Not really. I already knew that even otherwise intelligent people cannot rationally explain their prejudices because they are basically not rational, and when asked to so may crash into a cognitive loop or go 404 on you. But the main reason I took part in this debate is because I believe that bad ideas need to be challenged, so that they are exposed to examination in the daylight of reason.* If you are going to deny a group of people a fundamental civil right, you better have a really good reason for it. Walle could not come up with any. * All that is necessary for stupidity to triumph is for reason to do nothing.
I think anything that has taken me to long to learn as I am a stubborn person at the best of times, is that if you have an opinion it's best to keep it to yourself as there will always be the same people who will try and shoot those opinions down. Best is just to focus why we joined the forums and that's about computers.
@Nexxo First you have to define fundamental civil right. So far you have said I’ve been against human rights, freedom of speech, which now has changed into "rights", and freedom of expression. You have advocated for a new definition of marriage which would allow for homosexual couples to be included. I have advocated for a compromise, same legal rights for homosexuals as for heterosexual couples who are married.
In the discussion forum we don't just voice our opinions, we discuss them. Loop again: Me: Then why not just call it marriage? You: because that changes the definition of marriage. Me: why can't we change the definition of marriage? ... and there's were we got stuck, because you will not answer that question. End of debate. But that is the whole crux of the matter, isn't it? I believe that the definition of marriage should include same-sex unions for the same reason that you believe it shouldn't: because words and definitions matter. They shape how people think and feel and behave. It is why we don't call people with mental health problems "mad" anymore; why people with learning disability are no longer referred to as "retards"; why people with physical disability are no longer called "cripple". Why black people are no longer called n****r and it is not acceptable anymore to address an adult black man as "boy". Words and definitions have power to shape thoughts, values, norms and expectations. You recognise that fact, and so do I. So for you to argue that it doesn't matter ("hey, I'm not denying them; they can still have the same legal rights") when your whole position is based on the fact that it very much does, is disingenuous and dishonest, and to answer my question would reveal that. That is why you will not answer it. You are afraid of how society will change if we change the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships. Again, all you have for that is your own vague prejudices, no solid reasons. And that is why you cannot carry this debate on to its logical conclusion. Here endeth the lesson.
There are those of us who are more addicted than others to posting their opinions onto an internet forum. That said, discussions are always fun. I think they are a blast, and there is always something you can learn. As for personal opposition I really don't care Cthippo, I have strong opinions and I don't censor them and many times that makes me disliked. But that's ok with me, it doesn't bother me that much I'm not running a popularity contest. Thanks for the nod though.
Remember, these people are not seeking the title just for the word. It's for the principle. It's because giving it a new term is still telling them they're not right, that they're not measuring up, that they're somehow less. But somewhere in there I seem to remember that everyone has sinned, and disappointed God, and there wasn't something special about homosexuality, if there was something special it was about those that exclude others from fellowship with God and don't show them love. If you don't believe it's marriage, then you don't have to call it that. But this isn't even about a religious issue, it's a legal issue, and we've already established that "separate but equal" is anything but equal. Even if it's just semantics, it means something to them. A lot, in fact. But moreover, we don't have religious-based laws here, or we're not supposed to-separation of church and state, no state-endorsed religion, et cetera) and your reasoning is purely religious. At that juncture, the point is moot and your argument should be passed over as irrelevant to the discussion, as all of these other exceptions should have been. This isn't a Christian country, and there should e no laws passed specially favoring them. That's the opposite of equality. Equality is one of the main themes of the New Testament anyway-in Christ, there are no races, nations, jobs, economic status or gender. We are all 100% equal before the eyes of God and that means we can't treat people like they're not. If this is how Christians present themselves at this point, no wonder nobody wants to be one. I'd go so far as to say we probably embarrass God with the way that we act toward each other. I would rather be welcoming to others, hoping that they would wonder why I try to judge nobody and then find I'm a Christian than trumpet about this sin and that sin while committing just as many myself. I cannot bring myself to a sinless state, but I can acknowledge that I sin just as much as everyone else and no sin is bigger or smaller before God. Maybe I'll get told I'm wrong on the other side, but I'd rather be wrong and show people love and respect and be welcoming to them than what people are doing right now. But, judging from my many years of study, I generally think the contingent that's the loudest here is the one barking up the wrong tree. At the end of the day, the definition of marriage isn't harmed by allowing others to partake, but the image of Christianity will be permanently damaged by the actions that people take to block them.
