| Author |
Message |
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
 Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:18 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | you are DEFINITLY not religious! You're a secularist and an athiest! |
I understand Athiest but Secularist??? what does that mean?
Anyway back onto topic I'm just currious if any of you had a brother, sister, cousin so forth and they told you they were going to marry someone and when you found out it was a member of the same sex would you tell them that they shouldn't marry? Unless you feel it was a Civil union?
-------signature-------
| ~Tony Montana wrote: | | You know what you need people like me people for you to snub your nose at and point at saying there is a bad man. Well guess what This bad man is leaving. Say goodnight to the BAD MAN! |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:21 am |
|
| Jeff Miller wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | you are DEFINITLY not religious! You're a secularist and an athiest! |
I understand Athiest but Secularist??? what does that mean?
Anyway back onto topic I'm just currious if any of you had a brother, sister, cousin so forth and they told you they were going to marry someone and when you found out it was a member of the same sex would you tell them that they shouldn't marry? Unless you feel it was a Civil union? |
I would still be opposed to it. And secularists want religion out of public life and are anti-relgion, although I may have been exagerating because I was so mad at you.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
gilbert3729
Commander
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 390
Location: New England, USA
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:27 am |
|
Is it just me or does this issue seem to be mainly about the seperation of church and state. I thought that when this country was founded they said that church and state would always remain seperate. So by including the bible and other religious views on this issue goes against everything that this country was founded upon. Church and state should never be mixed.
-------signature-------
Soylent Green is people!!!
John Kerry...
Bringing complete sentences back to the White House.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:30 am |
|
| gilbert3729 wrote: | | Is it just me or does this issue seem to be mainly about the seperation of church and state. I thought that when this country was founded they said that church and state would always remain seperate. So by including the bible and other religious views on this issue goes against everything that this country was founded upon. Church and state should never be mixed. |
I disagree, but it's NOT mainly about the separation of church and state--just Jeff's horrible comment did, and that lead to a slight discussion...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:31 am |
|
| gilbert3729 wrote: | | Is it just me or does this issue seem to be mainly about the seperation of church and state. I thought that when this country was founded they said that church and state would always remain seperate. So by including the bible and other religious views on this issue goes against everything that this country was founded upon. Church and state should never be mixed. |
Yes. I dislike it when people involve religion in the topic of gay marriage. Involving morals is fine, but don't mention religion. Religion has its place, but building the laws of a country upon the tenets of a singular religion, or a group of closely-related religions, excludes the religions of other individuals, and disrespects their moral rights.
It's also about the separation of religion and morality. There is a difference. Years ago, you used to have to believe in a supreme being to be labelled a conscientious objector. Now you are allowed to be a conscientious objector because of personal morals.
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:33 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I would still be opposed to it. And secularists want religion out of public life and are anti-relgion, although I may have been exagerating because I was so mad at you. |
Ooh so thats what it meant. I'm ok with it if your mad at me I don't expect people not to be mad at me and your right I do want it out of public life. But I have a good reason why it's because from the time I was in the cradle to the time I was about 12 I was force fed religon and I litterly got sick of it. I was ok with the whole concept but it got to the point that I was forced to pray and so forth it really got annoying. I just got fed up with it I don't hate people who have a religon I never wanted to generate that image its just well I'm hard to understand unless you spend obscene amounts of time talking to me than you could really start to understand my mentality.
I personly couldn't tell a friend or anyone else they couldn't marry if they revealed the person was the same sex if they are happy. I think they should be happy no matter what.
-------signature-------
| ~Tony Montana wrote: | | You know what you need people like me people for you to snub your nose at and point at saying there is a bad man. Well guess what This bad man is leaving. Say goodnight to the BAD MAN! |
|
|
|
gilbert3729
Commander
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 390
Location: New England, USA
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:35 am |
|
I think that Jeff's statement was justified by the way that people have been discussing gay rights and by using the bible as sources for their arguments.
