QUOTE (gmilam+Apr 10 2008, 01:58 AM)
Obviously.
I guess there's a few of us musicians on board here. Welcome.
Interesting,
With the many specific ideologies, strong opinions and interests amongst us, I wonder what variations of style, genre and skill level etc Musically we have?
Would be an interesting experiment for me.
I guess there's a few of us musicians on board here. Welcome.
Interesting,
With the many specific ideologies, strong opinions and interests amongst us, I wonder what variations of style, genre and skill level etc Musically we have?
Would be an interesting experiment for me.
Edit.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 8 2008, 02:27 PM)
First off, the second portion of that claim is patently fasle. I've demonstrated it to be so, and Genesplicer continues to demonstrate so.
As to the first portion: Just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure you're bigger than 6' and 215lbs, I'm sure you grew up in a neighborhood MUCH MUCH rougher than mine, I'm sure you excelled even more than I at martial arts as a teenager and young adult, and I'm sure you would have completed all of the US Army's Special Forces requisites and training courses with much better results than I did.
Oh, I'm also sure you've far more than my meager familiarity with violence.
I'm sure you've been shot more than once, been beaten with baseball bats, stabbed, and known more than one murdered friend, so I'm sure you'd have the mindset to beat me in a fist-fight, too. (I fight dirty.)
HAHA
Not "stooping to respond" are you?
You see, they hurl invective and personal attack, and then say YOU did it. So cute.
As to the first portion: Just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure you're bigger than 6' and 215lbs, I'm sure you grew up in a neighborhood MUCH MUCH rougher than mine, I'm sure you excelled even more than I at martial arts as a teenager and young adult, and I'm sure you would have completed all of the US Army's Special Forces requisites and training courses with much better results than I did.
Oh, I'm also sure you've far more than my meager familiarity with violence.
I'm sure you've been shot more than once, been beaten with baseball bats, stabbed, and known more than one murdered friend, so I'm sure you'd have the mindset to beat me in a fist-fight, too. (I fight dirty.)
HAHA
Not "stooping to respond" are you?
You see, they hurl invective and personal attack, and then say YOU did it. So cute.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
You see, they hurl invective and personal attack, and then say YOU did it. So cute.
...And calling people "religion haters" isn't a personal attack? Cute indeed.
...And calling people "religion haters" isn't a personal attack? Cute indeed.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Apr 13 2008, 06:43 PM)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
You see, they hurl invective and personal attack, and then say YOU did it. So cute.
...And calling people "religion haters" isn't a personal attack? Cute indeed.
ACCURATE descriptions are not attacks.
...And calling people "religion haters" isn't a personal attack? Cute indeed.
ACCURATE descriptions are not attacks.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 13 2008, 06:46 PM)
ACCURATE descriptions are not attacks.
So why have you never been able to back up these "descriptions"? Care to link to the post where you did?
So why have you never been able to back up these "descriptions"? Care to link to the post where you did?
QUOTE (TheDoc+Apr 13 2008, 06:50 PM)
So why have you never been able to back up these "descriptions"? Care to link to the post where you did?
Do link one of my "descriptions" that bothered you. Not one of the "reworded second-hand interpretations" of what I said, but an actual quote. Link it yourself before calling for one.
Do link one of my "descriptions" that bothered you. Not one of the "reworded second-hand interpretations" of what I said, but an actual quote. Link it yourself before calling for one.
The topics of musical preference, and instrument played would be very interesting. You should start a thread Sinister.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Do link one of my "descriptions" that bothered you. Not one of the "reworded second-hand interpretations" of what I said, but an actual quote. Link it yourself before calling for one.
QUOTE (deadbeat+ page 4 of The Pope Adds To The Seven Deadly Sins)
Wow, catholic haters in full drooling spitting fury. And making up the news, and reinventing it I see.
Link
g.
Link
QUOTE (deadbeat+ page 2 of Scientology - Fact or Fiction?)
Thought I would stop by and say hello to the Roman Catholic church haters out there, you know who you are.
My question for you is....how is your hating the Roman Catholic church any better than the history of Jew hating?
My question for you is....how is your hating the Roman Catholic church any better than the history of Jew hating?
Can't do much with Reality haters, sadly... 
g.
g.
