Gays and Bush.

The Core RPGC Main Forum
41

. demi: I’m saying I don’t know which the major religion is (whether Catholocism is a part of Christianity or vice cersa). Thus all the /s.

Some people don’t seem to catch on.

All of Catholicism/Christianity (again, whichever is the big daddy of them) in general.

Yes, it’s constitutionally guaranteed, but people and institutions (such as the Church) influence many, many people. If the Church were gone, people probably wouldn’t be as uptight as they are now.

RC, go read Angels and Demons. It talks about Science as a psuedo-religion and complimenting the Church as well. But yeah, Science could be considered a religion, but at the same time, not really because it actually explains the unexplainable and backs it up, whereas religion just makes up some random excuse (OGM HE ROZE TO HEVEN) without having proof. And it would still leave people with a sense of emptiness because it doesn’t leave any leeway in any beliefs; either you’re right or wrong.

42

People need something to believe in because they’re weak. I’ll save that rant for later.

RC: the difference between science and religion is that science is not a belief. It is more of a methodology. When you argue about anything scientific, you’re going to have problems if you can’t reproduce your results. Religion relies on this thing called blind faith to explain what people can’t understand or don’t know. If you’re going to argue against believing in things which were brought thanks to science, like biology, chemistry, physics, then you’ll have to argue about every aspect of your daily life, why people live as long as they do, why you can drive your car, why you have as much food to eat. Science isn’t about belief.

Science and religion do the same thing in the way they tell you what’s what. However, only science can back it up with some results, while religion will rely upon making you think whatever it is you want to think, or rather making you think you really think whatever it is you’re thinking. Religion has been a form of control upon civilization for millenia. Its not going to change now. This is how religion is political and science isn’t.

And now I must quote Cloth Hat

And lo, on the first day the forum members created the religious thread and it was good.

On the second day the forum members exchanged religions, and shared their beliefs and it was interesting.

On the third day the athiests began mocking the religious posters, and the religious posters began trying to convert the heathens and it was less good.

On the fourth day the posters began to quote bible verses they did not understand in order to reinforce their position and was bad.

On the fifth day the posters stopped listening to one another and merely concentrated on making their own posts as long and non-sensical as possible without respecting anyone elses beliefs but demnanding that their own be acknowledged as truth and it was terrible.

On the sixth day the forums were consumed in all encompassing holy flames and it was awful.

And on the seventh day the mods locked the thread, and it was good.

43

Okay Sorc, I’ll give you that much, not everyone needs something to believe, but many do. I don’t follow any religion, I have a huge crazy code I live by, and I believe in that code. I take that the same way as how some people believe in god . I fill those “holes” with my own ideals, some people need guidance to do so. I assume that you’re another one of those people who probably created your own set of ideals, a lot of the people here probably are, and you most certinaly believe in that. That’s the point I was trying to make when I said that people need something to believe in, I don’t think I would be able to function if I didn’t have a little bit of faith, everything isn’t right there in front of us.

Now how people go about fullfilling said need is where the problem happens.

44

Let’s see if I can explain this so you understand my question. Here are your words, except the combination adjective has been removed and replaced with a simpler one.

Originally posted by Cala
The whole idea of straight marriage is (quite naturally) the whichever Church.

Your sentence doesn’t make sense. You’re lacking at least one word that would complete the thought. What was the entire sentence supposed to mean?

45

Marriage (as we know it today - a man/woman relationship) was thought up by the Church. Before them and even during the early times, polygamy was a big thing; children were blessings of God. Thus, if you enter into a gay marriage, you can’t biologically have children, so you’re not blessed and you’re fucking with God’s order of things.

46

Just to clarify Cala, Christianity is the belief in Christ. Catholicism and all that jazz falls under that. It’s like the top of the list, the most general title, and all the different belief sects are contained in it.

Originally posted by demigod
Yes, it’s Epic’s. I don’t love it, but to each his/her own. [/b]
I don’t expect you or anyone else to, I just put it there because I was quite annoyed at the time and believe it. Nothing like self-quoting :stuck_out_tongue:

47

Too many C’s to keep straight. Thanks Epic.

48

The Church did not invent monogamy. Look back at the Oddyssey, where Homer’s wife could not be married unless Odysseus was proven dead or he had left for a long time. Monogomous marriage existed for a while before then, too. Where did you research your completely unfounded claims?

49

People still fucked around a lot back then, it was just more frowned upon for women to do it (in fact, always has been). Christ, look at Roman mythologies. Its a fucking orgy. And in greek and roman societies, homosexuality didn’t carry the same connotation either.

50

Originally posted by Cybercompost
The Church did not invent monogamy. Look back at the Oddyssey, where Homer’s wife could not be married unless Odysseus was proven dead or he had left for a long time. Monogomous marriage existed for a while before then, too. Where did you research your completely unfounded claims?