Why should a book, a book that not everyone follows, dictate how everyone can live their lives?
That is where my argument of keeping church and state seperated comes from.
-------signature-------
Soylent Green is people!!!
John Kerry...
Bringing complete sentences back to the White House.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:41 am |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | Is it just me or does this issue seem to be mainly about the seperation of church and state. I thought that when this country was founded they said that church and state would always remain seperate. So by including the bible and other religious views on this issue goes against everything that this country was founded upon. Church and state should never be mixed. |
Yes. I dislike it when people involve religion in the topic of gay marriage. Involving morals is fine, but don't mention religion. Religion has its place, but building the laws of a country upon the tenets of a singular religion, or a group of closely-related religions, excludes the religions of other individuals, and disrespects their moral rights.
It's also about the separation of religion and morality. There is a difference. Years ago, you used to have to believe in a supreme being to be labelled a conscientious objector. Now you are allowed to be a conscientious objector because of personal morals. |
No, no, no. It's okay to involve religion in it--but it can't be your ONLY reason for it. And relgion and morality are NOT "separate." There is hardly a difference because w/out relgion, there would be no morals.
| Jeff Miller wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | I would still be opposed to it. And secularists want religion out of public life and are anti-relgion, although I may have been exagerating because I was so mad at you. |
Ooh so thats what it meant. I'm ok with it if your mad at me I don't expect people not to be mad at me and your right I do want it out of public life. But I have a good reason why it's because from the time I was in the cradle to the time I was about 12 I was force fed religon and I litterly got sick of it. I was ok with the whole concept but it got to the point that I was forced to pray and so forth it really got annoying. I just got fed up with it I don't hate people who have a religon I never wanted to generate that image its just well I'm hard to understand unless you spend obscene amounts of time talking to me than you could really start to understand my mentality.
I personly couldn't tell a friend or anyone else they couldn't marry if they revealed the person was the same sex if they are happy. I think they should be happy no matter what. |
Okay, so you're a secularist.
| gilbert3729 wrote: | I think that Jeff's statement was justified by the way that people have been discussing gay rights and by using the bible as sources for their arguments.
Why should a book, a book that not everyone follows, dictate how everyone can live their lives?
That is where my argument of keeping church and state seperated comes from. |
No, his arguement was that the Bible IS A LIE, DAMN IT! THAT'S NOT JUSTIFIED.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:43 am |
|
How? He said that he doesn't believe in the bible, so therefore, he doesn't believe that homosexuals should or shouldn't marry.
And, I don't think a person needs religion to have morals.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:45 am |
|
All right first of all we weren't really using the Bible as a reason for them to not get married. We were commenting on the comment by Jeff about calling the bible a "book of lies"! Second of all the book is not the only reason people in the worlds don't want gays to get married. Im not sure of any religion by the way that is ok with it, so people need to stop jumping all over the Bible as the source of all evil. Third, I'll say it again. We don't mind civil unions. Marriage in the church is what im against. I won't speak for everyone but I am. Why does it have to be there? It goes agianst the Church's beliefs.
| Quote: | | But I have a good reason why it's because from the time I was in the cradle to the time I was about 12 I was force fed religon and I litterly got sick of it. I was ok with the whole concept but it got to the point that I was forced to pray and so forth it really got annoying. |
Thats a good reason? You got "annoyed" with it and didn't like it. No offense but that doesn't consitiute as a good reason. I respect your beliefs and if you choose to not believe in it thats fine by me. I didn't mean to get all PC on you. 
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:46 am |
|
I disagree that without religion there would be no morals. Religion is simply a tautological explanation of the world around us, usually involving powers that have superior abilities, often manifested as a personified deity or deities.
I could, for example, choose not to SPAM because I know it is wrong. This is a moral choice on my part. There is no religious significance to my choice, I have not chosen to be courteous because my God told me to do so, although many religions do (but I've yet to find a religion that mentions SPAMming on message boards!). This choice is completely separate of religion.