HAHAHAH
Is that the best you can do?
What is "hypocritical" in those statements? That I pointed out that "The POPE" did not actually make those statements? That the obviously biased author of the original article twisted it a bit and left that out? That I posted a link that showed WHO actually made those statements?
Hehe, sure I can live with those, if that is all you have. Since the commentary and discussion was derogatory and inflammatory, I see no hypocrisy FROM ME at all.
You may have to try again.
Is that the best you can do?
What is "hypocritical" in those statements? That I pointed out that "The POPE" did not actually make those statements? That the obviously biased author of the original article twisted it a bit and left that out? That I posted a link that showed WHO actually made those statements?
Hehe, sure I can live with those, if that is all you have. Since the commentary and discussion was derogatory and inflammatory, I see no hypocrisy FROM ME at all.
You may have to try again.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 13 2008, 09:31 PM)
HAHAHAH
Is that the best you can do?
What is "hypocritical" in those statements? That I pointed out that "The POPE" did not actually make those statements? That the obviously biased author of the original article twisted it a bit and left that out? That I posted a link that showed WHO actually made those statements?
Hehe, sure I can live with those, if that is all you have. Since the commentary and discussion was derogatory and inflammatory, I see no hypocrisy FROM ME at all.
You may have to try again.
Er, are you sure you're in the right thread? You might want to repost that in here.
Is that the best you can do?
What is "hypocritical" in those statements? That I pointed out that "The POPE" did not actually make those statements? That the obviously biased author of the original article twisted it a bit and left that out? That I posted a link that showed WHO actually made those statements?
Hehe, sure I can live with those, if that is all you have. Since the commentary and discussion was derogatory and inflammatory, I see no hypocrisy FROM ME at all.
You may have to try again.
Er, are you sure you're in the right thread? You might want to repost that in here.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Apr 13 2008, 09:34 PM)
Er, are you sure you're in the right head?
g.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Apr 13 2008, 09:38 PM)
g.
You'll have to speak up, I'm going a little dead!
g.
g.
I salute you Doc and Gorgeous for continuing to take certain posters seriously. I just can't do it all of the time.
Just to help you out, here is
hy·poc·ri·sy [hi-pok-ruh-see] –noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
QUOTE (definition.com+ hypocrisy)
hy·poc·ri·sy [hi-pok-ruh-see] –noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
HAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hmm. You accuse a bunch of people of being "catholic haters" without giving even a somewhat plausible reason why, and then you have the nerve to talk about ad hominem attacks. Sounds pretty freaking hypocritical to me.
Hmm. You accuse a bunch of people of being "catholic haters" without giving even a somewhat plausible reason why, and then you have the nerve to talk about ad hominem attacks. Sounds pretty freaking hypocritical to me.
That I pointed out that "The POPE" did not actually make those statements?
Not the issue at hand. We're discussing how you figure we're all "catholic haters", remember?
Not the issue at hand.
Not the issue at hand.
That I posted a link that showed WHO actually made those statements?
Not the issue at hand. Stop trying to change the subject.
Aw, wazzamatta. Can't you prove that we're all a bunch of "catholic haters"?
Aw, wazzamatta. Can't you prove that we're all a bunch of "catholic haters"?
I see no hypocrisy FROM ME at all.
Sorry, that statement is coming from an obviously biased individual
Nope, that would be you. Changing the subject won't make the issue at hand go away: you still haven't proved that we're a bunch of "catholic haters". Go on, prove it. You're up to the task, aren't you?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
QUOTE
What is "hypocritical" in those statements?
Hmm. You accuse a bunch of people of being "catholic haters" without giving even a somewhat plausible reason why, and then you have the nerve to talk about ad hominem attacks. Sounds pretty freaking hypocritical to me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What is "hypocritical" in those statements? |
Hmm. You accuse a bunch of people of being "catholic haters" without giving even a somewhat plausible reason why, and then you have the nerve to talk about ad hominem attacks. Sounds pretty freaking hypocritical to me.
That I pointed out that "The POPE" did not actually make those statements?
Not the issue at hand. We're discussing how you figure we're all "catholic haters", remember?
QUOTE
That the obviously biased author of the original article twisted it a bit and left that out?
