Recent Homosexual marriage discussion with a theist co-worker.

BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Recent Homosexual marriage discussion with a theist co-worker.

At work there are a few theists I regularly discuss atheist/theist topics with.

Well, I think I kind of stumped one of them with this line of reasoning regarding gay marriage because he did not have an answer. I basically asked him to tell me exactly what would change if gay marriage were legal. He first started with the reasoning, that it would make it okay for gay couples to live together(this theist is not the sharpest knife in the drawer). Well I asserted that actually nothing would change other than couples being able to share benefits, make medical decisions for their partners and ability to inherit estates. I told him everything he is afraid of gays doing is already going on whether he likes it or not. They are living together, having sex, taking trips, buying houses, adopting children, going shopping, buying groceries, going out in public and every other thing a married heterosexual couple does. There is nothing that he says, his bible says or his preacher says that is going to stop it. They should be entitled to share benefits also. He mentioned something about divorce and my reply was that I do not believe gay marriages are any more likely to end in divorce than straight marriages, which is somewhere around 50%. He seemed even more stumped when one of his fellow theists sided with me.

At this point he pretty much shook his head and walked away.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It's just ignorant to think

It's just ignorant to think like that.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1245
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
The holy janitor

The holy janitor again?

Nearly every argument I have heard against gay marriage includes the phrase "every major religious tradition has forbidden it", as if that has every been a litmus test for any other legislation.  

Only twice have I heard arguments that did not reference that.  One (in the Post-Dispatch) was that marriage was actually "for the kids", with the (unsubstantiated) claim that most gay couples don't have children; the other was that it opened the door for polygamy.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
There really is no legal,

There really is no legal, economic, or social reason to continue disallowing gay couples to marry.  Unfortunately, the lawmakers in this country are terrified of losing an election and with a significant portion of voters of this country believing gay marriage is a sin against god things are not going to change until mindsets change.

 

You did an excellent job pointing out the obvious to that theist (they really don't see it) but that is only one.  If that same rational argument can get to enough liberal/moderate christians then things will change.  


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
i always laugh when that

i always laugh when that happens to them. 

 i went to a catholic school and use to have gay right debates with teachers and students all the time and used the same argument not once did i get a decent argument from one of them , tehy would either walk away, say i was wrong because the bible says its wrong or claim that if they let smae sex couples marry , it would opent eh gateway to people getting hitched to their animals or t.vs  


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: The

zarathustra wrote:

The holy janitor again?

 Oh yes, THE HOLY JANITOR! 

Wow, maybe I reference him here too much. LOL.

There was another interesting discussion with some other theists at work on Tuesday. When I get time to type it out I will tell you about it. JCE has already heard it. 


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
You wouldn't reference him

You wouldn't reference him if he didn't get in your face so much about his beliefs. He gets in my face too sometimes but not as much. Not to get off subject, but he told me I should to pray for god to send me a man and tell him specifically what I want. He stopped after I pointed out:

  1. If his god is omniscient then he should already know what I want/need, right?

  2. Am I somehow now imperfect because I am single?

BGH, can't wait to see what the others have to say about your Tuesday conversation! Remember, 'you are a hard man!' - LOL


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: He mentioned

BGH wrote:

He mentioned something about divorce and my reply was that I do not believe gay marriages are any more likely to end in divorce than straight marriages, which is somewhere around 50%. He seemed even more stumped when one of his fellow theists sided with me.

At this point he pretty much shook his head and walked away.

Didn't someone post results of a survey just hte other day that showed the religious divorce rate was higher than the atheist/secular devorce rate or something like that? 

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
thingy wrote: Didn't

thingy wrote:

Didn't someone post results of a survey just hte other day that showed the religious divorce rate was higher than the atheist/secular devorce rate or something like that?

I remember the post but he was pretty focused on the "gay" thing. 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
It's just silly not to

It's just silly not to allow folks to marry whoever they love.  It is the right of any particular church not to perform a marriage ceremony, but it shouldn't be the right of the state to prohibit other churches, justices of the peace, etc. from conducting marriage ceremonies.

As for divorce?  Let the gay couples pay for a divorce just like I did!  Now that's equality. 