Saying that morality is dependent on religion is implying that atheists are amoral. This is not true. Humans themselves are innately moral or immoral creatures, whether or not they subscribe to religious practices.
|
|
|
gilbert3729
Commander
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 390
Location: New England, USA
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:50 am |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | I disagree that without religion there would be no morals. Religion is simply a tautological explanation of the world around us, usually involving powers that have superior abilities, often manifested as a personified deity or deities.
I could, for example, choose not to SPAM because I know it is wrong. This is a moral choice on my part. There is no religious significance to my choice, I have not chosen to be courteous because my God told me to do so, although many religions do (but I've yet to find a religion that mentions SPAMming on message boards!). This choice is completely separate of religion.
Saying that morality is dependent on religion is implying that atheists are amoral. This is not true. Humans themselves are innately moral or immoral creatures, whether or not they subscribe to religious practices. |
I completly agree with that.
-------signature-------
Soylent Green is people!!!
John Kerry...
Bringing complete sentences back to the White House.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:50 am |
|
| gilbert3729 wrote: | | I think that Jeff's statement was justified by the way that people have been discussing gay rights and by using the bible as sources for their arguments. |
Jeff said that he thinks the bible is all lies, so therefore it's justified in his view, that people citing the bible as sources, is not valid. That's what I was saying.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 am |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | I disagree that without religion there would be no morals. Religion is simply a tautological explanation of the world around us, usually involving powers that have superior abilities, often manifested as a personified deity or deities.
I could, for example, choose not to SPAM because I know it is wrong. This is a moral choice on my part. There is no religious significance to my choice, I have not chosen to be courteous because my God told me to do so, although many religions do (but I've yet to find a religion that mentions SPAMming on message boards!). This choice is completely separate of religion.
Saying that morality is dependent on religion is implying that atheists are amoral. This is not true. Humans themselves are innately moral or immoral creatures, whether or not they subscribe to religious practices. |
Um I suggest you look up what morals mean my friend. Morals has nothing to do with SPAM in the internet. It means a lot more than that. Its not simply a random choice.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:57 am |
|
The SPAM reference was just an example, I'm sure.
Of course it isn't a random choice, you think about what you do (most of the time), but that doesn't mean you have to factor in religion in your thought process to come up with the right answer.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:03 am |
|
Yes, of course the SPAM reference was just an example. It's 3 AM and my mind is locked into computer mode.
I'm pointing out that religion often has no bearing on my moral judgement, which is often very case-by-case. I can develop a whole ethical philosophy that mentions nothing about religion, which is a belief system based upon contestable historical facts, while an ethical system is based upon subjective beliefs that are just moral precepts, and have no relation to history or creation thereof.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:07 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | How? He said that he doesn't believe in the bible, so therefore, he doesn't believe that homosexuals should or shouldn't marry.
And, I don't think a person needs religion to have morals. |
He doesn't just NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE. He was saying that it's a BOOK OF LIES!!
| Founder wrote: | All right first of all we weren't really using the Bible as a reason for them to not get married. We were commenting on the comment by Jeff about calling the bible a "book of lies"!
The Bible is PART of my reasoning, but not most of it. But yes, he DID call it a "Book of Lies" and that's what we object to!!
Second of all the book is not the only reason people in the worlds don't want gays to get married. Im not sure of any religion by the way that is ok with it, so people need to stop jumping all over the Bible as the source of all evil.
Agreed.
Third, I'll say it again. We don't mind civil unions. Marriage in the church is what im against. I won't speak for everyone but I am. Why does it have to be there? It goes agianst the Church's beliefs.