Not the issue at hand.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That the obviously biased author of the original article twisted it a bit and left that out? |
Not the issue at hand.
That I posted a link that showed WHO actually made those statements?
Not the issue at hand. Stop trying to change the subject.
QUOTE
Hehe, sure I can live with those, if that is all you have.
Aw, wazzamatta. Can't you prove that we're all a bunch of "catholic haters"?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hehe, sure I can live with those, if that is all you have. |
Aw, wazzamatta. Can't you prove that we're all a bunch of "catholic haters"?
I see no hypocrisy FROM ME at all.
Sorry, that statement is coming from an obviously biased individual
QUOTE
You may have to try again.
Nope, that would be you. Changing the subject won't make the issue at hand go away: you still haven't proved that we're a bunch of "catholic haters". Go on, prove it. You're up to the task, aren't you?
Moving the Goal posts are we?
Not the issue at hand. We're discussing how you figure we're all "catholic haters", remember?
So that is not what I said. Let us review for the reading comprehension challenged and dishonest among us...which is why I specifically asked you to QUOTE me, so I could demonstrate your dishonesty and bankruptcy of reasoning.
Thought I would stop by and say hello to the Roman Catholic church haters out there, you know who you are.
My question for you is....how is your hating the Roman Catholic church any better than the history of Jew hating?
So IN THE VERY FIRST sentence, I specifically DO NOT target EVERYONE, (you know who you are). So I did not SPECIFICALLY call ANYONE a catholic hater, only those who admit to themselves that they hold that view.
So I guess your guilty conscience admits of its own volition that you are a target? You admit your inclusion by being insulted. I need prove nothing, you have done it yourself.
Not the issue at hand.
HAHA so I cannot make you feel better about self-admission of catholic hating.
Not the issue at hand. Stop trying to change the subject.
Oh yes, lies and dishonest basis in your sources and arguments are unimportant.
Aw, wazzamatta. Can't you prove that we're all a bunch of "catholic haters"?
Never said YOU ALL, I said YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE and you apparently took that right to heart, did you not? So you are impaled on your own sword of ill-reason.
Sorry, that statement is coming from an obviously biased individual
Nope, that would be you. Changing the subject won't make the issue at hand go away: you still haven't proved that we're a bunch of "catholic haters". Go on, prove it. You're up to the task, aren't you?
And again, because you ACCUSE me of saying something, neither means that I said it, nor that I should be responsible for proving it. I actually have to SAY something for that to be true.
But thank you for playing.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Apr 14 2008, 01:55 AM)
Not the issue at hand. We're discussing how you figure we're all "catholic haters", remember?
So that is not what I said. Let us review for the reading comprehension challenged and dishonest among us...which is why I specifically asked you to QUOTE me, so I could demonstrate your dishonesty and bankruptcy of reasoning.
QUOTE (deadbeat+ from your citation)
Thought I would stop by and say hello to the Roman Catholic church haters out there, you know who you are.
My question for you is....how is your hating the Roman Catholic church any better than the history of Jew hating?
So IN THE VERY FIRST sentence, I specifically DO NOT target EVERYONE, (you know who you are). So I did not SPECIFICALLY call ANYONE a catholic hater, only those who admit to themselves that they hold that view.
So I guess your guilty conscience admits of its own volition that you are a target? You admit your inclusion by being insulted. I need prove nothing, you have done it yourself.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Apr 14 2008, 01:55 AM)
Not the issue at hand.
HAHA so I cannot make you feel better about self-admission of catholic hating.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Apr 14 2008, 01:55 AM)
Not the issue at hand. Stop trying to change the subject.
Oh yes, lies and dishonest basis in your sources and arguments are unimportant.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Apr 14 2008, 01:55 AM)
Aw, wazzamatta. Can't you prove that we're all a bunch of "catholic haters"?
Never said YOU ALL, I said YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE and you apparently took that right to heart, did you not? So you are impaled on your own sword of ill-reason.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Apr 14 2008, 01:55 AM)
Sorry, that statement is coming from an obviously biased individual
Nope, that would be you. Changing the subject won't make the issue at hand go away: you still haven't proved that we're a bunch of "catholic haters". Go on, prove it. You're up to the task, aren't you?
