June 28, 2013
Atheism Is Our Future?
Was reading Stan's viewpoint, that I completely agree with, on how marriage is completely meaningless if this continues.
"With wanton killing of progeny on demand and the sodomizing of marriage, the Left has effectively de-institutionalized moral behavior and codified libertinism."
Amen. Also, what I wish to mention, is the current holocaust of murdering 50+ million US Citizens in the name of convenience, eradicating what is merely considered "parasites", throwing morality to the wind.
To top it all off, I saw the new video he posted on and considered a real connection as to why we're in the state we are currently in. Folks, take a look at our future in this country if we keep allowing it, and the irrationality of who will be running it, (Just making a point here, spare the fallacy accusations).
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams, 2nd President.
The entire quote is more prophecy then anything else:
"While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government"
We must take or country back. To just not allow all of this evil to happen, otherwise this country will be consumed and shrugged. We have the power, in Christ, to change starting within and pushing outward. We have been hijacked, it's time to take this country back. God help us all, and Lord I will take great comfort that Your will be done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What meaning did you think marriage had before homosexuals were allowed to take part?
ReplyDeleteHow exactly does allowing them to marry take away that meaning?
Just what has changed in your marriage now that homosexuals will be allowed to get married? If you believe there are changes can you show exactly how allowing homosexuals to marry has caused them?
How is this removal of gender specificity different from the changes to marriage that came about through the burgeoning rights of women through the 19th and 20th centuries?
Do you honestly believe that allowing gay marriage will somehow lead to men marrying sheep (to use an example from Stan)?
Do you honestly believe Stan's claim that the definition of marriage was immutable? If so can you explain then, why there are differences in that definition in different cultures?
Can you also explain why it differs from marriage in the Bible - specifically where the Bible allows for polygamous marriages? Rape victims being forced to marry their attackers? Widows forced to marry their late husbands' brothers? Virgin spoils of war forced to submit to their conquering captors? The ability to make your male and female slaves marry? Are concubines still allowed?
Gay marriage will create lots more jobs. There will be a need for more prenup and divorce lawyers. Homosexuals look at commitment with more of a narcissistic attitude than do heterosexuals.
DeleteSue writes “Homosexuals look at commitment with more of a narcissistic attitude than do heterosexuals.”
DeleteNever heard that stereotype before.
Not necessarily a stereotype, is well documented they're more promiscuous. Also, they are actually more ex-gays in the world then gays. So it is completely fair as to what Sue says.
DeleteWe've done the abortion debate before but lets face it, you believe the moral high ground you're trying to stand on is currently occupied by your God. Unfortunately for you that God is an entity who is perfectly happy to command genocide and see babies smashed on rocks. That moral high ground? It's not really very high at all.
ReplyDeleteBefore we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.
DeleteIt is amazing you're still not understanding my argument. I'm pointing out your inconsistency in your application of your worldview. The atheist is the one who claims one worldview yet operates on another.
Here's the gist of the matter; you have no basis from which to judge your opinion to be superior over another's without having a common standard by which to make such a judgment. The same common standard your worldveiw denies exists.
See, without even mentioning my worldview, your worldview eliminates any possibility of judging which opinion is morally superior. (some of this is taken from Keith, I believe, on my FB group)
D.A.N. said...
DeleteBefore we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid.
Yes I made assumptions, for the sake of argument I assumed your God existed and that the Bible was "His Word". Then I pointed out that the moral stance that you were trying to adopt was wholly undermined by your own worldview. A God who is only too happy to wipe out all life on earth, to command genocide in his name etc... isn't really the starting point for decrying abortion. Fortunately for me, I neither need nor want to defend your claims. I can already see how absurd that they are and I'm glad they're not my problems.
Like Razi Zacharias said, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.
Can you please account for objectivity from within your inherently subjective worldview? Until you do that, any claim to an objective moral standard requires you to first steal the concept of objectivity from my worldview.
It is amazing you're still not understanding my argument.
Your argument commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. That's all that needs to be understood in order to dismiss it.
I'm pointing out your inconsistency in your application of your worldview.
Please show how my pointing out how your own Bible undermines your attempt to claim some moral high ground is, in any way, inconsistent with my objectivist atheist worldview.
The atheist is the one who claims one worldview yet operates on another.
How so? I'm not the one professing a worldview that is based on the Primacy of Consciousness and then arguing as if the Primacy of Existence holds - as you do whenever you make any claim to objective standards i.e. things that are so irrespective of what anyone wants/thinks/wishes etc...
