1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Is gay marriage really that different?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by useless, Feb 3, 2011.

  1. newfangle

    newfangle hates you.

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,046
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    People still talk about gay marriage? I guess the true victory for gays will be when people give less of a s**t about it than regular marriage.
     
  2. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,717
    Location:
    Scotland
    No, no, I'm afraid he's only the UKIP level. The BNP are worse than that at their most friendly, and their most friendly is a blatant lie.

    Actually, if we follow the usual Greek warrior-logic on these things, that should have been the only area in which he is straight. ;)
     
  3. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    I think it confuses a lot of fundamentalist Christians because they typically claim that atheism is a myth.


    You really can't divorce the two topics, at least in this country. The main basis for discriminating against gays is because it is a sin. All the other objections are now not PC enough to be of any use.
     
  4. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    19,067
    So the UKIP is for people who want to be racist with style, while the BNP is for people who just are racists?
    Got it.
     
  5. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,717
    Location:
    Scotland
    If only they had as much faith in Webster as the do in Moses. ;)

    Give or take, yeah. UKIP are your hard-line Tories, middle-to-upper-middle class sort, while the BNP are right-wing populists (with a fascist core), with the sort of working-to-lower-middle-class base that tends to attract.
     
  6. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    UKIP racism is more a middle/upper class thing, BNP is lower class.
     
  7. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,717
    Location:
    Scotland
    Well, a lot of the voter-base is, but the core membership sits more towards the lower-middle. They win a lot of disaffected working class voters, but hardcore fascists are rarely working class themselves. (Neo-Nazis, maybe, but they tend to have that whole Strasserite quasi-socialist shtick.)
     
  8. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    Well yeah there's some overlap. Obviously they'd be on the same bench in a coalition ;)
     
  9. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,717
    Location:
    Scotland
    Heh, no doubt there. :lol:

    Although, oddly enough, the fascists in the EU parliament have been surprisingly bad at getting together. All the Western European ones are so obsessed with "respectability" that they constantly fall out with each other, and none of them will touch the out-and-out fascists in Hungary, Romania, etc. with a ten-foot barge pole. :crazyeye:
     
  10. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    42,650
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    It seems excessive. While I think that civil unions are a fair compromise, it seems easier just to tweak the laws around marriage rather than rewrite them to remove them.
    I'm just arguing that it's awfully circular to assume that it does. People think that it gives insight into God, but can't even tell that it's deceiving them about simple reality. Now, in a technical sense, the Bible gives us insight into the actual God. For example, we know that people who're intensely convinced that they commune with 'the real God' aren't aware that He's innocent of many of the sins they ascribe to Him (for example, the Passover). So, the real God doesn't seem to feel the need to correct the misconceptions of people who think they're communing with the real God.

    Ostensibly, all of nature is useful for learning about the real God. The Bible, being such a source of deception, probably isn't the place to start. Jesus is wrong about Adam, but correct about God? Paul speaks for God, but treats sexuality as if it's binary?
    Yeah, sorry for the tone. The problem is that you're seeing a tired-old-argument rehashed. It's not common knowledge that there never was an Egyptian enslavement of the Hebrews (as in the story of Exodus), but it really should be. It's just not something that Christians learn from other Christians (for obvious reasons). It's kinda common knowledge, though.

    Remember, Mobboss was trying to suggest that the story regarding Abraham orginated ~1900 BC. While the Bible certainly has a timeline suggesting that, it's impossible for any 'Abraham' at the time to be the patriarch described in the Bible, because the segue in the story to the Exodus isn't a true story. And historians have a good idea of when the Abrahamic aspect of the faith was introduced into the synthesis.

    You're right, it's off-topic though. It's just frustrating that Christians know the stories of the Bible but don't really know the history of it or where the Bible is reasonably accurate or when it isn't.

    And a final reminder: the timeline portrayed in the OT Bible is not convergent (at all) with when the myths were created. I mean, ostensibly, the myth about Noah begins before myth about the fall of Canaan (in the stories). Practically, we know that the myth of Noah was created and amended into the faith centuries later. Or, more simply, the story that Jesus was born during the census but before Herod's death requires at least one of those stories to have been formed well after the origins of Jesus were forgotten to the author. It's a cognitive error to forget which is story timeline and which is an historical timeline.

    There are no parts of the Bible 4000 years old, and no stories from 4000 years ago that are in the Bible. The majority of the OT is much younger than that, and merely contains a storied timeline stretching back as far as it wants.

    Well, you clearly only glanced at the wiki.
    Let's check out your Jewish Virtual Library.

    :rotfl:


    :rotfl:


    No, guy. The JVL gives a synoposis of the timeline as described in their mythology. "The T-800 was invented before the T-1000" kinda stuff. What I'm talking about is the "James Cameron first penned the idea in 19xx and then got funding in 19yy" kinda stuff.

    No, I guess not. And I guess it's not closed enough to think they're good references, either.

    Not really. There're actual scholarly sources you know. It's not like this is arcane stuff. It's just not something that Christians teach each other, despite the claims of being theologians or 'anointed' or whatever.
     
  11. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    And I think it seems like society would be better off that way. I realize that I'm in the minority and that will never happen, however.

    First, I think it's unfair to say that the Bible is "deceiving" anyone. There's no evidence that any part of it was composed with deliberate fraud or distortion in mind, so I really don't think deception is the proper term.

    Secondly, by definition, it is impossible for God to sin, since sin is typically defined as a violation of divine law. (It's not just a religious word for unethical) I'm sure you know that, but I think we should be more precise.

    Third, I'm still really not following. Again, even assuming that your assessment of the Bible is correct, why must it be that someone who believes the Bible in every respect about God is not worshiping the actual God? Why are you making God's participation in particular events several thousand years ago an essential factor of His identity?

    Fourth, I was under the impression that you were an atheist. Are you just making an argument for how you think the Bible could rationally be said to give any sort of information about an actual God, if He exists, or what?

    Also a valid option. ;)

    Just kidding! More seriously, I don't think that's a fair comparison. Suffrage is an essential element of our government, politics, and civic identity. State recognition of marriage is considerably less important. Also, I think the state of suffrage is rationally defendable as, in general, a superior alternative to others, while the same cannot be said for government-recognized marriage.
     
  12. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    49,428
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    It's a fair comparison in that in both cases you are getting rid of the government institution because it's broken, instead of fixing it.
     
  13. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    But in extending suffrage, you would be making it more perfect, while with government recognized marriage, you'd be assisting in the perpetuation of the problem.
     
  14. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,717
    Location:
    Scotland
    Is "government-recognised marriage" really the problem, though? It seems to me that it's simply a form of standardised contract, so if you have a problem with the state recognising it, then your problem is really with the fact of the state itself.
     
  15. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    It's not a matter of standardized contract, but privileged and regulated standardized contract. If it were just a matter of being a standardized contract, then anyone competent to make a contract could enter into one, which is clearly not the case.
     
  16. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,975
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    Yes it clearly is the case, though the counter-party is currently restricted.
     
  17. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    Because it's....a privileged, and regulated form of standardized contract? Like I said?
     
  18. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,717
    Location:
    Scotland
    But this is only so because the legal institution of marriage is still unequal. Dissolve the inequality, and on what grounds do you protest it?
     
  19. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,975
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    anyone competent to make a contract could enter into one,
     
  20. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    Because there's no political will to make it actually equal?

    But not with anyone that they choose, correct? And there are other differences, right? Like the lack of explicit consideration, and penalties for not fulfilling your side of the contract? (I haven't read many marriage licenses recently, but I'm not aware of there being these elements in most of them. Are there?)
     

Share This Page