fuck 'em! (none / 0)
"Of course humans can influence biological developments, especially in other animals and plants (or whole environments), but also within our own species."

Well, you did write:

"But seriously, the most active part you can play in biologic evolution is unprotected sex."

I seriously hope, that's not your expanation for the chihuahua.;)

"Evolution is not a being, it can't be almighty."

A being with biological restrictions cannot be allmighty.

"But I challenge the notion that the early universe was metaphysical by definition, it was rather prophysical (as in: before our physical laws applied) or paraphysical (as in: different laws applied) or simply "unknown"."

You mean prephysical not prophysical, don't you?
Metaphysical means beyond physics. All scientists that I heard of claimed that the laws of physics stop working just before we reach the time of the Big Bang. That makes the Big Bang beyond physics. We have a word for that and it's metaphysical. So, why make up new words?

"Impotent men aren't allowed to be married either, or infertile people.

That really is news to me! And I don't buy it."

There are no tests done by the church, but if you can proof that the man is impotent the marriage can be annulled when the marriage wasn't "consumated". Problem one is that the pope has to do it and problem two that most men wouldn't want to admitt it. Nevertheless, it has happened several times when society in general still cared about the position of the church.

"What the churches accept or what they define as marriage I could not care less about."

Try to look at it from the other side. How about one of your extrem American churches (Evangelists or whatever they are called) would say I don't care about what these atheists define as Theory of Evolution, as long as it contains the possibility of creationism.
See how stupid that sounds, but you are similarily hijacking the term marriage.
Or maybe they say: We accept the Theory of Evolution and will further it's understanding, when you agree to call it "The complicated way to describe how God has created the world". All that would change would be the name. There can obviously be no problem with that, can there?
If people would never have started talking about giving gay people the right to marry, but only to give gay couples the same legal protection as married couples that would have been a whole different story. The GLBT was a little unsensitive when they decided to fight for the right to marry. I understand them, but it was a tactical mistake and not very diplomatic.

"What I want though is that the churches and the believers just stfu about what other people can or cannot do with their lives."

That's a childish position. When you are thouroughly convinced of something you try to convince others. (You do so with atheism, btw)
That's like saying:
I want you to stfu about what religious people can or cannot do with their lives.
When they want to spend their lives talking about religion, than that is as much their right as it is yours to fuck another guy in the ass.

"If infertile couples or older couples really were not allowed to marry, and if marriages would be annuled if one of the partners became infertile or the woman reaches menopause, it would be consistent."

No. Once the marriage started all bets are of. After the first fuck as a married couple you are stuck with each other in eternity.
Even in the time when your physical bodies don't exist anymore.

"The exclusiveness is solely based on the biological fact that they can produce offspring... Way to shoot yourself in the foot."

Now wait a minute. You say the exculsiveness is based on biological facts and still you want to change it. When the laws of nature were formative in this their is no reason to change it. That would be madness.

"Like I said at least 2 times before: it does not matter what occurs elsewhere in nature, it only matters for humans what humans have done and do."

I don't get it. Why do you think that humans are somehow different from the rest of the animals? Different biological rules for humans? Is this a foot-shooting competition?

"I don't really know what to make of the fact that you lost your obsession with just killing and replaced it with eating children."

My new obsession is eating children?;)
I add one to that:
When is it ethical to rape babies?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/28/2009 03:11:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My big fat greek prefix (none / 0)
>Well, you did write:

"But seriously, the most active part you can play in biologic evolution is unprotected sex."

Yeah, both statements I still will repeat as valid for my opinion. We are talking about different plains here. One is the pure determinist biological plain. The other is the illusionary plain where you have choices. In other animals we can influence evolution as a selective force. In our own evolution we are influenced by our own (evolutionary formed and psychologically amended) drives and tastes. So, it's not like we can manage our own evolution totally ad libitum. You have the illusion of mating choice though, when it really is a mixture of more or less fixed action patterns, acquired psychological preferences and coincidence (probability).

>You mean prephysical not prophysical, don't you?
Metaphysical means beyond physics. All scientists that I heard of claimed that the laws of physics stop working just before we reach the time of the Big Bang. That makes the Big Bang beyond physics. We have a word for that and it's metaphysical. So, why make up new words?