Here's the gist of the matter; you have no basis from which to judge your opinion to be superior over another's without having a common standard by which to make such a judgment.
You certainly have no route to a common objective standard as you profess to hold a worldview which boils down to "wishing makes it so". On that basis, my worldview is already superior to yours.
The same common standard your worldveiw denies exists.
Please substantiate this claim. You could start by showing how objectivism denies objectivity?
See, without even mentioning my worldview, your worldview eliminates any possibility of judging which opinion is morally superior. (some of this is taken from Keith, I believe, on my FB group)
I suspect Keith has very little (if any) understanding of the objectivist position. If he did he wouldn't be making such ridiculous claims.
As for the video? At least you seem to recognise that there are a slew of fallacies you're having the build upon to try and use it as a stick to beat atheists with. I'm sure you'd be only too happy to point them out should an atheist present a video of, say, the Westboro baptists, and tried to suggest that all Christians are the same as them.
ReplyDeleteAnd finally to the words of John Adams.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about anyone else, but he seems to me to recognise that morality and religiosity aren't necessarily exclusively linked. There are plenty of religious people who don't appear to be very moral at all, while there are plenty of non-religious people who are moral.
I think your constitution will be just fine with the allowing of homosexuals to marry.
The State has no right to call ANYONE married. The US has no right to say who can, or who cannot, marry. You want gay unions then erase the term "marriage" from the United States vocabulary. That is where the US went wrong. They stuck their nose into a place where it didn't belong. We should have all been recognized as civil unions and left the term "Marriage" for the Christian religion introduced by God.
DeleteI don't care what the State calls me and my wife. (Civilly Unioned) In God's eyes we are married and that, to me (and probably the gays), is more important. Genesis 2:24
Something told me that just was not "good enough". Now the term is meaningless to the world. I feel sorry for this government who literally declared war on God, by trying to be god. Sad. I am not worried in the least though. God's Will be done.
Tell me, If there are 4 deer and one pig, how many deer are there, if I call the pig a deer?
Hint, the answer is 4. You're not fooling any of us.
D.A.N. said...
DeleteThe State has no right to call ANYONE married. The US has no right to say who can, or who cannot, marry.
But you do? Simply because you think your Holy book defines marriage in a certain way? If you actually read what your Bible says about marriage, you'd realise that marriage doesn't have an immutable definition in the first place. Polygamy, concubines, forced marriage etc.. are all covered in your Bible. As Reynold has pointed out too, your religion isn't the only one, why should we take the (unbiblical) "1 man 1 woman" definition that you insist upon?
You want gay unions then erase the term "marriage" from the United States vocabulary. That is where the US went wrong. They stuck their nose into a place where it didn't belong. We should have all been recognized as civil unions and left the term "Marriage" for the Christian religion introduced by God.
Why so? The word "marriage" is relatively recent (1250-1300CE) but Christian's didn't invent the concept. People were getting "married" long before Christianity started.
I don't care what the State calls me and my wife. (Civilly Unioned) In God's eyes we are married and that, to me (and probably the gays), is more important. Genesis 2:24
And once again you make us all wonder why you're so bothered about gays getting married when "In God's eyes" is all that really matters? You're being very contradictory over this.
Something told me that just was not "good enough". Now the term is meaningless to the world.
Can you explain exactly how gays being able to get married in the US makes the term "marriage", "meaningless to the world"? All you've done so far is say you agree with Stan's unsupported assertions and he does nothing but throw up slippery slope fallacies suggesting that, now the gays can marry, it's only a matter of time before men start marrying sheep. We know marriage already means different things in different cultures and at different times (in your own Bible for example). We know that you say you don't even care what the government calls you and your wife's relationship. So why the fuss about SCOTUS altering the definition slightly - as it has been altered time and again throughout history - to allow homosexuals to marry?
I feel sorry for this government who literally declared war on God, by trying to be god. Sad. I am not worried in the least though. God's Will be done.
When you profess a worldview like yours, where every action must be part of God's plan, why aren't you rejoicing in this announcement? After all, it must be part of God's plan to allow the gays to get married, right?
Tell me, If there are 4 deer and one pig, how many deer are there, if I call the pig a deer?
Hint, the answer is 4. You're not fooling any of us.
