Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:
How'd you come up with that 99%?

If there was no benefit under the law to being married, I think things would be a bit different. Just because people don't care who someone else chooses to feth (you know, because it's none of their business) doesn't mean that's going to change what a natural (see: biological) nuclear family is.

A "Biological" Family is typically the Father comes in and rapes the mother, and then leaves her to raise the children.

Instances where the father stays around, or rears children are exceedingly rare, and limited to a handful of mammals and birds (for the most part - There are a few fish where the male rears, but that number is minuscule).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Quran and the Bible are different kinds of documents. The Quran is the literal word of God, written down in Arabic by the original authority and preserved in Arabic since then. Muslim sectarian differences centre around the Hadith, which are much more "flexible" commentaries.

In contrast the Bible was assembled over hundreds or thousands of years, in several languages, and the versions have been heavily edited and translated through more languages.

MUCH of the Qu'ran is just the same recycled stories from the Old and New Testament.

They have the EXACT same origins from the Enumina Elish.

MB

More like post bar hookups.

As the song goes. You and me baby aint got nothing in common so lets do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.

 sebster wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I think it better to stick to religion and how it relates to separation of church and state. Effectively, the opponents of gay marriage are trying to blur the line.

To be fair, the line is inherently blurred, because people draw much of their morality from their religion, and morality plays a major role in politics.

Which is a mistake, since religious "Authority" comes from a book that is not Sound (in the Logical sense).

It is just as easy to claim the parts demanding what we now know without a doubt are heinous evils are the TRUTH as it is to take the more enlightened portions of these textual authorities.

In order to sort out these conflicts, one must resort to external, secondary sources, which do nothing but elevate these sources about a source that is supposed to be THE Authority.

Given the lack of soundness, and need for textual clarification by external sources, it is more appropriate to elevate these secondary sources as the final authority, and just dispose entirely of the text that can be so easily abused to support immoral and unethical behavior.

This is a Foundational Problem for the Abrahamic Faiths:

They have, to use their own metaphor: "Build their house upon a foundation of sand."

MB

Vs. a morality coming from...nothing?

And this has to do with same sex marriage how?

BeAfraid wrote:

A "Biological" Family is typically the Father comes in and rapes the mother, and then leaves her to raise the children.

Instances where the father stays around, or rears children are exceedingly rare, and limited to a handful of mammals and birds (for the most part - There are a few fish where the male rears, but that number is minuscule).

Whatever you say, bro.

I guess it's a GREAT thing we are, in fact, talking about that "handful of mammals" in this instance.

Get out of here with that nonsense.

It's an exaggeration, sure, but the idea of marriage as a partnership between and man and woman is only a generation or two older than gay marriage.

For much of history, it was presumed, both culturally and legally, that a man more or less "owned" his wife.

There's an argument that many on the far right oppose gay marriage precisely because its a marriage without dominance and submission on gender lines.

BeAfraid wrote:


This is a Foundational Problem for the Abrahamic Faiths:

They have, to use their own metaphor: "Build their house upon a foundation of sand."

MB

There Isn't any "foundational problem" as they are, in fact, based on faith as a foundation.

It's pretty much the definition of spiritual faith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
It's an exaggeration, sure, but the idea of marriage as a partnership between and man and woman is only a generation or two older than gay marriage.

For much of history, it was presumed, both culturally and legally, that a man more or less "owned" his wife.

There's an argument that many on the far right oppose gay marriage precisely because its a marriage without dominance and submission on gender lines.

None of which has any bearing regarding biology and the natural creation of spawn.

Penises. Vaginas. Sperm. Eggs.

 Polonius wrote:
It's an exaggeration, sure, but the idea of marriage as a partnership between and man and woman is only a generation or two older than gay marriage.

For much of history, it was presumed, both culturally and legally, that a man more or less "owned" his wife.

There's an argument that many on the far right oppose gay marriage precisely because its a marriage without dominance and submission on gender lines.

Well we all know who really owns who. Yes dear, coming dear.

 Polonius wrote:

There's an argument that many on the far right oppose gay marriage precisely because its a marriage without dominance and submission on gender lines.

It is good to know that dominance and submission only fall on one side of the political spectrum, however.

 cincydooley wrote:
Sperm. Eggs.

I wont lie I read this quickly as spam and eggs.

 cincydooley wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


This is a Foundational Problem for the Abrahamic Faiths:

They have, to use their own metaphor: "Build their house upon a foundation of sand."

MB

There Isn't any "foundational problem" as they are, in fact, based on faith as a foundation.