"Metaphysics" was conceived millenia before any theory of a big bang and possible prophysical conditions were even thought of. And metaphysics certainly does not refer to the conditions prior/during the big bang. So, it is a new concept with a demand for a new word. You already tried to hijack the word evolution and call it god... I won't go for that. I also won't call gravity angel-weight and I won't call nuclear power satan's invisible ore sunshine.

Btw: don't try to out-smartass me, you will hurt yourself. Meta- is greek and so is pro- meaning before. Pre- is latin. I made the word up, I make the call about its components.

>How about one of your extrem American churches (Evangelists or whatever they are called) would say I don't care about what these atheists define as Theory of Evolution, as long as it contains the possibility of creationism.
See how stupid that sounds, but you are similarily hijacking the term marriage.

I don't know how you can confuse that. One is a scientific concept, the other one is a societal function. That is why it sounds stupid! You can't just redefine scientific concepts like you want, you need evidence. The important thing here is that the secular term for it is also marriage. The Christian churches have no copyright on that! But if it was for me, they even could have it. What you call it is not really important.

>The complicated way to describe how God has created the world". All that would change would be the name. There can obviously be no problem with that, can there?

OK, where do I sign? I can't wait to have evolution accepted by religionists... Now, wait a minute!!! If the name implies that the process was not scientific at all, then there is obviously a big problem with that. I already told you that what you believe in is not really evolution. Especially if you take this definition.

>>"What I want though is that the churches and the believers just stfu about what other people can or cannot do with their lives."

>That's a childish position. When you are thouroughly convinced of something you try to convince others. (You do so with atheism, btw)
That's like saying:
I want you to stfu about what religious people can or cannot do with their lives.

How is that childish? In your opinion, individual liberty is childish? You're on an American site, remember? Bold print marks the very big difference. I don't tell religious people how they should live their life. I also do not try to convince people of atheism. I just like discussing and mocking religious beliefs for the bullshit they are. If people are deconverted by that, their faith must have been weak all along. Isn't faith defined as believing in something no matter what evidence and rational arguments exist against that position? If anything, in this debate, I try to convince you that your position is just disingenuous creationism. You don't have to compromise your beliefs at all to accept that.

>When they want to spend their lives talking about religion, than that is as much their right as it is yours to fuck another guy in the ass.

Bigotry rears its ugly head again. They do not only talk about religion, they influence public morality and legislation. If a gay guy fucks someone in the ass who is not consenting, he will be punished. Religion has fucked humanity in the ass without unanimous consent for thousands of years and is still in high regards.

>>"The exclusiveness is solely based on the biological fact that they can produce offspring... Way to shoot yourself in the foot."

>Now wait a minute. You say the exculsiveness is based on biological facts and still you want to change it. When the laws of nature were formative in this their is no reason to change it. That would be madness.

Sigh... the important factors are the absolute exclusiveness and the condemning of non-procreational bonding. The "laws of nature" obviously do not prevent sexual desires that are not in the interest of procreation. Nature does not control who can love whom. Abrahamic religions OTOH try to regulate who can love whom by not allowing certain constellations based on the biological fact that they cannot produce offspring. In a way they arbitrarily set the rule that sex is only for procreation when in reality it has many more functions.They use a biological fact (not a "rule of nature") as an excuse to impose their arbitrary moral norms on other people.

">>Like I said at least 2 times before: it does not matter what occurs elsewhere in nature, it only matters for humans what humans have done and do."

>I don't get it. Why do you think that humans are somehow different from the rest of the animals? Different biological rules for humans? Is this a foot-shooting competition?

You can't be that stupid, can you? Obviously, you tried to aim at your small brain and shot your foot instead. There are no different biologic rules. Humans differ from all the other animals in that they ARE different animals. Just like ants and giraffes are different animals who live different lives. Do you also ask why giraffes don't inhabit giraffehills and don't have a giraffe queen? No? That is not how they roll?

>When is it ethical to rape babies?

You are a sick person. I don't blame you. You suffer from a sick religion. Poor guy, abused by religion your whole life... And now you can't even think for yourself... I tell you when it is morally OK to rape small children according to your own holy tome: when angels visit you and your neighbors want to rape them (everybody knows how inconvenient it is when that happens), you can offer them your baby daughters to rape instead (Genesis 19). You already told me you get inspirations from the bible. I can clearly see that. Only the perversion that is religion can justify baby rape.

by eborujion on 11/28/2009 06:37:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't have answered during the week (none / 0)
I try to cut down my internet time and concentrate on more sensible things.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/27/2009 10:54:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Same sex marriage | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)