And again, because you ACCUSE me of saying something, neither means that I said it, nor that I should be responsible for proving it. I actually have to SAY something for that to be true.
But thank you for playing.
The catholic church has done some horrible things during its lifetime. It can be argued that the church caused the dark ages. We all know of the inquisition. The list goes on and on and on. I make it my business not to hate so don't lob any such claims my way, but I am wondering why the catholic church should be patted on the back after all of the things that its done.
This is an earnest question not an attempt at starting a personal argument; please keep that in mind.
This is an earnest question not an attempt at starting a personal argument; please keep that in mind.
QUOTE (DuzmA+Apr 14 2008, 01:34 PM)
The catholic church has done some horrible things during its lifetime. It can be argued that the church caused the dark ages. We all know of the inquisition. The list goes on and on and on. I make it my business not to hate so don't lob any such claims my way, but I am wondering why the catholic church should be patted on the back after all of the things that its done.
This is an earnest question not an attempt at starting a personal argument; please keep that in mind.
In that light, I will answer it honestly.
Of course the Catholic religion, and frankly EVERY credo, even Atheism, has been responsible for horrible things. I might mention also that the "little Ice Age" following the Medieval optimum is far more likely responsible for the dark ages, although the horrible excesses and well documented tragic legacy of the Catholic church in those times should never be forgotten.
If you truly consider it, it is usually NOT the message and intrinsic values and ethics of any system, religion or credo that is responsible for the most tragic and horrible excesses. It is usually someone invading the power structure, and perverting the message or belief system for political or power goals.
Strangely, everybody remembers the excesses of the catholics, but conveniently forgets that Atheism as embraced by the communists was responsible for just as grievous and more recent horrific acts against humanity. The driving force behind the HOLOCAUST and the Nazis was not religious, but EUGENICS, a subjective scientific discipline perverted and taken to its unfortunate immoral racist interpretation.
This is an earnest question not an attempt at starting a personal argument; please keep that in mind.
In that light, I will answer it honestly.
Of course the Catholic religion, and frankly EVERY credo, even Atheism, has been responsible for horrible things. I might mention also that the "little Ice Age" following the Medieval optimum is far more likely responsible for the dark ages, although the horrible excesses and well documented tragic legacy of the Catholic church in those times should never be forgotten.
If you truly consider it, it is usually NOT the message and intrinsic values and ethics of any system, religion or credo that is responsible for the most tragic and horrible excesses. It is usually someone invading the power structure, and perverting the message or belief system for political or power goals.
Strangely, everybody remembers the excesses of the catholics, but conveniently forgets that Atheism as embraced by the communists was responsible for just as grievous and more recent horrific acts against humanity. The driving force behind the HOLOCAUST and the Nazis was not religious, but EUGENICS, a subjective scientific discipline perverted and taken to its unfortunate immoral racist interpretation.
Research Hitler and Catholicism and you will see that he managed to justify his actions with religion.
The reason that atheism cannot be compared to the catholic church is that one is an outlook and the other is an organization. I didn't say christianity, because christianity is not an organization, and it should not be held accountable across the board for the actions that certain adherants undertake.
The same goes with atheism. If an atheist performed horrific actions only he would be held accountable, but if an organization that was atheistic carried out such action the organization would be held responsible. The communist states that you refer to should may be forgiven depending on your stance, but using them to blackball atheism as a whole is a bad practice and certainly not what I was trying to do with the catholic church.
The reason that atheism cannot be compared to the catholic church is that one is an outlook and the other is an organization. I didn't say christianity, because christianity is not an organization, and it should not be held accountable across the board for the actions that certain adherants undertake.
The same goes with atheism. If an atheist performed horrific actions only he would be held accountable, but if an organization that was atheistic carried out such action the organization would be held responsible. The communist states that you refer to should may be forgiven depending on your stance, but using them to blackball atheism as a whole is a bad practice and certainly not what I was trying to do with the catholic church.
QUOTE (DuzmA+Apr 14 2008, 02:08 PM)
Research Hitler and Catholicism and you will see that he managed to justify his actions with religion.
The reason that atheism cannot be compared to the catholic church is that one is an outlook and the other is an organization. I didn't say christianity, because christianity is not an organization, and it should not be held accountable across the board for the actions that certain adherants undertake.