It's pretty much the definition of spiritual faith.

Then Faith is bankrupt in any claim to having ANY moral or ethical foundation, claims, or certainty.

Because "faith" is absent any sound evidential foundation, and one could believe literally anything one could imagine, absent credible evidence.

And all claims of evidence for this "faith" fall apart upon examination, pushing the goalposts of any claim back just beyond the limits of our knowledge.

And as soon as our knowledge of the universe grows, back those goalposts are pushed, even further into regions of ignorance.

In that respect:

Faith = Ignorance.

MB

 cincydooley wrote:
None of which has any bearing regarding biology and the natural creation of spawn.

Penises. Vaginas. Sperm. Eggs.

Just as reproduction has nothing inherently to do with marriage.

The argument that marriage should be a man and a woman because of reproduction is a group of people setting the goal posts where they want them and expecting everyone else to agree with their personal preference, despite the fact that it makes no sense when so many married couples right now have no, and will never have, children.

 insaniak wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
None of which has any bearing regarding biology and the natural creation of spawn.

Penises. Vaginas. Sperm. Eggs.

Just as reproduction has nothing inherently to do with marriage.

.

Never made the argument that it should.

@guy who feels some strange need to put his initials at the bottom of every post:

I won't be responding to any more of your nonsense.

Initial. Initial.

I don't think the human biology came into play with SCOTUS did it?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

There's an argument that many on the far right oppose gay marriage precisely because its a marriage without dominance and submission on gender lines.

It is good to know that dominance and submission only fall on one side of the political spectrum, however.

You can get as snippy as you'd like, but the idea that an ideal marriage has a woman subordinate to her husband is vastly more likely with traditional conservatives. The right wing is a big tent, and that tent includes nearly all members of conservative religious sects. Orthodox Jews lean republican, but not to extent of conservative Catholics, Mormons, or evangelicals.

BeAfraid wrote:
Which is a mistake, since religious "Authority" comes from a book that is not Sound (in the Logical sense).

It is just as easy to claim the parts demanding what we now know without a doubt are heinous evils are the TRUTH as it is to take the more enlightened portions of these textual authorities.

It isn't a mistake, and even if it were, well you're stuck with it - you aren't going to stop being Christian, even if you wanted to. From there it's just a basic reality that their Christianity is going to be reflected in their moral beliefs, and they are going to vote and support laws based on those moral beliefs.

The answer then, is to require a better and healthier understanding of sex and human relationships among Christians. The problem now is that too many Christians still understand sex and human relations in terms of a list of things you can and can't do, with little thought given as to whether those activities are healthy or help people. That's what needs to change, and given time it will.

In order to sort out these conflicts, one must resort to external, secondary sources, which do nothing but elevate these sources about a source that is supposed to be THE Authority.

We all use outside sources as a moral guide. And as far as moral sources go, the Bible is a pretty decent one, even for a non-believer like me. The issue is not in the use of a source, but in the depth and quality of one's thinking about their sources.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
You can get as snippy as you'd like, but the idea that an ideal marriage has a woman subordinate to her husband is vastly more likely with traditional conservatives.

I've been at weddings where the wife pledges to obey her husband. In a revelation that will shock cincydooley to his very core, all of those weddings were of young, conservative people.

I tried to get the wife to say the "and obey" part. The doctor says I will almost be able to walk like a normal person, eventually.

 sebster wrote:

I've been at weddings where the wife pledges to obey her husband. In a revelation that will shock cincydooley to his very core, all of those weddings were of young, conservative people.

To be fair, the JoP had my wife recite the same line. I've cashed in on the "love" and "sickness" part. Maybe I should try to cash in on the "obey" part...

Or not.

There are not insignificant chunks of the population that are strong believers in traditional gender roles in marriage. Just like any other relationship, if everybody is entering it freely, than by all means go at it.

I seriously dated a woman who felt most comfortable in a relationship where she would defer to the man in any conflict. She wanted the 50's housewife deal. It wasn't for me, but I think she's found it with somebody else. She was, not shockingly, of primitive baptist upbringing.

 sebster wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
Which is a mistake, since religious "Authority" comes from a book that is not Sound (in the Logical sense).

It is just as easy to claim the parts demanding what we now know without a doubt are heinous evils are the TRUTH as it is to take the more enlightened portions of these textual authorities.

It isn't a mistake, and even if it were, well you're stuck with it - you aren't going to stop being Christian, even if you wanted to. From there it's just a basic reality that their Christianity is going to be reflected in their moral beliefs, and they are going to vote and support laws based on those moral beliefs.