Well, I'm not so much on Civil Unions, but I don't want to get into that (I accept it only Limited, though) but Marriage IN GENERAL is against my belieft.
| Quote: | | But I have a good reason why it's because from the time I was in the cradle to the time I was about 12 I was force fed religon and I litterly got sick of it. I was ok with the whole concept but it got to the point that I was forced to pray and so forth it really got annoying. |
Thats a good reason? You got "annoyed" with it and didn't like it. No offense but that doesn't consitiute as a good reason. I respect your beliefs and if you choose to not believe in it thats fine by me. I didn't mean to get all PC on you. |
Agreed.
| Hitchhiker wrote: | I disagree that without religion there would be no morals. Religion is simply a tautological explanation of the world around us, usually involving powers that have superior abilities, often manifested as a personified deity or deities.
No, no, no--it's NOT just a "tautological explanation of the world around us." It involves things more deep than that--such as MORALS and VALUES. Without religion in life MORALS WOULD NOT EXIST.
I could, for example, choose not to SPAM because I know it is wrong. This is a moral choice on my part. There is no religious significance to my choice, I have not chosen to be courteous because my God told me to do so, although many religions do (but I've yet to find a religion that mentions SPAMming on message boards!). This choice is completely separate of religion.
Sure, whatever you say. *sarcasm* And that is not morals.
Saying that morality is dependent on religion is implying that atheists are amoral. This is not true. Humans themselves are innately moral or immoral creatures, whether or not they subscribe to religious practices. |
No it is not, and no I am not, BECAUSE I said that religion not being in society is what's wrong, although some people can be athiest and because of the religion have morals.
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | I think that Jeff's statement was justified by the way that people have been discussing gay rights and by using the bible as sources for their arguments. |
Jeff said that he thinks the bible is all lies, so therefore it's justified in his view, that people citing the bible as sources, is not valid. That's what I was saying. |
It IS VALID, but he STILL SHOULD NOT HAVE SAID THAT IT'S A BOOK OF LIES!!
| Founder wrote: | | Hitchhiker wrote: | I disagree that without religion there would be no morals. Religion is simply a tautological explanation of the world around us, usually involving powers that have superior abilities, often manifested as a personified deity or deities.
I could, for example, choose not to SPAM because I know it is wrong. This is a moral choice on my part. There is no religious significance to my choice, I have not chosen to be courteous because my God told me to do so, although many religions do (but I've yet to find a religion that mentions SPAMming on message boards!). This choice is completely separate of religion.
Saying that morality is dependent on religion is implying that atheists are amoral. This is not true. Humans themselves are innately moral or immoral creatures, whether or not they subscribe to religious practices. |
Um I suggest you look up what morals mean my friend. Morals has nothing to do with SPAM in the internet. It means a lot more than that. Its not simply a random choice. |
Exactly.
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | The SPAM reference was just an example, I'm sure.
Of course it isn't a random choice, you think about what you do (most of the time), but that doesn't mean you have to factor in religion in your thought process to come up with the right answer. |
Yeah, but not a good example.
| Quote: | Yes, of course the SPAM reference was just an example. It's 3 AM and my mind is locked into computer mode.
I'm pointing out that religion often has no bearing on my moral judgement, which is often very case-by-case. I can develop a whole ethical philosophy that mentions nothing about religion, which is a belief system based upon contestable historical facts, while an ethical system is based upon subjective beliefs that are just moral precepts, and have no relation to history or creation thereof. |
Still--RELIGION IS AROUND YOU, and that has impacts.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:20 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | How? He said that he doesn't believe in the bible, so therefore, he doesn't believe that homosexuals should or shouldn't marry.