The same goes with atheism. If an atheist performed horrific actions only he would be held accountable, but if an organization that was atheistic carried out such action the organization would be held responsible. The communist states that you refer to should may be forgiven depending on your stance, but using them to blackball atheism as a whole is a bad practice and certainly not what I was trying to do with the catholic church.
Meh now here you use a little classic "bait and switch", although probably unwittingly.
Atheists use the convenient self described name of "Atheist" although the name itself means nothing.
It only states what YOU DO NOT believe (more or less, although there is wide latitude even in that), and does not define what you actually DO believe.
So you either have to lump yourselves together somehow, or better define yourselves for the term to have any real relevance.
The reason that atheism cannot be compared to the catholic church is that one is an outlook and the other is an organization. I didn't say christianity, because christianity is not an organization, and it should not be held accountable across the board for the actions that certain adherants undertake.
The same goes with atheism. If an atheist performed horrific actions only he would be held accountable, but if an organization that was atheistic carried out such action the organization would be held responsible. The communist states that you refer to should may be forgiven depending on your stance, but using them to blackball atheism as a whole is a bad practice and certainly not what I was trying to do with the catholic church.
Meh now here you use a little classic "bait and switch", although probably unwittingly.
Atheists use the convenient self described name of "Atheist" although the name itself means nothing.
It only states what YOU DO NOT believe (more or less, although there is wide latitude even in that), and does not define what you actually DO believe.
So you either have to lump yourselves together somehow, or better define yourselves for the term to have any real relevance.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 14 2008, 11:12 AM)
So you either have to lump yourselves together somehow, or better define yourselves for the term to have any real relevance.
Why do atheist have to lump themselves together? Atheists are one of the most divers groups to be found. And that is another facet of people in general you seem to be missing.
I know you like to fall back onto the simplistic and polarized view of “us versus them”, but in reality, it seldom resolves to such a simplistic stance.
And you avoided the facts that DuzmA made. Atheism is an outlook and not a unified organization such as religion. Dismissing that fact does nothing but illustrate the weakness of your argument.
Why do atheist have to lump themselves together? Atheists are one of the most divers groups to be found. And that is another facet of people in general you seem to be missing.
I know you like to fall back onto the simplistic and polarized view of “us versus them”, but in reality, it seldom resolves to such a simplistic stance.
And you avoided the facts that DuzmA made. Atheism is an outlook and not a unified organization such as religion. Dismissing that fact does nothing but illustrate the weakness of your argument.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 14 2008, 03:12 PM)
Atheists use the convenient self described name of "Atheist" although the name itself means nothing.
I thought Atheist was a Theist word that at one time no one used to describe themselves.
I thought Atheist was a Theist word that at one time no one used to describe themselves.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 14 2008, 10:12 AM)
So you either have to lump yourselves together somehow, or better define yourselves for the term to have any real relevance.
I prefer not to be lumped in with anyone, thank you.
The opinions expressed are of my own experience/research and do not represent anyone except myself.
I prefer not to be lumped in with anyone, thank you.
The opinions expressed are of my own experience/research and do not represent anyone except myself.
I ask again, what IS deadbeat's area of expertise? 
It certainly isn't Atheism and it's not in Roman Catholic church history nor in comparative religions! Maybe his area of expertise is in bigotry and opinionated people! 
It certainly isn't Atheism and it's not in Roman Catholic church history nor in comparative religions! Maybe his area of expertise is in bigotry and opinionated people!
OOOH BURN!
I BEEN PWNZORRED!!1111!!!
get real
I BEEN PWNZORRED!!1111!!!
get real
By the way, deadbeat, nothing in your new signature contradicts my valid interpretation of Eliade's conclusion from his lifetime of studying myths and religions... NOTHING! Get real!! 
QUOTE (photojack+Apr 15 2008, 12:00 AM)
By the way, deadbeat, nothing in your new signature contradicts my valid interpretation of Eliade's conclusion from his lifetime of studying myths and religions... NOTHING! Get real!!
Ha!
And I thought green grapes were sour.
Sandra
Ha!
And I thought green grapes were sour.
Sandra
Sandra, Welcome aboard! Have you looked at deadbeat's posting history, feedback and ratings? 