Your analogy might have some merit if marriage were as strictly defined as the definitions of what constitutes a pig or a deer. Unfortunately for you it isn't. It covers a wide range of matrimonial contracts in a large number of countries and making it available for gays in your country (lets not forget gays elsewhere already have the right to marry) does nothing to the institution itself.
The only polygamous arrangement that seemed to be free from the wives' jealousy toward each other was that of Esau's crew - they all partied at the grove of ashtoreth. Not a good place to be. All other polygamous marriages were rife with trouble. How is it that atheists always brag about their Bible knowledge, yet miss so much!
DeleteWhat does the amount of trouble a marriage have to do with anything?
DeleteIf you really feel that your marriage is meaningless now, that just shows how fucked in the head you are.
ReplyDeleteI don't. To the government the TERM marriage is meaningless. The term itself discriminates and separates from other positions, like single, engaged, etc.
DeleteLike the example that I used above. The ruling is absurd. If SCOTUS said that the term "widow" is discriminatory against people that were never married, does that make single people "widows". It's an absurd ruling.
Is that what you're getting at with your complaining? That marriage is "meaningless" unless it's the biblical marriage you refer to?
DeleteYou do know that other cultures other than xianity have marriages right?
D.A.N. said (to TJH)
DeleteI don't. To the government the TERM marriage is meaningless.
On the contrary, the SCOTUS ruling suggests that the term marriage means quite a bit to your government - not least because it has a number of legal consequences when people get married.
The term itself discriminates and separates from other positions, like single, engaged, etc.
So it's not meaningless then? In which case, why are you saying that it is?
Like the example that I used above. The ruling is absurd. If SCOTUS said that the term "widow" is discriminatory against people that were never married, does that make single people "widows". It's an absurd ruling.
You're forgetting all those people who have campaigned to be regarded as "widows" despite having never married their partners. Some end up being classed as "widows" for financial purposes - pensions etc... Word definitions aren't fixed. They can (and do) change for a multitude of reasons. This is no different.
It not that a word can discriminate between individuals, it's how that discrimination manifests that is important. If it discriminates unfairly - as marriage does when defined as "1 man 1 woman" - then the definition should be amended appropriately. You have no valid reason to deny homosexuals the opportunity to marry - all you have is a book that has it's own schizophrenic relationship with the term.
This is the first statement from Stan's site and right away it's completely clown shit.
ReplyDelete...meaningless. With the US Supreme Court ruling based that "discrimination" in favor of man/woman marriage to be unconstitutional, then discrimination against any union whatsoever is also unconstitutional by that self-same logic.
Has that brainless idiot not heard of the concept of "informed consenting adults"?
Good freaking jebus. The only people affected by this are homosexuals who want to marry.
And just how does that John Adams quote reference homosexuality?
One can quote from greeks thousands of years ago about the declining morals of culture and predictions of doomsday.
>>Has that brainless idiot not heard of the concept of "informed consenting adults"?
DeleteSo if I wish to marry 20 wifes and 20 men, as we're all "consenting" that should be allowed too, by that logic. The ruling is absurd.
>>The only people affected by this are homosexuals who want to marry.
Again, the government is not in that religious business. The government tries, but fails, to be the "people's" god. We should all be "civil unioned".
I wouldn't talk about group marriages Dan...how many wives did Solomon have?
DeleteCome to think of it, if we restricted ourselves to "biblical marriages", a woman would be required to marry her rapist.
Yeah, it's better this way.
Keep on whining, "slippery slope fallacy" Dan.
Gays can marry now? Well then, I will be ditching my girlfriend so that I can marry a rock, a turtle, my motorcycle, and a very cute horse down the road.
ReplyDeletehow about 20 people, is that within the guidelines of "consenting adults" who wish to marry?
DeleteI see you've ignored the points I brought up earlier today...
DeleteNo surprise, "slippery slope" Dan.
Here let me help you: If we let people become accountants then what's to stop everyone from becoming a cop and therefore having no doctors?
Are you nuts? Marrying twenty rocks, twenty turtles, twenty motorcycles and twenty cute horses is way over the line.
DeleteOh Dan, you truly are a hysterical nut sack.
ReplyDeleteYou should speak up, you're mumbling again, Alex. :)
DeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteThis is off-topic. But you might like my most recent blog post it concerns the censorship tactics of dogmatists.
Incidentally, I apply a human moral standard. When observing from a position detached from self-interest, people agree on a broad range of moral topics. I find that your god, as depicted in your "holy book," has serious moral failings. This is not to say that it really exists. It could very well be a product of human imagination.