And, I don't think a person needs religion to have morals. |
He doesn't just NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE. He was saying that it's a BOOK OF LIES!! |
Same thing for him, I was simply using his perspective to convey the point.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Hitchhiker wrote: | | I disagree that without religion there would be no morals. Religion is simply a tautological explanation of the world around us, usually involving powers that have superior abilities, often manifested as a personified deity or deities. |
No, no, no--it's NOT just a "tautological explanation of the world around us." It involves things more deep than that--such as MORALS and VALUES. Without religion in life MORALS WOULD NOT EXIST. |
What makes you say that? I don't believe in god, I don't follow a religion, so does that mean I have no morals? I know you didn't say that, just a question, . I mean, you don't need religion to know the difference between right and wrong.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | I think that Jeff's statement was justified by the way that people have been discussing gay rights and by using the bible as sources for their arguments. |
Jeff said that he thinks the bible is all lies, so therefore it's justified in his view, that people citing the bible as sources, is not valid. That's what I was saying. |
It IS VALID, but he STILL SHOULD NOT HAVE SAID THAT IT'S A BOOK OF LIES!! |
I agree that it was extreme of him to say it that way, but that doesn't change the fact that it's valid only to you and other's who are religious and use the bible. It's not like the Starr Report.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | The SPAM reference was just an example, I'm sure.
Of course it isn't a random choice, you think about what you do (most of the time), but that doesn't mean you have to factor in religion in your thought process to come up with the right answer. |
Yeah, but not a good example. |
Why? It applies to every decision you make (how you think does, that is).
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Quote: | Yes, of course the SPAM reference was just an example. It's 3 AM and my mind is locked into computer mode.
I'm pointing out that religion often has no bearing on my moral judgement, which is often very case-by-case. I can develop a whole ethical philosophy that mentions nothing about religion, which is a belief system based upon contestable historical facts, while an ethical system is based upon subjective beliefs that are just moral precepts, and have no relation to history or creation thereof. |
Still--RELIGION IS AROUND YOU, and that has impacts. |
But you're not sure what kind on what person. Who's to say that they're good ones?
|
|
|
Sonic74205
Rear Admiral
Joined: 01 Feb 2004
Posts: 4081
Location: England
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:24 am |
|
But wait a minute. People are sayin that gay marriages shouldn't be allowed. and i think that if they could have a civil union with the same rights as marriage then thats fine.
But one question. What if a kid was brought up as a cristian believing all the same things as christians do. and the he/she realised that they were gay. but they have been brought up around religiouse people that want to and have gotten married in a church all of the their life. WHAT THEN
If this person wants to get married and is a christian then they are exiled from marriange in a church, their church because of something SO insignificant which doesn't really affect there own life either. How could anyone live with doing that to someone. Andswer me that question...How could you live with doing that to someone.
-------signature-------
<a href="<img>http://sonic.11.forumer.com</a>
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:40 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | How? He said that he doesn't believe in the bible, so therefore, he doesn't believe that homosexuals should or shouldn't marry.
And, I don't think a person needs religion to have morals. |
I personally don't see the point in morals without religion. Could you please explain the reasons for having morals when you have not had a God telling you them? ((Not saying you can't have them, just saying there is no point.))
The reason there shouldn't be "marriages" is because it is to do with the church. Fine, if someone wants the same rights then there should be something like a civil union, that should be avaliable for them. That's not saying I approve, but that if there is something against what one group believe in there is no point in forcing it on them. There should be another option. ((Sorry if that is badly worded, I have to go 10 min ago or so somewhere,  ))
People also seem to use the argument that Jesus was an all loving person and that we should accept gays as He loves them as well. Sure, He loves them, but that does not mean He loves the actions of what they do, as it is taught in the bible as sin. I'm not saying that you have to believe it is sin, but that according to Christians it is.
| Interpidisme wrote: | | I mean, you don't need religion to know the difference between right and wrong. |
But what is right and wrong without a standard to set it against?