Sourness is in the eye of the beholder!
Sourness is in the eye of the beholder!
QUOTE (photojack+Apr 15 2008, 12:14 AM)
Sandra, Welcome aboard! Have you looked at deadbeat's posting history, feedback and ratings? Sourness is in the eye of the beholder!
Yes, I take Photojack's disapproval as a high compliment.
Do read back or simply follow the conversation, feel free to join in, we welcome your participation whether you agree or not. I do so love a good debate.
Sourness is in the eye of the beholder! Yes, I take Photojack's disapproval as a high compliment.
Do read back or simply follow the conversation, feel free to join in, we welcome your participation whether you agree or not. I do so love a good debate.
QUOTE (photojack+Apr 15 2008, 12:00 AM)
By the way, deadbeat, nothing in your new signature contradicts my valid interpretation of Eliade's conclusion from his lifetime of studying myths and religions... NOTHING! Get real!!
Hehe keep telling yourself that.
Hehe keep telling yourself that.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 15 2008, 08:16 AM)
Do read back or simply follow the conversation, feel free to join in, we welcome your participation whether you agree or not. I do so love a good debate.
Is that why you fail to answer questions directed at you? It has been noted that instead of answering questions you might find difficult or embarrassing, you resort to using excuses of hatred of either your or religion as an way not to answer.
Is that why you fail to answer questions directed at you? It has been noted that instead of answering questions you might find difficult or embarrassing, you resort to using excuses of hatred of either your or religion as an way not to answer.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 15 2008, 03:04 PM)
Is that why you fail to answer questions directed at you? It has been noted that instead of answering questions you might find difficult or embarrassing, you resort to using excuses of hatred of either your or religion as an way not to answer.
(sigh) same old Gene
Tell you what.
Take one question, just one, that you think is the most difficult or embarassing for me, or that I have dodged the most.
Just one.
And I will address it thoroughly and completely.
Not a complete page, rife with everything under the sun and vast accusations.
One question.
(sigh) same old Gene
Tell you what.
Take one question, just one, that you think is the most difficult or embarassing for me, or that I have dodged the most.
Just one.
And I will address it thoroughly and completely.
Not a complete page, rife with everything under the sun and vast accusations.
One question.
QUOTE (DB+)
(sigh) same old Gene
Spare me the condescending attitude.
Just one?! Sorry DB, but you do not dictate or have the authority to tell me what to do.
Go back to this thread and the few questions I asked that you cowered away from:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=840#
Just one?! Sorry DB, but you do not dictate or have the authority to tell me what to do.
Go back to this thread and the few questions I asked that you cowered away from:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=840#
Just one.
And I will address it thoroughly and completely.
Not a complete page, rife with everything under the sun and vast accusations.
So you have just posted yet another disingenuous offer considering you constantly use any and every excuse and dismissal to back out of conversations.
If you cannot stand up to questions related to your own claims, then stop making such baseless and untenable claims to begin with.
Again, such intellectual dishonesty. Follow the link I provided and pick one question yourself.
First of all, following the link ensures you do not divert yet another thread since you cannot keep topics straight.
Secondly, you cannot declare that you see no list of questions.
And lastly, after you answer that one question, we can move onto the litany of the other questions, and claims, you have avoided answering.
Or you can post another set of excuses, claims of hatred or whatever cop-out needed in order for you to avoid these direct questions once again.
And again, a dishonest offer considering your history of classifying anything you do not wish to address as a personal attack, hatred of religion, etc.
You have the link so pick one question in the proper thread.
And again, a dishonest offer considering your history of classifying anything you do not wish to address as a personal attack, hatred of religion, etc.
You have the link so pick one question in the proper thread.
And all you get is more complaining and nattering.
You mean illustrating more of your intellectually dishonest posts and maneuvers.
Again, you have the link so pick a question in the proper thread.
Fine, since you are unable to act in a intellectually honest manner, go back to the proper thread and we can start with your claim that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob that I am somehow violating the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and your freedoms.
We can move on to the other questions you avoided, such as your idea that the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution, afterwards.
Are you capable of following the link I posted or do I get more dishonest replies form you?
And again, a dishonest offer considering your history of classifying anything you do not wish to address as a personal attack, hatred of religion, etc.
