Gay marriage legalised in the whole US by the supreme court
- Thread starter thebennyboy
- Start date
- Status
I'm not an atheist no. I have read the bible though
your phrasing of the second sentence is a bit of though are you saying that koolpc doesn't believe a word of the bible?
Or did you mean to say "quoting the bible from someone who doesn't believe a word of it"?
As for ludicrous do you need to follow the teacher to be able to discuss his lessons?
Man of Honour
I dislike you advocating irrational prejudices that harm people and thinking that the superhuman authority you claim to have (you claim to speak for the creator of the universe, the ultimate authority) is enough to justify that (you say "it's obvious" as if it was all you needed to wholly support your position because it is to you - you say it is so, so it is so). I don't hate you. I think you're misled rather than malicious. You really think that your interpretation of selected parts of a modern interpretation of a mash of some bronze and iron age stories chosen from a much larger number of stories made up by who knows who for who knows what reason (I suspect hallucinogenic drugs) is the whole truth that should determine everyone's life.
I strongly dislike religion because it causes so much harm, both directly by being amoral and tyrannical and indirectly by being a force against reason. I don't quite hate it. Yet.
I can't blaspheme against your god (or any of the thousands of other gods people have made up) because I don't believe in any of them. I see your god as a character in stories. A psycho villain, to be precise. I'd draw a comparison with another villain in another set of stories, but I can't think of one anywhere near as bad as your god is in your set of stories.
Man of Honour
The thing is it was people like him that turned me away from Religion.
They're useful for that.
I think the best tool for putting people off religion is religion. I doubt if any decent person could read the Christian bible, even a sanitised English translation, and not think that there's something seriously, profoundly wrong with it. I mean read it, not have selected pieces of it read to you by someone skilled in misrepresenting it. There's some downright vile stuff in it.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
No, you sarcastically sermonising at me in a manner that suggested you were a non-believer:
"seem to remember him telling a tale about a Samaritan and knocking about with a hooker"
"Pretty sure that Jesus fellow had something to say on this matter to, he who is without sin cast the first stone"
People who quote the bible are frightfully annoying and lame, especially when they're not Christians (or Jews I suppose).
So, my statement "Quoting the Bible to someone who doesn't believe a word of it (me).
Can you see how ludicrous that is?"
Might make more sense to you now that it's been explained in depth.
Soldato
I am loving the discussion of Christianity from all the expert theologians on here. I didn't know we had so many.
Yup it's fairly obvious the God of the bible is a bad tempered psychpath who rewards murder and rape on many occasions and is a bigger supporter of slavery than General Lee, whereas the Devil doesn't do anything bad except lie a couple of times probably out of necessity or to save a life, iyam they pulled a switcheroo on the world ages ago.
Soldato
deleted.
Last edited:
Have you not realised this in all the years you've been here? We've got experts on most religions, particularly Christianity and Islam.
That really is an often used but silly point in response to 'homophobic' views.
Soldato
I think if people want to discuss 'religion' they should open another thread as you guys are derailing this one now. Stop going over the same patch of ground for goodness sake! Open a new thread if you want to talk religion all the time. Maybe you want to be converted as you talk about it so much!! 
Last edited:
Soldato
What I find particularly fascinating is how many people seem to go to atheist sources to find out about Christianity. This is evident from the frequent appearances of the same old clichéd points.
This is like basing ones knowledge of the holocaust solely on the writings of a holocaust denier.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
How else are people going to boost their self-esteem by arguing against something they don't even believe exists.
Are there any non-religious arguments for 'homophobic' views? This thread seems to be Koolpc vs everyone else.
My own views are based on Islam, and I'm well aware that had I been born into a Hindu family, or perhaps some other non-Abrahamic faith, then I may not have held the views I do.
Saying that though, I also believe that if homosexuality is normal and can also be based on love, then socially we really don't have any particular reason to reject marriages with multiple partners, incestuous relationships etc.
That's not me trying to compare by the way, but why rule out one thing and allow another if the same argument can be found for both?