The Church may not have invented monogamy, but mythology isn’t a strong argument to use in any situation. Penelope didn’t WANT to marry any of the suitors: she tricked them into waiting as long as she could by promising to choose after she had finished knitting Odysseus’ shroud, which she would unravel at night while they slept. In the end, they were all violently killed by Odysseus and Telemachus, so you have to figure that they couldn’t have been good guys. Meanwhile, Odysseus spent a significant portion of the ten years between leaving Troy and returning home on what’s-her-name’s (Callisto?) island as a love slave and didn’t seem to complain too much.

51

I believe that mythology is a very strong argument when we are speaking about what people believed. Greek mythology reflects the beliefs of Greek culture, and they were technically monogomous.

52

Homer was a man and mythology is a representation of culture. So if you look at mythology, you can make assumptions on attitudes and expectations. Its like looking at a Twelth Night and seeing what people thought of religious extremists like Malvolio. You can make certain assertions.

53

Originally posted by Cala
Marriage (as we know it today - a man/woman relationship) was thought up by the Church. Before them and even during the early times, polygamy was a big thing; children were blessings of God. Thus, if you enter into a gay marriage, you can’t biologically have children, so you’re not blessed and you’re fucking with God’s order of things.

Your knowledge of history is astoundingly bad. Marraige made up by the catholic church? This is by far absolutely the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. Polygamy a big thing? Monogamous marriage has been the norm of human society for well before the Catholic Church ever graced the world with its presence. Sure, maybe it didn’t follow the same rules as catholic marriages, but in general relationships have been monogamous for a very long time, and different societies (many of which had never been exposed to the catholic church) have imposed different sorts of sanctions to those who fall from the path. Others mention mythology, but our only record of the past does not come from this. People studying cultures in the 19th century which have undergone relatively little change in many thousands of years have made the same remarks…don’t assume all cultures in the world can be boiled down to our Greek and Western roots.

Originally posted by Sorcerer
Once again, the problem is blatantly obvious: Religion. Should be done away with forever, in my opinion.

This is reductionist fallacy at its best. You’re missing the point. It’s not religion that is the problem at all, it’s merely one tool conservatives use to try and maintain the status-quo. I can tell you now, people might respond “well, it’s wrong” or “it’s ungodly” when asked why they believe homosexuality is wrong, but it’s not necessarily the way all of them think. Remove religion from the picture but assume that there is still a strong societal structure with sanctions against homosexuality. People are still going to think its wrong, and many people do without soncsciously connecting it to any sort of religious doctrine. Not to say religion is a serious impediment to gay marriage, but it’s just one form of sanction our society has imposed. Many other cultures in the world have developed their own set of sanctions against homosexuality apart from any sort of religion (primitive belief structures are usually not associated with ‘religion’ - a more modern, complex structure), lending support to the idea that union between man and woman is something sacred most areas of humanity have developed apart from any sort of imposing religious structure.

54

Yeah… Cala, no offense, but you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Read up on what Christianity and Catholicism are and their history before you speak for them “in general”.

Science is most definetly not a religion. It is sets of rules and laws based on tendancies pulled from results of controlled experiments. Religion implies faith and belief. There’s nothing to believe in science, since it is all based on observation.

55

Originally posted by Sorcerer
Well, I guess you’re gonna have to be pretty damned insulted then. Religion is one of the most pointless institutions I can think of, and all it ever does is cause problems. No good comes out of it, at least not that I can think of right this very second.

I’ll think of something good that comes out of religion. In this case, I’ll choose my faith as an example. Do you realize how many resources are poured into home communities and poorer places by churches? A lot of churches send people, money, and supplies to these places to provide basic medical care, food, education, and useful skills for people that are lacking those things. This isn’t just in other countries… it’s also in places like West Virginia, where some people are just unbelievably dirt poor. My grandparents are foreign missionaries, and I see firsthand how much work and love go into doing those things. I can’t speak for every single person who participates in religious activites, but it’s not done to make the people who are doing the doing look great - it’s done out of the love for thy neighbor that’s being misinterpreted by so many (not necessarily by the people here) and dissed by at least a few (and that is by people here). Around the world, people have a sense of community and belonging because of their faiths, and that’s not a bad thing. The bloodshed and persecution based on religion are based on things that are not part of what it’s supposed to be; those things are godawful, and we as people need to do something about it.

Yeah, I’m very insulted, not just by you but also by the other people who agree with you. I don’t come here and preach to everyone about how “since you don’t agree with me, you’re damned forever”, but I still have respect for what other people think, and I expect to receive a certain amount of respect for my beliefs. Yes, you say that you don’t need anything in which to believe, but how does that give you the right to stomp on what multitudes of people (including myself) believe? (Just for clarification, this isn’t just Christianity - this is for any system of faith.) Each person needs to believe in something, even it’s the belief that there is nothing in which to believe - I respect that. It’s sort of like how the choice not to choose is still a choice. Maybe I’m being overly sensitive (but I don’t think I am), but I think what you said is just very small and ugly. I’m not even trying to flame about it, as it’s counterproductive.