You have the link so pick one question in the proper thread.
You mean illustrating more of your intellectually dishonest posts and maneuvers.
Again, you have the link so pick a question in the proper thread.
Fine, since you are unable to act in a intellectually honest manner, go back to the proper thread and we can start with your claim that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob that I am somehow violating the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and your freedoms.
We can move on to the other questions you avoided, such as your idea that the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution, afterwards.
Are you capable of following the link I posted or do I get more dishonest replies form you?
well at least you sort of picked, well two questions.
first-
"start with your claim that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob that I am somehow violating the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and your freedoms. "
You say I said it, but where did I say this? Quote me directly? Looks like a straw man to me.
second-
"such as your idea that the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution, afterwards. "
Again, where did I say this? Quote me? Or did you just SAY I said it?
Spare me the condescending attitude.
QUOTE
Tell you what.
Take one question, just one, that you think is the most difficult or embarassing for me, or that I have dodged the most.
Take one question, just one, that you think is the most difficult or embarassing for me, or that I have dodged the most.
Just one?! Sorry DB, but you do not dictate or have the authority to tell me what to do. Go back to this thread and the few questions I asked that you cowered away from:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=840#
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Tell you what. Take one question, just one, that you think is the most difficult or embarassing for me, or that I have dodged the most. |
Just one?! Sorry DB, but you do not dictate or have the authority to tell me what to do. Go back to this thread and the few questions I asked that you cowered away from:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=840#
Just one.
And I will address it thoroughly and completely.
Not a complete page, rife with everything under the sun and vast accusations.
So you have just posted yet another disingenuous offer considering you constantly use any and every excuse and dismissal to back out of conversations.
If you cannot stand up to questions related to your own claims, then stop making such baseless and untenable claims to begin with.
QUOTE
One question.
Again, such intellectual dishonesty. Follow the link I provided and pick one question yourself.
First of all, following the link ensures you do not divert yet another thread since you cannot keep topics straight.
Secondly, you cannot declare that you see no list of questions.
And lastly, after you answer that one question, we can move onto the litany of the other questions, and claims, you have avoided answering.
Or you can post another set of excuses, claims of hatred or whatever cop-out needed in order for you to avoid these direct questions once again.
See? Offer to make it simple, eliminate the white noise, bring the real argfument to the fore....
And all you get is more complaining and nattering.
Offer still stands...one question, you pick.
And all you get is more complaining and nattering.
Offer still stands...one question, you pick.
QUOTE
See? Offer to make it simple, eliminate the white noise, bring the real argfument to the fore....
And again, a dishonest offer considering your history of classifying anything you do not wish to address as a personal attack, hatred of religion, etc.
You have the link so pick one question in the proper thread.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| See? Offer to make it simple, eliminate the white noise, bring the real argfument to the fore.... |
And again, a dishonest offer considering your history of classifying anything you do not wish to address as a personal attack, hatred of religion, etc.
You have the link so pick one question in the proper thread.
And all you get is more complaining and nattering.
You mean illustrating more of your intellectually dishonest posts and maneuvers.
Again, you have the link so pick a question in the proper thread.
QUOTE
Offer still stands...one question, you pick.
Fine, since you are unable to act in a intellectually honest manner, go back to the proper thread and we can start with your claim that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob that I am somehow violating the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and your freedoms.
We can move on to the other questions you avoided, such as your idea that the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution, afterwards.
Are you capable of following the link I posted or do I get more dishonest replies form you?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 15 2008, 09:16 PM)
And again, a dishonest offer considering your history of classifying anything you do not wish to address as a personal attack, hatred of religion, etc.
You have the link so pick one question in the proper thread.
You mean illustrating more of your intellectually dishonest posts and maneuvers.
Again, you have the link so pick a question in the proper thread.
Fine, since you are unable to act in a intellectually honest manner, go back to the proper thread and we can start with your claim that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob that I am somehow violating the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and your freedoms.
We can move on to the other questions you avoided, such as your idea that the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution, afterwards.