I see Dan has decided to join Stan on his slippery slope to ... well ... nowhere really.
ReplyDeleteIf 20 people - all capable of giving informed consent - wish to marry can Dan give us a logical reason why they shouldn't be allowed?
Not a religious reason "it's in my Holy book" an actual objective reason please Dan.
How about the questions of inheritance and progeny? If 20 people are all married to each other and engage freely in reproductive activities with each other, whose child inherits what? For that matter, who does little Junior call Daddy and Mommy? Humana aren't designed to reproduce without two sexes and reproduction and population growth is the key to and reason for the government's traditional empowerment of married couples through better tax exemptions, etc... The reason homosexuals want this "married" status has nothing to do with the moral contract between two people and God that marriage was designed to be, but rather, as I have seen and heard stated by many of the LGBT community championing their request for equality in marriage, they simply want the same tax exemptions, insurance allowances and inheritance status as heterosexuals that are currently recognized by the government. In other words they want the benefits of said contract without actually signing said contract.
DeleteInheritance shouldn’t be much more complicated then a monogamous couple with 20 adopted children. But “who does little Junior call Daddy and Mommy?” is simple: All of them. They can say Daddy Mitchell or Daddy Cameron when they want to disambiguate.
DeleteSpeaking of angry Atheists...
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of missing the points that others bring up...
DeleteThe term "Marriage" is a pointless as the term "Privacy" in the United States now.
ReplyDeleteHopefully we can change all of that with the next administration.
How do you define marriage then, Dan?
DeleteIn your bible there was marriage between Solomon and a few hundred women, rape victims were forced to marry their rapists which, you remember you thought was punishment for the rapist...remember saying how "awkward" those family meals would be?
Besides, you do realize that other cultures have marriages too, right? It didn't originate with the bible.
"If 20 people - all capable of giving informed consent - wish to marry can Dan give us a logical reason why they shouldn't be allowed?"
ReplyDeleteWhich is more likely, that they are consenting? Or that there is some disguised duress going on? Smaller scale consensual polygamy is more plausible. But, even then we have seen coercive sects, where it wasn't really consensual, but people were afraid to speak out.
Dan, haven't "they" taken you and your family to a forced labor camp yet?
ReplyDeleteI asked:
ReplyDelete"If 20 people - all capable of giving informed consent - wish to marry can Dan give us a logical reason why they shouldn't be allowed?"
pvblivs responded...
Which is more likely, that they are consenting? Or that there is some disguised duress going on? Smaller scale consensual polygamy is more plausible. But, even then we have seen coercive sects, where it wasn't really consensual, but people were afraid to speak out.
I thought my question was quite specific? They are all capable of giving informed consent so duress is not an issue for my example.
However, to address your point, the concept of whether an individual or individuals is/are under duress holds whether we're talking about 2 people, 20 people or 200 people - we've seen plenty of reports of arranged monogamous marriages forced upon one or both of the participants after all.
In my opinion, the only real way duress can be used as a logical argument against polygamy is if it can be shown that duress is never an issue for monogamous marriages whilst it is a big problem for polygamous unions and, as stated previously, the evidence doesn't support that.
So, the same Stan who said here in regards to god having babies killed:
ReplyDeleteCan you show (prove) that it was not done out of love? Or do you just presume that because to you it resembles human hate, it is therefore nessarily hate in the deity also? Does non-comprehension of the motives of a deity prove that the deity does not exist? Non-existence is what Atheism asserts, and needs to be proved.
is now pretending to give a fuck about the unborn?
"With wanton killing of progeny on demand and the sodomizing of marriage, the Left has effectively de-institutionalized moral behavior and codified libertinism."
Freddy:
ReplyDeleteYou were quite specific. But we are not a nation of mind-readers. And sometimes action taken under duress is portrayed as voluntary action. Our determination that a particular action is "probably not voluntary" is a consideration in prohibiting something that otherwise looks voluntary. In the case of 20 people in a grand marriage, I would believe that there had to be some duress even if we couldn't identify it, even if it was disguised.
What about those moonie group marriages I've heard about?
DeleteTBF those are mass weddings - lots and lots of couples all getting married at the same time - rather than actual group marriages.
DeleteHowever, I get pvblivs' point about duress being an issue. I just think it's also an issue for standard monogamous marriages, which prevents duress being used as a rational argument against polygamous marriage specifically.