The answer then, is to require a better and healthier understanding of sex and human relationships among Christians. The problem now is that too many Christians still understand sex and human relations in terms of a list of things you can and can't do, with little thought given as to whether those activities are healthy or help people. That's what needs to change, and given time it will.

I am not sure I understand this, since I stopped being a Christian because I wanted to. I found it to be a useless, and pretty silly belief to have in an age where we can answer many of the questions it purports to answer without having to qualify my answers with some imaginary textual authority from a being that is self-contradictory.

In order to sort out these conflicts, one must resort to external, secondary sources, which do nothing but elevate these sources about a source that is supposed to be THE Authority.

We all use outside sources as a moral guide. And as far as moral sources go, the Bible is a pretty decent one, even for a non-believer like me. The issue is not in the use of a source, but in the depth and quality of one's thinking about their sources.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
You can get as snippy as you'd like, but the idea that an ideal marriage has a woman subordinate to her husband is vastly more likely with traditional conservatives.

I've been at weddings where the wife pledges to obey her husband. In a revelation that will shock cincydooley to his very core, all of those weddings were of young, conservative people.

I have never seen one that wasn't a Radical Conservative wedding where this occurred (or Muslim - that is pretty typical of Muslim weddings as well).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
There are not insignificant chunks of the population that are strong believers in traditional gender roles in marriage. Just like any other relationship, if everybody is entering it freely, than by all means go at it.

I seriously dated a woman who felt most comfortable in a relationship where she would defer to the man in any conflict. She wanted the 50's housewife deal. It wasn't for me, but I think she's found it with somebody else. She was, not shockingly, of primitive baptist upbringing.

Ditto that. Probably one of the reasons my wife ran off with a black guy who eventually killed her was that I would not make her decisions for her. She came from an Evangelical Baptist family where her Grandfather ran the town church.

MB

I have never seen one that wasn't a Radical Conservative wedding where this occurred (or Muslim - that is pretty typical of Muslim weddings as well).

If I knew then what I knew now I would have inserted "and promise not to wreck the family van every three months, to not view curbs as merely guidelines, to not let buildings leap out and attack the van, and to not leave the engine running when I get out and end up running after it as it rolls away and through a stranger's fence"

Yea I want that!

Ditto that. Probably one of the reasons my wife ran off with a black guy who eventually killed her was that I would not make her decisions for her. She came from an Evangelical Baptist family where her Grandfather ran the town church.

It is not healthy being around you is. "Something's weird with that guy detective, everyone around him ends up...dead."

 Frazzled wrote:

I have never seen one that wasn't a Radical Conservative wedding where this occurred (or Muslim - that is pretty typical of Muslim weddings as well).

If I knew then what I knew now I would have inserted "and promise not to wreck the family van every three months, to not view curbs as merely guidelines, to not let buildings leap out and attack the van, and to not leave the engine running when I get out and end up running after it as it rolls away and through a stranger's fence"

Yea I want that!

Ditto that. Probably one of the reasons my wife ran off with a black guy who eventually killed her was that I would not make her decisions for her. She came from an Evangelical Baptist family where her Grandfather ran the town church.

It is not healthy being around you is. "Something's weird with that guy detective, everyone around him ends up...dead."

The gent has some good stories, all right.

Relapse wrote:


The gent has some good stories, all right.

Right?

It at least explains why he's not a fan of religion. Despite such a limited understanding of it.

 Frazzled wrote:

I have never seen one that wasn't a Radical Conservative wedding where this occurred (or Muslim - that is pretty typical of Muslim weddings as well).

If I knew then what I knew now I would have inserted "and promise not to wreck the family van every three months, to not view curbs as merely guidelines, to not let buildings leap out and attack the van, and to not leave the engine running when I get out and end up running after it as it rolls away and through a stranger's fence"

Yea I want that!

Ditto that. Probably one of the reasons my wife ran off with a black guy who eventually killed her was that I would not make her decisions for her. She came from an Evangelical Baptist family where her Grandfather ran the town church.

It is not healthy being around you is. "Something's weird with that guy detective, everyone around him ends up...dead."

You are not the first person to notice that, but it isn't just me.

There is a FB page dedicated to some 100 some odd of my friends who are dead from the Dallas Area from the Punk/Underground Scene from the 1980s.

I am just one of the few who did NOT die. By all rights I should be dead, though.