It's simply NOT RIGHT that a loving couple cannot have the same rights as everyone else, such as inheritance, benefits, insurance, pension, SSI, adoption, etc. 

It's my opinion, that the biggest reason that so many theists are homophobic is because they are afraid of something they do not understand. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


ImmaculateDeception
ImmaculateDeception's picture
Posts: 280
Joined: 2006-11-08
User is offlineOffline
Quote: , it would opent eh

Quote:
, it would opent eh gateway to people getting hitched to their animals or t.vs

I've heard the "what's next, legal bestiality?!" argument many times. It makes perfect since, since consutual sex between two adults is just so close to someone fucking a goat.

The most hilarious argument I ever heard was from a guy I was debating with over ICQ. He thought that gay people ate poo. All of them. Just a bunch of poo eaters. He didn't really say why, and he kept dwelling on it. It was really bizarre. I blocked him after a few hours.

Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Unless the animal or the TV

Unless the animal or the TV is able to speak and proclaim its love for the person and its desire to marry the person, it cannot be marraige as the two sides required for marraige do need to be consenting.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


ImmaculateDeception
ImmaculateDeception's picture
Posts: 280
Joined: 2006-11-08
User is offlineOffline
thingy wrote: Unless the

thingy wrote:
Unless the animal or the TV is able to speak and proclaim its love for the person and its desire to marry the person, it cannot be marraige as the two sides required for marraige do need to be consenting.

 I don't have anything new to contribute, I just wanted to let you know that I love your avatar.

Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Thanks.  I initially made

Thanks.  I initially made the laughingman avatar for someone else on another forum, but seeing as I made it I should be able to use it myself elsewhere (I was already using a bouncing tachikoma as my avatar). Smiling I love Ghost in The Shell, it's my favourite anime so I try to get the laughingman symbol anywhere I can.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I shake my head at

I shake my head at christians who don't follow their own beliefs. I haven't read the bible, and it still took me less than 2 minutes to find this:

Matthew 7:1

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
--------------------
Luke 6:37

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
--------------------
Romans 14:13

Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
--------------------
James 4:11

Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
--------------------

*sigh*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


DeeLock
DeeLock's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I shake my

Vastet wrote:
I shake my head at christians who don't follow their own beliefs.

 

Well, you seem to be forgetting pretty much everything in Leviticus that actually encourages discrimination and hate.

I hate this sort of blind bigotry. Whenever I talk to someone that is completely against gay rights I just feel so angry.

It effects me personally, I'm bi, and it just tears me up inside to hear about the complete antagonization of homosexuals.

I don't understand theist's reasoning behind this issue. It dosen't effect them, if they arn't gay, and even though it is proven to be a natural occurance they still try to say that it is a choice, and that homosexuals choose to be disciminated and hated.

It makes me sick.

Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.

-Woody Allen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
DeeLock wrote: Vastet

DeeLock wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I shake my head at christians who don't follow their own beliefs.

 

Well, you seem to be forgetting pretty much everything in Leviticus that actually encourages discrimination and hate.

From what I recall, there isn't anything in leviticus that actually tells people to go out judging others and acting on that judgement, thereby countering the previous passages I laid out. I could be wrong though. If so, you'd think the glaring contradiction would them up.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: From what I

Vastet wrote:
From what I recall, there isn't anything in leviticus that actually tells people to go out judging others and acting on that judgement, thereby countering the previous passages I laid out. I could be wrong though. If so, you'd think the glaring contradiction would them up.

Oh, the beauty of the bible. There is a passage to match anything!

Hate gays = yes!

Do not judge = yes!

Stone children = yes!

Do unto others = yes!

Do not kill = yes!

Kill the infidels = yes!

Love thy neighbor = yes!

Hate your family = yes!

 

Oh the great wisdom of the non-contradictory bible!


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Oh, the beauty

BGH wrote:
Oh, the beauty of the bible. There is a passage to match anything!

Hate gays = yes!

Do not judge = yes!

Stone children = yes!

Do unto others = yes!

Do not kill = yes!

Kill the infidels = yes!

Love thy neighbor = yes!

Hate your family = yes!