Whoops. Ok. Never mind then.
DeleteFreddy:
ReplyDeleteSome people might say that a starving man should be allowed to work a 12-hr day and get only a penny as compensation "if he really wants to." By your reasoning, the fact that people actually work jobs prevents us from saying the first situation can only be duress and overruling it.
Yes, duress can be a factor in monogamous marriage. But a twenty-person group marriage cannot happen without duress. Three or four people, maybe; but twenty people must be duress. When a condition is sufficiently extreme, we can determine that duress must be involved.
Some people might say that a starving man should be allowed to work a 12-hr day and get only a penny as compensation "if he really wants to." By your reasoning, the fact that people actually work jobs prevents us from saying the first situation can only be duress and overruling it.
DeleteNo, by my reasoning, the fact that other people are working jobs under duress (in order to make the analogy actually analogous to the marriage discussion) means that using duress as a reason to ban only the "12 hours for a penny" job is somewhat irrational. Why wouldn't you ban all jobs where duress is a factor? Thus, the only way the duress argument can be rationally used to disallow poorly paid jobs (polygamous/group marriages) is to show that other jobs (monogamous marriages) do not suffer from instances of duress.
Yes, duress can be a factor in monogamous marriage.
Which is my whole point. If it is a factor for monogamous marriages then how can you ignore that and only use it as a stick to beat other forms of marriage?.
But a twenty-person group marriage cannot happen without duress. Three or four people, maybe; but twenty people must be duress.
All a bit moot now considering your concession that duress is also a factor in monogamous marriages, but why must it be duress? I know you think it must be and that you said earlier that you would believe duress was involved even if you couldn't identify it, but do you have anything other than your subjective opinion to back up the assertion? So far your argument seems to be "because I say it can't", you'll have to forgive me for failing to take your word for it.
When a condition is sufficiently extreme, we can determine that duress must be involved.
How do you determine what is "sufficiently extreme"? What makes group marriage "sufficiently extreme"? You allow that 3 or 4 people could possibly marry each other without duress but 20 people couldn't so where's the cut-off point? And why is it the cut-off point? At which point does group marriage become "sufficiently extreme" group marriage? There are also plenty of "extreme" sports and activities that people take part in without duress so we can already see that your claim that duress must be involved in extreme conditions isn't necessarily true.
http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/captive-virgins-polygamy-sex-slaves-what-marriage-would-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible/
ReplyDeleteD.A.N the video appears to have been pulled by Youtube for violating their terms of use. Do you know any another source for it so I can view it myself?
ReplyDeleteMore like, Atheists got all butthurt about the video and flooded YouTube with complaints again. They have done it many times. They do it here too. I have had a few videos go down like that.
DeleteI have not looked for another copy, maybe it will show up again. Atheists think that if they close their eyes, things will go away. Silly. Who else would object to that video besides Atheists wanting to artificially paint themselves into a better light?
My rant aside, I linked to another copy of the video and I downloaded it just in case it gets taken down again. Free speech will rule the land. Thanks for alerting me to that.
DeleteSpeaking of free speech deniers, may I point out Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis?
Delete
DeleteWhy do you generalize about atheists so much?
Thanks for reposting. By the way I am an atheist and I do not approve of your free speech rights being infringed upon.
ReplyDeleteTrue.
DeleteFreddy:
ReplyDelete"Why wouldn't you ban all jobs where duress is a factor?"
When we can establish the duress, we do.
"Thus, the only way the duress argument can be rationally used to disallow poorly paid jobs (polygamous/group marriages) is to show that other jobs (monogamous marriages) do not suffer from instances of duress."
This reads as "because sometimes abuse of duress slips under the radar and you fail to prevent it, you cannot prevent blatant abuse of duress."
Sorry folks, playing around with comments. Now some got lost, grrr, I was not getting emailed of new ones, and you couldn't use html.
ReplyDeleteSo we go backwards, until Google learns how to move forward.
Feeling grateful...it's Friday to boot. For your listening pleasure...Alain Johannes - Return To You
Papa said: "Also, if the current video is yanked from YouTube, I uploaded it on my MRCTV account: http://tinyurl.com/khfrnzo"
ReplyDeletePapa said: "I give some reasoning behind why society, in large, should not support SSM, if this helps anyone here: http://tinyurl.com/acqhcfv
ReplyDeleteTake note I have a large resource list at the bottom, many links are links to my own writing on the matter, as, I have talked about this subject for a number of years... even writing a chapter on it in my book (also linked)."
