is this debate stupid?

[Riverwolf]

since you were responding to

is why i would think you would imply such a thing. what were you thinking i was saying?

I was responding to a post that didn't mention anything like the same-sex marriage controversy.

where did i imply violence?

Here:

fundamental extremists... which is a form of violent behavior.

:cigar:

I don't smoke.

 

[waitasec]

i guess this debate is stupid...

really?
ask any same sex couples why they can't get married...

That post seemed more to be talking about violent extremists (who aren't limited to religion, BTW), not those with anti-gay marriage agendas.

...and, come to think of it, that post kinda reminded me of Senator Kelley's opening-film speech from the first X-Men movie. "loose among us", "use (insert here) as a weapon", etc.

It's the kind of mindset that makes people paranoid of everyone on the street, and hateful of those who fit the bill. In that sense, then, anti-religious sentiments aren't really much different than anti-homosexual sentiments. The only difference is that the one is slightly more justified and therefore understandable, while the other is just plain silly.

i didn't mention violence nor implied it

huh? you mean to tell me that same sex marriages isn't an issue?
oh, i must have misunderstood the religious agenda; they are indeed morally superior. :sarcastic
not violent extremists, but fundamental extremists... which is a form of violent behavior.

I really don't understand where you're getting that. I didn't say that same-sex marriage isn't an issue, and I didn't mean to imply it.

Again, where'd I say that? I don't believe that having a religion automatically makes one morally superior, and I'm not sure where you read that.

Violence is about physical harm. Therefore an extreme but ultimately non-violent political agenda does not fall under violent behavior. Unless the definition of violence has changed since I last checked.

Extremism isn't necessarily violent.

BTW, I support same-sex marriage, and I don't have a religious agenda.

since you were responding to



is why i would think you would imply such a thing. what were you thinking i was saying?




where did i imply violence?



:cigar:

I was responding to a post that didn't mention anything like the same-sex marriage controversy.



Here:

fundamental extremists... which is a form of violent behavior.

ok so maybe i exaggerated...only to make a point




I don't smoke.

good because it's bad for you

 

[IAMDONE]

hangs a lil tada lef' saheed!:yes:

 

[Riverwolf]

ok so maybe i exaggerated...only to make a point

And the point got lost in the exaggeration.

I'm aware that religious organizations have non-violently butted their heads in politics, where they don't belong, and it's caused a lot of violations of natural rights. That is definitely still a problem. I'm a strong believer in separation of church and state, and having the state be entirely secular (even if the ones who run it have personal religious beliefs).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Violence is about physical harm. Therefore an extreme but ultimately non-violent political agenda does not fall under violent behavior. Unless the definition of violence has changed since I last checked.

The wider debate around same-sex marriage covers a number of issues involving use of force:

- whether a landlord should be able to evict same-sex couples for violating "roommate" clauses in their lease.

- how custody should be determined for children of a relationship where the custody is in dispute (usually between the deceased parent's partner and the deceased's family).

- how a deceased person's assets should be divided up on their death, including things like homes jointly owned with a same-sex partner.

All of these questions potentially involve denying someone something of great value that they would otherwise have a right to. All of the answers to these questions are backed up by at least a threat of force on the part of the state... and if you don't believe me, try refusing to move after getting an eviction notice and see what happens.

The same-sex marriage debate isn't just about differing points of view. When it becomes a question of law, it's about whether the state, i.e. the entity with a near-monopoly on the legal use of force, should be able to impose one view on everyone else.

IMO, if you're talking about using force (or the threat of force) to take someone's home or children away from him or her, you're talking about violence. The mere fact that these people are trying to get the state to commit the violence on their behalf instead of getting their own hands dirty doesn't mean that their actions aren't inherently violent.

 

[Magic Man]

you mean we have devloped technologies which have helped explain nature/ then yes. but no , human nature/beings are still as stupid as ever

And thank you for being a perfect example of that.

But no, I don't think humans are as stupid as ever. I think we're come a long way over the last 2,000 years. We still have a long way to go, but that's where discussions like this come in.

