-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Yep, totally agree.
I don't have a problem with what happened at all. I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of the arrogant comment.
-
@akan004 said in Religious type discussion:
@No-Quarter said in Wallabies v Springboks:
Ohhhh one of those fence sitters aye. Comon @akan004 make up your mind... is the Easter Bunny real or not??
I haven't met one atheist who can categorically say that there's no God- ultimately we cannot know for sure. Even Dawkins agrees with this. But the level of arrogance among most atheists is undeniable..
LOL... one of the single most stupid things I have ever had the displeasure of reading on the Fern.
I honestly doubt you are anything close to agnostic because no one who is truly agnostic would say such a thing about Atheists!
You do understand it is near on impossible to prove a negative and that to take it further, the onus and burden of proof lies with those making the claims. And quite frankly, thus far there is not a single substantiated piece of proof or evidence for the existence of any god or gods claimed to exist by their followers.
Further, Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any god or gods....
Of the thousands of gods created and worhsiped by mankind over the many millennia, the Atheist simply does not hold a belief or faith in the existence of any of those gods.
And really, the only difference between an Atheist and any one of the say monotheistic religions is that the Atheist lacks in a belief in one more god than the montheist.
It is only the ignorant theist who tries to shift the burden of proof on to those who do not hold the same belief.
My honest opions about religion go like this... An individual's private faith in the existence of a god or gods is their own business. However organised religions are a scourge and have been throughout history. They way they always attempt to dictate how everyone should think and act regardless if they are of another faith or without faith.
The one thing that I absolutely cannot stand in the typical theist is the absolute abhorrent and gross arrogance, egotistical way where they thank "god" for all the wonderful things in their life or some sporting achievement thinking that some "god" has bestowed upon them this special honour or special talent yet has allowed how many millions of innocent children to die and how many millions of people who have suffered in every way possible.
That attitude makes me sick to my stomach.
It is not the Atheist who is arrogant, but the theist who thinks that their own personal beliefs and those of whatever religion they follow dictates have more value than the person and persons beside them or on the other side of this planet.
The thing that every theist fails to consider is that why is their belief and faith any more important, why is their god or gods any more important and real than those other religions which they discount and abhor! The Christian belief is not any less or any more real than that of the hindu, buddhist, etc.
The Marriage Equality debate here in Australia will display those traits in a very typically ugly way!
-
@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
-
@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
How do you suggest someone who doesn't support Marriage Equality should be labelled? It's going to be for one of the reasons you mention or one of the etc.
-
How about they just say they don't agree with it and not resort to that.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@ACT-Crusader That's all well in good if it's just a discussion in a vacuum, but if they're trying to defend their position using bigoted reasons then why not label them in that way?
-
@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.
Religious type discussion