So... This sideways attempt at an insult is not something that I have neither heard before, nor have not been used to dealing with since 1985/86 or so, when my friends at the time began to notice how many deaths occurred near me (and it was only a handful at the time - an ex-girlfriend, the guitarist in a band, a girlfriend of another friend, the sound guy at a club, . . . ).

I could not even begin to name off everyone I have ever known who was dead (mostly from the trauma of my wife - and the distance and alienation I have from my former life).

So... Big deal! People die.

MB

 Frazzled wrote:
I tried to get the wife to say the "and obey" part. The doctor says I will almost be able to walk like a normal person, eventually.

My first wife coordinated with the Official to say "Take under advisement" on the Obey bit

And, my first degree, from the first time I went to school, was in Art History, studying Religious and Sacred Art of Early Christianity.

It included a class from Joseph Campbell, whom I have been studying since 1979.

Not to mention I was once a devout Catholic, and am well-read in the Theology of St. Augustine, St. Francis of Asissis, Boethius, Witelo, Robert Leiber, Cornelieus Loos, Cantius. . And I am sure there are others. Not to mention the Heresies of the Bogomils, Manicheans, Monophysites, Gnostics (where I was one of the first to be able to read the Gnostic Gospel of Judas - which apparently the Catholic Church simply denied existed until about a decade ago, even though the Coptics have had copies since the 3rd Century AD).

And I have read some of the drivel of the Evangelicals, like William Lane Craig, who is a fething moron, who does not understand the Structural Soundness of Modal Logic and the necessity of establishing a "Modal Universe/World" over which Necessity and Sufficiency are defined BEFORE applying a proof.

Not to mention having studied with Jesuits when I was a child (and would have probably gone to a Private Catholic School as a child had my mother not joined a cult that she dragged me and the rest of the family into as well).

So... I understand a great deal of religion, from the early history of the Abrahamic faiths from their origin in the Enumina Elish Assyrian/Babylonian Mythic Cycle, to the origin of Monotheism from Josiah of Judea around 600BC, when he constructed the Mosaic Mythology as a means of disempowering the Ashera cult associated with Yahweh Worship (and delivering a blow to Baal, and the Caananite cults popular at the same time), all the way up to the schisms of the early Church between the Paulines and Gnostic sects of early Christianity, and the politicization of it by the Romans.

The problem is:

Theism is not Sound (see definition of Soundness: Google it if you have to).

It is based upon premises that are not true, and thus no matter how "Valid" any claim might be, it remains false, due to having false premises upon which it rests.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention how much additional theology I had to cover in order to untangle Tolkien's beliefs and theology.

MB

Edited. Not worth it

Interestingly enough, same sex marriage is not a new thing.

Rome had it, Greece had it, Mesopotamia had it, medieval France had it, Egypt had it but frowned upon it.

In 1061, Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz were married in Rairiz de Veiga, in Spain.

It wasn't until the 12th century that Marriage became one of the sacraments of the Church.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:

Not to mention I was once a devout Catholic, and am well-read in the Theology of St. Augustine, St. Francis of Asissis, Boethius, Witelo, Robert Leiber, Cornelieus Loos, Cantius. . And I am sure there are others. Not to mention the Heresies of the Bogomils, Manicheans, Monophysites, Gnostics (where I was one of the first to be able to read the Gnostic Gospel of Judas - which apparently the Catholic Church simply denied existed until about a decade ago, even though the Coptics have had copies since the 3rd Century AD).

Ironically, the Bishop of Alexandria bitched about it's existence a lot.


That said, you'd then be familiar that the church espoused marriage only as contract to procreate and raise heirs, but at the same time did not take a serious stance on it until Emperor Constantius II, and despite sentencing homosexuals to be burned alive, also collected taxes on male prostitution until the fall of Rome.

Yes, I am aware of that.

There was a great deal of a lack of consistency in the Church during the years leading up to the Inquisition, which was basically a leading force in establishing dogmatic consistency (although the East-West Schism was well established by then), and that it was this attempt to force ideological purity that helped the Renaissance along (not the primary driver, but it certainly gave impetus to the Renaissance).

And Marriage still remained something that was primarily a means of establishing secular power, rather than a religious sacrament (even with the Church's claiming of this).

Besides, the Enlightenment established a different moral framework for the world, which the religious are now seeking to undo in their ignorance of how this moral framework is a more solid Foundation for Morals and Ethics than is the Theological framework (which has nothing upon which to build that foundation).

MB

Faith is not a virtue.

The only oposition to gay marriage had its central claim around the lines of "the bible says it's bad."

They ignore mixed fabrics, shellfish, etc in the same "holy" book. Why are we still discussing this?