 

[Magic Man]

By the same token, I've never had anyone come to my door telling me that I absolutely need to get rid of any pasta I have in the house and eat nothing but Tex-Mex instead.

I've also never seen parents disown their children over the fact that they go out for breakfast, or heard of people trying to deny legal rights to non-vegans.

Religion has a way of imposing itself on the non-religious that cooking doesn't.

And one more thing. Discussing different recipes and ways of cooking things is a hobby. For the religious religion is not a hobby most of the time. It's a way of life, and in the case of the two biggest religions, it's about believing in things that may or may not exist. I may disagree with someone's affection for cooking, but at least food and cooking exist. At least they're not believing in something that to me doesn't seem to exist.

 

[Riverwolf]

The wider debate around same-sex marriage covers a number of issues involving use of force:

- whether a landlord should be able to evict same-sex couples for violating "roommate" clauses in their lease.

- how custody should be determined for children of a relationship where the custody is in dispute (usually between the deceased parent's partner and the deceased's family).

- how a deceased person's assets should be divided up on their death, including things like homes jointly owned with a same-sex partner.

All of these questions potentially involve denying someone something of great value that they would otherwise have a right to. All of the answers to these questions are backed up by at least a threat of force on the part of the state... and if you don't believe me, try refusing to move after getting an eviction notice and see what happens.

The same-sex marriage debate isn't just about differing points of view. When it becomes a question of law, it's about whether the state, i.e. the entity with a near-monopoly on the legal use of force, should be able to impose one view on everyone else.

IMO, if you're talking about using force (or the threat of force) to take someone's home or children away from him or her, you're talking about violence. The mere fact that these people are trying to get the state to commit the violence on their behalf instead of getting their own hands dirty doesn't mean that their actions aren't inherently violent.

Ah, now that's a good point. I hadn't considered that.

 

[Riverwolf]

But no, I don't think humans are as stupid as ever. I think we're come a long way over the last 2,000 years.

Examples?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

really, why do we discuss religion in this day and age?

I suppose for the same reason we discuss war, genocide, and disease: to try to understand and come to terms with the human condition - and, hopefully, be able to improve it.

 

[Magic Man]

Examples?

The general state of Western countries versus most civilizations 2,000 years ago.

 

[Riverwolf]

The general state of Western countries versus most civilizations 2,000 years ago.

That's not helpful, as from what I can see, there isn't much difference.

 

[waitasec]

Ah, now that's a good point. I hadn't considered that.

it's what i failed to get across

 

[Riverwolf]

it's what i failed to get across

It's why we have open debates. :yes:

 

[Magic Man]

That's not helpful, as from what I can see, there isn't much difference.

Wow, then, I guess there's not much point in me pointing out all the differences. If you don't see them now, I'm guessing you're just not going to see them.

 

[gnomon]

really, why do we discuss religion in this day and age?

1) You cannot understand history without understanding religious beliefs.
2) You cannot understand cultures without understand religious beliefs.
3) The majority of human beings on this planet are actively engaged in a religious culture.
4) The remaining human beings on this planet live within a dominantly religious culture.

Even Richard Dawkins mentioned that one cannot understand English literature (Shakespeare, Chaucer, Faust, Joyce, etc, etc) without understanding religion and specifically the Bible.

 

[Riverwolf]

Wow, then, I guess there's not much point in me pointing out all the differences. If you don't see them now, I'm guessing you're just not going to see them.

Try me. I try to keep an open mind.

You must understand: I'm a nerd. Ergo, I don't get out much, and I don't see much of the world and society beyond the loud and obnoxious pop culture (which, IMO, is a step down from many ancient and not-so-ancient cultures.)

 

[waitasec]

Wow, then, I guess there's not much point in me pointing out all the differences. If you don't see them now, I'm guessing you're just not going to see them.

Try me. I try to keep an open mind.

You must understand: I'm a nerd. Ergo, I don't get out much, and I don't see much of the world and society beyond the loud and obnoxious pop culture (which, IMO, is a step down from many ancient and not-so-ancient cultures.)

if i may, i think we are realizing today how much we don't know...
technology is taking us places we never thought of before.
and we keep getting smaller and smaller in the scheme of things