I think you'll find that it's not your opinions that would make you wooden spoon winner in a popularity contest......It's your inability to defend them, and even in the face of overwhelming evidence, your unwillingness to change them. Stubborn is fine if you are right but.....
Obviously I don't know the man personally, but from what others have written of him I suspect that a fair bit of the old testament would embaress Jesus. Wonton smiting and punishing famalies for generations really isn't consistent with the whole love your neighbor bit, you know? Keep in mind that what we think of as the old testament is also part of the Jewish holy books (can't remember if Talmud or Torah) and Jesus was a Jew. The concepts he was preaching were very much not in accordance with religious tradition of the time, which is how he found himself nailed to a piece of wood for telling people to be nice to one another. Today we think of the bible as all one document, but in fact it represents the thinking of two different time periods which were hundreds of years apart. I'm an atheist, but I still like to think about Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps getting to heaven and being met by a very angry Jesus saying "What is so hard about love your fellow man? I mean, I wrote it down for you!"
I've learned (or knew already) ... 1) That bit-tech has some 'sorted' contributors, who I will continue to respect. 2) That engaging in debate with those with strong and (as I see it) oppressive beliefs is pointless and impossible. 3) That some contributors weren't prepared to engage in the debate. Why people post in a 'debate' thread and then refuse to engage fairly or respond to direct questions is quite beyond me. But then so are their opinions at times. As it's been said, I think this thread has run it's course. Nice debate you nice people.
I agree, it was a good read with excellent contributions from the usual gang (myself probably not included ). And for the record walle I don't like you any less for your viewpoint, I don't believe you are harming others by holding an opinion on this - even if you can't quite articulate the why in a logical manner.
As the OP, I created the thread mostly to keep the Ukraine thread clean because I rather liked the discussion going on there, and it had started to fall off the rails with the introduction of the gay marriage topic. This debate has been done a number of times here, but I suppose it's nice to see new people weighing in with opinions.
No, but he would be harming others by wishing to impose his opinion on their lives. Walle of course argues that on the contrary, gay couples, by wishing to marry, are imposing their opinion on him/society, but that is BS. Neither walle's life, nor that of society at large will change one bit when a gay couple gets married, no matter how much he suggests --but will not explain how-- it does.
Okay, maybe I'm being stupid, but surely if two or more people want to get married (no matter what combination of the sexes are involved), then that's up to them. No-one else should have a say in the matter, except for the parties involved. After all it's not like they've asked you to join in, and what they do in the confines of their relationship is up to the involved CONSENTING ADULTS. I'm fairly sure if they're old enough to be involved in an adult relationship, then they're old enough not to need everyone else's consent to get married.
It is hard to respect someone whose notion of a good discussion involves the wholesale reproduction of a Wikipedia page, backed up by a fine example of how the chap reproducing it has a lovely union with his wife where they have both transcended traditional gender roles. The point I was making is this: in the UK there is no tradition for atheist 'marriages'. The tradition here is that marriage is a religious institution. You can make a sound case for a state-sanctioned legal contract between two or more persons quite easily. Though why you would want to I cannot imagine.
That must be more of a national / regional thing. Here in the states I think marriage is viewed as more of a legal than religious event. It could be down to us having a much more diverse religious identity. Here, most churches are small and independent and while a majority of people consider themselves 'Christian", that doesn't lead to the kind of cohesiveness of belief that a centralized national identity like the CoE has. What's funny is that while they both call themselves "Christians", it's hard to imagine two groups having more dissimilar beliefs as, say, the Methodists and the Baptists.