I didn't keep all of my responses to pvblivs but I do have my last reply which I believe contains all of pvblivs' last reply to me:
ReplyDeletepvblivs said...
"So we should do exactly the same for marriage - establish duress,"
And the twenty-person marriage is an automatic establishment of duress. It is just not plausible that it is not duress.
You keep saying this but, other than the mention of a couple of coercive sects, you offer no real reasoning as to why duress must be involved in all larger (i.e. greater than 3 or 4 people) group marriages.
"Your argument reads as 'ban polygamous/group marriage because I think it must be done under duress even though I've got no evidence to support that idea, whilst I'll ignore the duress that's obviously happening in many forced monogamous marriages'"
You're obviously ignoring what I wrote. I said 3 or 4 was plausible. But 20 is not. You see, you gave an example of twenty people.
Talking of ignoring what was written. In my example those 20 people were "all capable of giving informed consent". Apparently that's not good enough though because you've already decided that duress must be involved. Of course you haven't actually explained how you've reached that conclusion, or even stated what the cutoff point is for where duress changes from being merely possible to being certain - although we do know that you believe 3 or 4 might be OK while 20 is a definite yes for duress.
My argument is not and does not have to be that all polygamous marriages involve duress.
I don't believe that I claimed that it was, nor that it should be, instead I stated how it read to me. You are free to elaborate on your claim and explain as to where you think I'm going wrong.
My argument is that a marriage of TWENTY PEOPLE must involve duress.
It's not really an argument though, it's more an assertion. For it to be an argument you would need to offer some evidence to support your claim. It's also not much of an argument when you have suggested that, even if no evidence of duress could be found, you would still insist that duress is involved.
Further, your claim doesn't actually deal with my argument, which has always been that, it is irrational to ban group marriages for duress whilst ignoring duress in monogamous marriages. Your own concession that groups of 3 or 4 people could possibly marry without duress just supports my argument.
Reading through the whole comment chain I can't help but notice that Dan never does answer the initial question as to how *his* marriage has been degraded or changed by the SCOTUS ruling or the fact that same-sex marriages are allowed in several states (and that the overturning of Prop-8 here in CA has been upheld). In fact, I've not heard anyone who is against same-sex marriage answer this question... it seems to fall on a psychological blind-spot for them.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, his answers seem to indicate the opposite... that he is secure in his marriage and secure in the knowledge that his God has sanctified his marriage. In which case there should be no problem with a secular definition of marriage, for the purposes of legal and financial issues.
No... this is just another issue that allows Dan and others like him to rationalize their homophobia and give vent to it. You really have to wonder why some people are so vehemently homophobic (wait, now, for the "I'm not homophobic, I know plenty of gay people..." response)!
Reading through the whole comment chain I can't help but notice that Dan never does answer the initial question as to how *his* marriage has been degraded or changed by the SCOTUS ruling or the fact that same-sex marriages are allowed in several states (and that the overturning of Prop-8 here in CA has been upheld). In fact, I've not heard anyone who is against same-sex marriage answer this question... it seems to fall on a psychological blind-spot for them.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, his answers seem to indicate the opposite... that he is secure in his marriage and secure in the knowledge that his God has sanctified his marriage. In which case there should be no problem with a secular definition of marriage, for the purposes of legal and financial issues.
No... this is just another issue that allows Dan and others like him to rationalize their homophobia and give vent to it. You really have to wonder why some people are so vehemently homophobic (wait, now, for the "I'm not homophobic, I know plenty of gay people..." response)!
I thought it was obvious. My marriage is a declaration, and sanctioned, by God. It is NOT affected, and merely 'acknowledged', by the state. Now, they got into the business of marriage, but again, if there are 4 sheep and one goat, how many sheep are there, if I call the goat a sheep?
DeleteHint, the answer is 4. You're not fooling any of us. You're not fooling God.
The term, in reference to the viewpoint of the state, is rendered moot. Because SCOTUS declared the term "marriage" cannot be a discriminatory definition, as it always have been. In other words, the term can mean anything, as long as it is not discriminatory. Guess what? The "current" term discriminates against polygamist, or others (marryyourpet.com), so off to the courts we go. Watch the hypocrisy ensue from there.