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:36 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | I personally don't see the point in morals without religion. Could you please explain the reasons for having morals when you have not had a God telling you them? ((Not saying you can't have them, just saying there is no point.)) |
Well, there is a point. The point in possessing morals is a guide to the way you live your life, whether or not you believe in (and worship, which is a separate concept from belief) a supreme being.
| Jeremy wrote: | | The reason there shouldn't be "marriages" is because it is to do with the church. Fine, if someone wants the same rights then there should be something like a civil union, that should be avaliable for them. That's not saying I approve, but that if there is something against what one group believe in there is no point in forcing it on them. There should be another option. ((Sorry if that is badly worded, I have to go 10 min ago or so somewhere, )) |
Marriage should not be about the church though. Atheists are allowed to get married. And there are plenty of religious homosexuals out there. Giving them the legal benefits of marriage without calling it marriage is the same thing as not giving them the benefits. It will be settling for a half-way, a token gesture.
| Jeremy wrote: | | People also seem to use the argument that Jesus was an all loving person and that we should accept gays as He loves them as well. Sure, He loves them, but that does not mean He loves the actions of what they do, as it is taught in the bible as sin. I'm not saying that you have to believe it is sin, but that according to Christians it is. |
Yes, okay. But why should homosexuals have their legal rights decided by such a religion? They should receive the same benefits as everyone else.
| Jeremy wrote: | | But what is right and wrong without a standard to set it against? |
The standard doesn't have to be religion. It can be an ethical philosophy developed by yourself. That's why children are taught by their parents, taught the difference between right and wrong, because children are still too young to have developed an ethical sense of self. The older you get, the more experience you have in making moral decisions.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:22 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | How? He said that he doesn't believe in the bible, so therefore, he doesn't believe that homosexuals should or shouldn't marry.
And, I don't think a person needs religion to have morals. |
I personally don't see the point in morals without religion. Could you please explain the reasons for having morals when you have not had a God telling you them? ((Not saying you can't have them, just saying there is no point.))
The reason there shouldn't be "marriages" is because it is to do with the church. Fine, if someone wants the same rights then there should be something like a civil union, that should be avaliable for them. That's not saying I approve, but that if there is something against what one group believe in there is no point in forcing it on them. There should be another option. ((Sorry if that is badly worded, I have to go 10 min ago or so somewhere, ))
People also seem to use the argument that Jesus was an all loving person and that we should accept gays as He loves them as well. Sure, He loves them, but that does not mean He loves the actions of what they do, as it is taught in the bible as sin. I'm not saying that you have to believe it is sin, but that according to Christians it is.
| Interpidisme wrote: | | I mean, you don't need religion to know the difference between right and wrong. |
But what is right and wrong without a standard to set it against? |
I'm not religious, I don't believe in god, but that does that mean that I'm a bad person? No. I do kind things, I help others, but NOT because I think that's what god would want me to do. I have morals, simply because I know that those are the right things to do. I don't need a god to tell me what's right and what's wrong when it's rather obvious to me what is and isn't.
There are other standards besides religion. Such as another person, you could strive to be like them, that's a standard. Religion isn't required to tell me what's good and what isn't.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:04 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Jeremy wrote: | | I personally don't see the point in morals without religion. Could you please explain the reasons for having morals when you have not had a God telling you them? ((Not saying you can't have them, just saying there is no point.)) |
Well, there is a point. The point in possessing morals is a guide to the way you live your life, whether or not you believe in (and worship, which is a separate concept from belief) a supreme being. |
But why should you follow a set of beliefs if there is a different way that will get you more if you are a little less moralistic?
| Jeremy wrote: | | The reason there shouldn't be "marriages" is because it is to do with the church. Fine, if someone wants the same rights then there should be something like a civil union, that should be avaliable for them. That's not saying I approve, but that if there is something against what one group believe in there is no point in forcing it on them. There should be another option. ((Sorry if that is badly worded, I have to go 10 min ago or so somewhere, )) |
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Marriage should not be about the church though. Atheists are allowed to get married. And there are plenty of religious homosexuals out there. Giving them the legal benefits of marriage without calling it marriage is the same thing as not giving them the benefits. It will be settling for a half-way, a token gesture. |
It is totally against the teaching in the bible though, and as far as I am concerned marriage is to do with the church. Far less people are getting married in churches. Why can't there be civil unions for other people who don't like Christianity, or people who practice against the beliefs of a certain religion.