 

Oh the great wisdom of the non-contradictory bible!

 

The most perfect summation of biblical morality I have yet to see!  Thanks!!


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: The most

jce wrote:

The most perfect summation of biblical morality I have yet to see! Thanks!!

I am sure I could have thought of more, but I think that gets the point across. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: If so, you'd

Vastet wrote:

If so, you'd think the glaring contradiction would them up.

I somehow missed putting in the word "wake" between "would" and "them". Oops.

jce wrote:
I believe in the power of cake. In times of trouble as well as joy and thankfulness, I turn to cake and feel better. When I see others experiencing problems I give them cake and they feel better. Cake works.

Heh heh heh. GTA radio shows and commercials are funny. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Vastet

Vastet wrote:
Vastet wrote:
If so, you'd think the glaring contradiction would them up. I somehow missed putting in the word "wake" between "would" and "them". Oops.

Your point came through just fine!  : )

jce wrote:
I believe in the power of cake. In times of trouble as well as joy and thankfulness, I turn to cake and feel better. When I see others experiencing problems I give them cake and they feel better. Cake works.
Heh heh heh. GTA radio shows and commercials are funny. :D

 

Oh boy!  I am new here so I am missing the reference...clue me in.  I just thought it was a funny statement I made up to go with the picture.  I specifically chose that pic as my avatar to represent where I am, um, spiritually (?) as I re-examine my former beliefs and try to speed educate myself to catch up to you guys.  LOL


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Copying the rules of the

Copying the rules of the Freethinker's forum here so everyone will see them as they read through the posts.

From this point forward the moderators will be destroying posts made by theists in the "Freethinking Anonymous" forum.  If you are a theist please be careful not to waste your time posting in this forum by looking at the top of the screen to determine which forum you are in when posting.  If you are an atheist and want theists to be able to weigh in on your topic, use "General Conversation" or "Atheist vs. Theist."
 
 Thanks,
 
RRS Mod Team

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
The problem I think there

"mod note: Sorry, but only freethinkers are welcome to post in this forum"


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: The

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
The first post was speaking of a story in which he challenged a theist on his beliefs regarding "Why ills might come around because of X?". This is a individual issue.. and completely valid. But.. legally.. has no bearing..

Democratically its about convincing the majority, irrational or rational, that they should do something. Since we are a constitutional democracy.. there is the court route as well.. but-- this issue hasn't been decided yet.. until such a time.. it will just be an argument. Smiling

Take it to the Supreme Court.

BTW.. I haven't given my opinion on the particular issue.. from a theist perspective or otherwise. Right or Wrong.. or whether I should judge it or not.

Anyways.. thats my two cents.

 

I may be wrong, but I thought the point of the thread was to illustrate the ludicracy of theists opposing homosexual marriage/rights for religious reasons. Since the majority of voters in this country are christians, the politicians (lawmakers) pay a bit more attention to them. It is difficult enough to push through constitutional changes that do not have any religious ties (I am trying to think of one, but the amendments that come to mind all had opponents quoting scripture) so in order to get homosexual marriages recognized legally it will take convincing a whole lot of chrisitans that they are wrong. BGH's story exemplifies that this is possible...with some theists, but not others.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Has anyone else ever noticed

Has anyone else ever noticed that theists give many of the same reasons opposing gay marriage now as people did oppsing interracial marriage 40 years ago?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
It's not 'ludicrous' to

"mod note: Sorry, but only freethinkers are welcome to post in this forum"


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

It's not 'ludicrous' to oppose homosexual marriages for religious reasons.. it is there right to do so as a citizen of the U.S.-- the only way I think you could make this argument is if you argued that religion, itself, specifically one or all, was ludicrous.

Yes it is their right. It is ludicrous because they are using their religion to prevent certain portions of the US from obtaining specific legal rights.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Perhaps that was your point.. and if it was, I apologize. I was just speakign my mind. As for lawmakers being representative of their electors.. this, to, is how it should be. They are restrained, thank goodness, to what they can do.. but other than those limits.. the country does what it does.