>>You really have to wonder why some people are so vehemently homophobic (wait, now, for the "I'm not homophobic, I know plenty of gay people..." response)!
So you HAVE experienced the absurdity of your argument, in the past? Good, no need to beat that dead horse then.
Are you Christianphobic™? (watch the hypocrisy ensue, once again.)
I also wish God would give me the articulation that He obviously has given to Ravi, who eloquently and lovingly, explains my position best.
DeleteAcceptance of Homosexuality in Christianity-Ravi Zacharias Answers Question:settled!
Dan, gluttony is mentioned in the Bible a lot more often than homosexuality. And obesity caused health problems are a major and growing concern. Why aren't you trying to shut down Golden Corral restaurants and other all you can eat places?
DeleteAh, Dan..speaking of Ravi. Someone has taken a video of his and challenged atheists to spot all his fallacies.
DeleteOne I found is the "consequences of belief" around 9:48 where he says that atheism means that life has no value. Whether a belief in something is unpleasant to think about has no bearing on the reality of said idea.
Besides, what's to stop us from placing value on our own lives or the lives of our loved ones?
Seems like Dan still can’t explain any way in which his marriage has been degraded beyond saying “I thought it was obvious.”
DeleteMy marriage is between God and us, so no degrading in the least. It certainly degrades the term from the perspective as a society. You disagree?
DeleteSo how has your marriage been socially degraded?
Deletehttp://candst.tripod.com/morrelpeo.htm
ReplyDeleteHell with it...this is stupid. The only way that a marriage can be made meaningless is if those within that marriage do not love each other but instead abuse or cheat on each other.\
ReplyDeleteWho gives a flying fuck what others do in their marriages? It's up to the individual married couples to see to it that their marriage means something.
People are not YET talking about a certain group in the LGBT community, now they feel that the term "marriage" cannot be discriminatory.
DeleteThe "B" Stands for bisexual and that, by definition alone, means multiple partners. Now they are discriminating against the group that like both men and woman, who may want to marry both. What a disgrace!! You all are very INCONSISTENT is your positions. Polygamy should be legal.
When it is, we will marry 5-10 woman so we NEVER have to pay taxes again. You know, for all those dependents. Legal tax evasion, w00t!
This is what you will get for going against God's will. I will vote for true Constitutionalists and wait patiently for Christ's return.
Slippery slope fallacy
DeleteBe glad that we don't follow "god's will" in marriages. Otherwise we'd have rapists marrying their victims*.
DeleteAnd that's in the OT where genesis is, which is where you people get your ideas of marriage from so don't dodge by saying "that's in the OT, this is under the new covenant" bullshit.
*if I remember correctly, you seemed to think that that somehow punished the rapist, not the victim (think how awkward those family dinners with the in-laws would be!)
What a load of crap. I have been in relationships with men and with women but never at the same time. I have likewise been attracted to individuals of both genders since puberty. One's sexual orientation is determined by what one finds attractive not who you are dating at the moment.
DeleteI am sorry Sid that you did not have a better upbringing then you deserved. I want to reach out and give you a hug.
DeleteSee if any of these conditions ring true with your upbringing, in this article. It is a private issue so you do not have to discuss them here, although I do have a few questions. Just take this information and do what you wish with it.
The article I am referring to is called: Homosexuality 101: What Every Therapist, Parent, And Homosexual Should Know
I see the gay community as a tragic byproduct of a sick, broken, society and predators, many embrace how they got that way and call it "natural". I don't understand it. My heart bleeds and aches for them. I wish to do all we can to find out the problem, and solve it. That being said, I also see all of us as a "byproduct of a sick, broken, society and predators" too as wicked sinners deserving Justice. THAT is why I embrace God's will, and rely on Christ to save us from our wickedness. hopefully that will be sooner, then later. A day of no evil is a very hopeful, exciting, day indeed. Until then, let us help right the wrongs, not embrace them.
Dan sure you want to give a gay man a hug? Just kidding and yes I do consider bisexuals to be gay, just not exclusively so. If you want to ask about my childhood go ahead, I am fine with that. It was what it was, it could have been better and it could have been worse.
DeleteThe point I was making however is that bisexuality does not equate to polygamy/polyamory. I was responding to this line by you
"The "B" Stands for bisexual and that, by definition alone, means multiple partners."
What defines my sexuality is what I find attractive which is not something I really have any control over. I do however have control over my actions and I maintain that monogamy is the way to go. If I marry a man I will forsake all others including all women. Likewise If I marry a women I will forsake all others including all men. It is that simple. So I must respectfully disagree with what freddies_dead wrote below.