| Jeremy wrote: | | People also seem to use the argument that Jesus was an all loving person and that we should accept gays as He loves them as well. Sure, He loves them, but that does not mean He loves the actions of what they do, as it is taught in the bible as sin. I'm not saying that you have to believe it is sin, but that according to Christians it is. |
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Yes, okay. But why should homosexuals have their legal rights decided by such a religion? They should receive the same benefits as everyone else. |
They would in a civil union.
| Jeremy wrote: | | But what is right and wrong without a standard to set it against? |
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | The standard doesn't have to be religion. It can be an ethical philosophy developed by yourself. That's why children are taught by their parents, taught the difference between right and wrong, because children are still too young to have developed an ethical sense of self. The older you get, the more experience you have in making moral decisions. |
I know that, but if ou are brought up believing killing someone is ok, then does that make it right? I know you can follow morals, but there is nothing to base them firmly on. That is also my reply for Aaron (Intrepidisme).
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:28 pm |
|
"Right" is an entirely subjective concept. Firstly, because it is completely relative and dependent upon the situation. Secondly, because no two people will agree exactly on what is right. Even with a religion, there is nothing to base your ethics firmly upon except the teachings of that religion, which are exactly like the teachings of parent unto child. You could view a "God" as the parent and humans as its "children".
There are many cultures, including ours, which believes killing people is okay.
| Jeremy wrote: | | Why can't there be civil unions for other people who don't like Christianity, or people who practice against the beliefs of a certain religion. |
Because that is in effect giving certain benefits to Christianity and not to other cultures. It would allow a Christian couple to say to a non-Christian couple, "We're married," while the non-Christian couple would have to say, "Well, we are in a civil union together." It's about pride, everyone has pride, and you would be taking away a couple's ability to say, with pride, that they are married. It is acknowledging that marriage is only for Christian couples, while others must settle for civil unions. It gives the Church another form of control, allowing it to convert couples just for the ability to say that they are married. You should believe in a religion because of your beliefs, not because you want to get married rather than enter into a civil union.
And for that matter, what if one person of the couple is Christian and the other is not? Will the other have to convert just to get married?
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:40 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | "Right" is an entirely subjective concept. Firstly, because it is completely relative and dependent upon the situation. Secondly, because no two people will agree exactly on what is right. Even with a religion, there is nothing to base your ethics firmly upon except the teachings of that religion, which are exactly like the teachings of parent unto child. You could view a "God" as the parent and humans as its "children".
There are many cultures, including ours, which believes killing people is okay. |
I know that right and wrong are based upon teachings that you have recived. But if you have the option say of stealing if you know you'd never get caught and not why go for the one that is moralistic if you could get something else for free? Most religions preach that if you do right then you get to heaven, so is why you'd do the "right" thing. Christianity is different in that respect because it teachs there is no way apart from Jesus to heaven. God tells us to be as good as possible because he wants us to, not because we have to. So would you accept it if someone killed someone you know and they didn't care because they were brought up thinking it was right?
| Jeremy wrote: | | Why can't there be civil unions for other people who don't like Christianity, or people who practice against the beliefs of a certain religion. |
| Hitchhiker wrote: | Because that is in effect giving certain benefits to Christianity and not to other cultures. It would allow a Christian couple to say to a non-Christian couple, "We're married," while the non-Christian couple would have to say, "Well, we are in a civil union together." It's about pride, everyone has pride, and you would be taking away a couple's ability to say, with pride, that they are married. It is acknowledging that marriage is only for Christian couples, while others must settle for civil unions. It gives the Church another form of control, allowing it to convert couples just for the ability to say that they are married. You should believe in a religion because of your beliefs, not because you want to get married rather than enter into a civil union.
And for that matter, what if one person of the couple is Christian and the other is not? Will the other have to convert just to get married? |
It should not be biased towards marriage being right then. There is nothing better about it.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