And this is precisely why this is such a difficult battle.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
As for constitutional ammendments that do not have religious ties, opponents or proponents: (I take it you don't mean the Bill of Rights.. even though these are considered ammendments. So lets move on:

Check out the 27th ammendment regarding pay raises.. I'm pretty sure this didn't have opponents quoting scripture.. perhaps I'm wrong.

There are a lot of really bland ammendments passed.

Thank you. As I said, none were coming to mind at the time I was writing the post.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
As for your last statement. I would agree. It would take the convincing of a lot of Christians for an ammendment to be passed.

Yep

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
The problem is.. BGH story 'samples a instance where a theist could not answer a theoretical.. this is not to say that he still does not believe homosexuality is wrong.

Therefore, he would probably still vote against a measure to legalize because to legalize would be to legalize something that, in his mind, is wrong.

This is his right to do so. And the reason for him doing so is reason enough.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Yes, bigotry has been a long-standing problem in the country. Women were not granted the right to vote for a long time because they were considered to be inferior to men based on religious beliefs. Women can now vote and work and read and everything!

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
..anyways.. I gotta get back to class. Shaping the minds of the future.. scary thought.

At this point, I am more concerned about your grammar skills than your ability to shape minds. lol

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Sorry if my post was a bit short.

No need to apologize for this.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Vastet

jce wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Vastet wrote:
If so, you'd think the glaring contradiction would them up. I somehow missed putting in the word "wake" between "would" and "them". Oops.

Your point came through just fine!  : )

jce wrote:
I believe in the power of cake. In times of trouble as well as joy and thankfulness, I turn to cake and feel better. When I see others experiencing problems I give them cake and they feel better. Cake works.
Heh heh heh. GTA radio shows and commercials are funny. :D

 

Oh boy!  I am new here so I am missing the reference...clue me in.  I just thought it was a funny statement I made up to go with the picture.  I specifically chose that pic as my avatar to represent where I am, um, spiritually (?) as I re-examine my former beliefs and try to speed educate myself to catch up to you guys.  LOL

GTA = Grand Theft Auto, a video game series. I'm pretty sure it was a commercial on a radio station that had something very similar to what you said here. Solving all your problems with cake. It reminded me of the game.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: GTA = Grand

Vastet wrote:
GTA = Grand Theft Auto, a video game series. I'm pretty sure it was a commercial on a radio station that had something very similar to what you said here. Solving all your problems with cake. It reminded me of the game.

 

Ahhhh!  See - there are rational explanations for everything!  I probably overheard that commercial when my son was playing and it seeped into my subconsious.  Damn, for a mintue there I actually thought I was semi-creative.....oh well.  LOL  

Still, cake really does solve a lot of problems.  And M&M's are great for life's big problems! 


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I shake my head at christians who don't follow their own beliefs. I haven't read the bible, and it still took me less than 2 minutes to find this: Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. -------------------- Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: -------------------- Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. -------------------- James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. -------------------- *sigh*

Try 1st Cor. 5:11 "Expel the Immoral Brother." Totally contradicts the above verses:

"But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." 

There's lots more of this of course, I just pulled out the Bible and started flipping pages. It wasn't hard to come across stuff like this passage that refutes the lovey-dovey passages. Yes, *SIGH*

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It is ludicrous

"mod note: Sorry, but only freethinkers are welcome to post in this forum"


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Rhad, I am not sure of

Rhad,

I am not sure of your slant here on the board, i.e. your world view. The discussion described in the original post was not debating the legality of gay marriage, not whether the bible says anything on the issue or whether he personally felt it was wrong. The discussion was that the only thing that would change would be the ability to share benefits, if it WERE legal. Everything else the theists and homophobes fear is already happening. Gays are living together, buying houses, going on trips, having sex, creating families and all things straight people take part in. Yes, they can be married in civil ceramonies but the benefits issue is not resolved that way.

There are no legal or moral grounds to forbid gay marriage from my point of view but that was not the discussion. Let's lay the cards on the table, if it were not for religous teachings and dogma the "definition" of marriage could very well be, "a joining of two consenting adults for the purpose of creating a family and sharing benefits".


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
This is true. I would

"mod note: Sorry, but only freethinkers are welcome to post in this forum"