My own views are based on Islam, and I'm well aware that had I been born into a Hindu family, or perhaps some other non-Abrahamic faith, then I may not have held the views I do.
Saying that though, I also believe that if homosexuality is normal and can also be based on love, then socially we really don't have any particular reason to reject marriages with multiple partners, incestuous relationships etc.
That's not me trying to compare by the way, but why rule out one thing and allow another if the same argument can be found for both?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
The author is unavailable for comments, and I don't trust the fanboys, so I'm left with no choice but to turn to the critics, and i'm sorry to say but the reviews are not flattering.
Hey, why has this, all the sudden, turned into religious thread?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
There are reasons against those two things though.
Incestuous relationships are discouraged because they significantly increase the chances of children being born with serious defects. Science suggests that brothers and sisters having sexual relations isn't a great idea.
Polygamy has two arguments against it. The first is financial (married couples get tax breaks and benefits others don't so a household with a man and his 6 wives will be getting 7 lots of all the breaks which clearly isn't fair) and the other is protective.
Whilst I see nothing wrong in principle with three consenting adults who genuinely all love each other equally having their relationship formally recognised as a marriage but I'd suspect most polygamous relations consist of 1 man and several mildly abused and partially coerced women in them; so we don't encourage them because of the historical bad use of them.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
It may be a silly point but the argument is essentially one of absurdity to begin with - where the person advancing the argument against homosexuality says something along the lines of "it's not normal/natural" and "marriage is only possible between a man and a woman" with the subtext that things must stay the same forever and not evolve so an obvious rebuttal is to ask whether they've adopted anything that wasn't around when the bible/other favoured religious book was written.
It's not an argument I particularly hold to but it does expose the point that most people are content to accept that some things change, it's just a question of where they draw that particular line and why.
There are almost certainly people who hold homophobic views that aren't religious but an awful lot of the arguments against it do seem to come filtered through religious values.
It's been discussed in this thread (and probably every other thread where the topic has come up) but incestuous relationships will often feature an abuse of trust/power and come with a significantly increased risk of genetic defects should any children result from the union. So there's plentiful evidence of harm from such relationships, that doesn't mean that every incestuous relationship fits that category but there's enough risk for society to maintain a position that this is not to be condoned.
You can't make the same claim for homosexual relationships between two (or more) consenting adults so lumping them into the same category is wrong and is an obvious attempt to equate the two.
As for marriage between multiple consenting partners - it'll depend on the individual circumstances and it seems unlikely to be something where there are significant numbers of people wanting it but logically there probably is little reason to oppose it unless as estebanrey says it's abusive but then the consent caveat would take that out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Because they don't work.
Say two adopted children, let's push the enveloppe, of different race. Shouldn't they be allow to marry? What would be the rationale?
Too close for comfort? How about marrying your childhood sweetheart. Awww isn't that cute. They've been best friends for ever, now they're together. Well...
Would you marry a woman with a couple of side-hubbies? Maybe you're that kind of guy.
Plenty. Oh but you mean GOOD arguments? Well, who knows, if I only I could hear them above the noise. If you want good arguments, you need data, not 'feelings'.
On the other side, apparently, homosexuality is a choice, or at best a disease. Couldn't be anything else, you know, God wouldn't be so cruel. So there's that.
And it's icky. Well, it is, but I can think of a few more important things that would make me turn my back against a wall.
BTW, I lived the best part of my life surrounded by really interesting neighbours, most relevant here, two sisters living together. I don't want to speculate, but here they were sharing an apartment, always together, never married.
They've been together for as long as anyone remembers,They were the sweetest old ladies you could ever meet. Catholics too. So you see, they aren't all bad.
Last edited:
given the Muslim population of this country is engaging in a massive scale marrying of their own first cousins I'm surprised you don't already consider it acceptable.
Although the icnreaseing amount of very expensive genetic diseases growing in the muslim population because of this practice is going to get very expensive for us all and is a nice clear reminder why its a bad idea.
- Status