I expected this thread to be an intelligent discussion of the issue in the topic, but instead it’s degenerated into not just Christian bashing but religion bashing. I’ve got to learn from my experience to set my expectations a little lower.

56

Though Cless, you have to admit that most people have somewhat blind faith in what scientists say - even though true scientists know what it’s all about, the average person just reads, “scientists prove gravity’s acceleration at 10 meters per second per second!” (or whatever), and will say to their neighbor, “hey, did you know gravity is 10 meters per second squared?” and then if the neighbor says, “well, actually, I did some tests and found that that’s not quite accurate. Then person one says, that’s bullshit! SCIENTISTS say it’s right!” And then you have just as much stupidity as you see in religious conflicts. So there’s not so much a blind faith in science as a blind faith in people with degrees from universities. And while real scientists of course aren’t like that at all, there is that sentiment among “the masses” as it were.

Just a little something to think about, I suppose. To try and get stuff back on topic…

Look. This topic isn’t about fucking religion at ALL. This is about civil rights. People are allowed to believe in whatever religious philosophy they want, because…well, they just can. It’s a fact of life. This isn’t even about sex or sexuality. Keep your mind out of that. This is about whether a man and a man or a woman and a woman should be allowed to have the same legal partnership benefits as a man and a woman. In the eyes of the law, men and women have equal citizenship - if you disagree with that, say so. We’ll talk. But otherwise, it seems clear to me that constitutionally banning homosexual marriage is an untenable idea. Not on the basis of “religion sux0rz” nor on the basis of “bush is a biased sexually frustrated pig,” but on the basis of, “men and women have equal rights, and so any combination of two of them ought to have equal rights as well.”

Nulani put it well. (kudos)

-Mazrim Taim

57

Well said, Maz.

58

I think gay and lesbian couples could use legal bypasses while homossexual civil union doesn’t get protected (instead of forbidden as Dubya wishes) by the constitution.

I don’t have full knowledge of the rights and duties involved with civil marriage in US, but I think it’s basically about the right to share all properties and the right to a divorce. Someone please correct me if I am wrong on this.

So, while they can’t marry legally, they could just get a few things written in their wills (“shall I die, I leave everything for him/her”) and if they wish, get a contract about living together.

I know this sounds higly cold, calculist and unsensitive… But I view it only as a way to show to the world that you can’t keep a homosexual couple from living as a married couple. Kinda a ghandi-like resistance, where they would get what they want by sheer perseverance.

They could also create a gay church and use the ‘Freedom of Religion’ to get married. I am dead serious about this.

59

Originally posted by Mazrim Taim
Though Cless, you have to admit that most people have somewhat blind faith in what scientists say - even though true scientists know what it’s all about, the average person just reads, “scientists prove gravity’s acceleration at 10 meters per second per second!” (or whatever), and will say to their neighbor, “hey, did you know gravity is 10 meters per second squared?” and then if the neighbor says, “well, actually, I did some tests and found that that’s not quite accurate. Then person one says, that’s bullshit! SCIENTISTS say it’s right!” And then you have just as much stupidity as you see in religious conflicts. So there’s not so much a blind faith in science as a blind faith in people with degrees from universities. And while real scientists of course aren’t like that at all, there is that sentiment among “the masses” as it were.

Since you gave me this food for thought, I’ll bite. :stuck_out_tongue:

I’d have to say that it isn’t the same at all, because most people receive enough schooling and have done or seen enough experiments or real life happenings to realise that gravity’s acceleration probably is 10 m/s/s. You can’t go through life and observe one day that God probably did create the universe, because either you accept what the pastor says or you don’t. It isn’t the same with science, because both people can see that an object falling will accelerate. One person may blindly uphold that the scientist is correct on the basis that a scientist is better funded, has better equipment and can more rigorously control his conditions than some guy in a house with potatoes on a string and a stopwatch. They are not disputing the basic fact that an object falling does accelerate because they see it around them all the time and they’ve already reached a conclusion about it in their heads. It’s not the same with religion, because if you let some guy wander around he’ll never suddenly reach the conclusion through his observations of the world that he’ll go to heaven with a guy named St. Peter at the gates :stuck_out_tongue:

60

Well, the thing is no one knows if homosexuality is “right” or not. By that I mean good for society, which means not bad for society. I just think there needs to be more research and more understanding about the nature of homosexuality before we legalize gay marriage. Because I can tell you right now if theres substanital evidence that homosexuality is significantly caused by environmental factors(which it may be; homosexuality is caused by both genetic and environmental factors, but we’re still not sure about the extent of either of them) than most people will want to somehow try to get rid of those environmental factors. And in any society, men play certain roles, do certain jobs, and women play other roles and do other jobs. What roles and jobs do gay people fulfill? We really need to think about these questions.