Oh by the way I did read the article you posted and found it interesting and thought provoking so thank you for sharing. However I think you are focusing to much on the cause without giving any thought to the possibility that I do not feel I have anything to apologize or feel ashamed for. I do not need to explain or justify my sexual preference to you or anyone else save for the exception of an intimate partner. I don’t mean to sound snarky here but just wanted you to know that I am not coming from a position that there is anything wrong with me. At least on this issue:) Also please refrain from bible quote proofing, I found you blog because surprise surprise, I am also an atheist. Have a good day Dan.
Of course it's your right to disagree but I'm wondering, on what grounds do you believe it's OK to prevent people capable of informed consent from marrying? Just what reason is there to stop 3+ people from marrying each other?
DeleteI see the gay community as a tragic byproduct of a sick, broken, society and predators, many embrace how they got that way and call it "natural".
DeleteOdd...that's how I see the xian community.
Dan said...
ReplyDeletePeople are not YET talking about a certain group in the LGBT community, now they feel that the term "marriage" cannot be discriminatory.
The "B" Stands for bisexual and that, by definition alone, means multiple partners.
Incorrect. It simply means that they find themselves attracted to members of both their own sex as well as the opposite sex. It does not automatically mean multiple concurrent partners.
Now they are discriminating against the group that like both men and woman, who may want to marry both. What a disgrace!!
True. Can you give us a good reason why a group of people who are willing and able to give informed consent should be denied the opportunity to marry each other?
You all are very INCONSISTENT is your positions. Polygamy should be legal.
I've been consistent all along and can't see any reason so far as to why polygamy should be banned. It was perfectly OK in the Bible so I don't see why you'd be against it either.
When it is, we will marry 5-10 woman so we NEVER have to pay taxes again. You know, for all those dependents.
Good for you.
Legal tax evasion, w00t!
If it's legal, it's not evasion.
This is what you will get for going against God's will. I will vote for true Constitutionalists and wait patiently for Christ's return.
I suspect you'll be waiting in vain.
Hey everyone, how's tricks? Cheers from very hot (104 F) Vienna, zilch.
ReplyDeleteAfter so many years in the fray, it's good to see you're still around, buddy.
DeleteFamily reunion -FTW!?
Yeah, I'm still around, and I'm still hoping to treat you to lunch, Dan. Maybe in 2014?
DeleteI guess I should have quoted Isaiah 8:12-13 while I was at it. :)
ReplyDeleteLOL! Around 3:50 "I offer exhibit A (waving his hand toward the barefoot, ranting lunatic atheist) as an example of the rationality of your point of view..."
ReplyDeletePRICELESS!
This comment may be off topic but maybe not. Christ said that there will come a time that those who kill you will think they are doing God a favor. The people to whom Christ referred are not atheist but believers. The word of God is for believers. The warnings and exhortations are for believers. Homosexuality is a symptom of a larger problem as is gluttony and lending our money out for interest ( usury) when Jesus said to give with out exxpecting anything in return. He told us to make disciples of all nations teaching them to observe whatever He commanded. Jesus taught but more/as importantly demonstrated the invisible God. Maybe Atheist do not "believe" because Christians do not believe Christ's words ...particularly in America where making money is more important than loving our own children ( that's why both parents work so we can store up treasures despite our Master's teaching. ) I do not believe homosexuality is any worse than divorcing my wife and marrying another thereby causing my new "wife" to be an adulteress . I believe that is a failure of the longsuffering love that God through Christ demonstrated. ( God's love is eternal as is marriage. ) These are just a few examples of our ( believers) failure to live the gospel . It was not given to atheist to be light to the world . It is our job ...it is their job Not to believe. It is evils job to be evil and it is OUR job to not return it with more evil but overcome it with good. It is not the governments job to legislate righteousness nor has it ever been otherwise Christ died in vain. It is our job through Christ to live it. The constitution replaced the Bible ..The constitution is about man ..the bible is about God. Naked atheisam is not a threat to the truth ... I believe Christianity mixed with humanism/patriotism is a far greater threat because it has our heart joined to the world , America , democracy what have you ...be not yoked together with unbelievers ( unless it is for a common cause like love of country , capitalism, etc, etc. ) in which case you may by all means join in union with the god of this world.
ReplyDelete