Are you capable of following the link I posted or do I get more dishonest replies form you?
well at least you sort of picked, well two questions.
first-
"start with your claim that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob that I am somehow violating the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and your freedoms. "
You say I said it, but where did I say this? Quote me directly? Looks like a straw man to me.
second-
"such as your idea that the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution, afterwards. "
Again, where did I say this? Quote me? Or did you just SAY I said it?
deadbeat....even if he showed you the quote....you still would argue....
Let us make this simpler...
Do you think "that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob ..violates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (or) your freedoms?
Second question
Do you think "the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution"?
Simply answer "yes" or "no"
Do notice that I changed the first question from the original statement.
So, answer the questions...if you can say "no" to both questions then it is obviously a strawman argument.
Let us make this simpler...
Do you think "that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob ..violates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (or) your freedoms?
Second question
Do you think "the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution"?
Simply answer "yes" or "no"
Do notice that I changed the first question from the original statement.
So, answer the questions...if you can say "no" to both questions then it is obviously a strawman argument.
QUOTE (DB+)
well at least you sort of picked, well two questions.
first-
"start with your claim that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob that I am somehow violating the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and your freedoms. "
You say I said it, but where did I say this? Quote me directly? Looks like a straw man to me.
Your indolence and level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
And I clearly stated that we would start with the first one and then move onto others such as the second. You cannot even quote me properly or reflect my posts in context.
Are you sure you don’t work for Hannity rather than a chip manufacturer in Utah?
I have stated twice prior to this that the question were in a different thread. I have also provided the link.
I even went so far as to ask if I you were capable of following the link I posted or do I get more dishonest replies from you?
I guess I just get more dishonest replies.
You have also cried foul several times over topic shifts in threads, so again, follow the link I provided and discuss this in the proper thread.
And again, the link I posted will bring you to the question and your claim which I quoted in the linked post.
And again, linked to in the proper thread. Unless you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest, indolent or using some of the most juvenile actions in order to avoid the question and your related quote, there really is no excuse for you not to follow the link I provided.
Just so you cannot cry about having to go back one whole page to find the link, here it is again.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=840#
You have your one question and a link to not only to the question but a quotation of your claim that the question is based upon.
Please follow the link so as not to appear to be a hypocrite by shifting the topic of this thread while you have denounced such behavior in the past.
And again, linked to in the proper thread. Unless you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest, indolent or using some of the most juvenile actions in order to avoid the question and your related quote, there really is no excuse for you not to follow the link I provided.
Just so you cannot cry about having to go back one whole page to find the link, here it is again.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=840#
You have your one question and a link to not only to the question but a quotation of your claim that the question is based upon.
Please follow the link so as not to appear to be a hypocrite by shifting the topic of this thread while you have denounced such behavior in the past.
Again, where did I say this? Quote me? Or did you just SAY I said it?
Again, on the linked page. Your avoidance of following the link and going to the proper thread for discussion of this paints you in a rather bad light.
deadbeat....even if he showed you the quote....you still would argue....
Let us make this simpler...
Do you think "that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob ..violates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (or) your freedoms?
er, NO, but with some slight qualification
Since that is exactly what the bill of rights and constitution were written for (although I might argue "secular society", ANY society regardless of religious OR secular is supportable that meets those criteria.
The qualification that might be a YES is in the case where that individual right is NOT specifically spelled out in the constitution, and in the case of a greater need for the stability or saftey of the society at large (Drivers licenses and voting registration would be examples)
Second question
Do you think "the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution"?
unqualifiedNEVER! The constitution is the ultimate and final authority, and is NEVER to be violated for any reason. That does not mean all individual rights not described are guaranteed absolutely, nor that the constitution may not be amended.
Simply answer "yes" or "no"
Do notice that I changed the first question from the original statement.
So, answer the questions...if you can say "no" to both questions then it is obviously a strawman argument.
So sorta No? Mostly?
Uh...no. More blatant ignorance or dishonesty from you.
Coming from the bigoted person who has previously declared that marriage can only be between a man and a woman as declared in your religion.
Hmm...whatever, I have been persuaded otherwise now, especially after discussing it with Arthur, he made some very valid points and my reasoning was presented quite well I think.
And again DB, marriage in the eyes for the law is nothing more than a contract, secular in nature. Are you saying that every marriage must undergo this “majority” approval?
Okay you are just misleading or misled here. While "marriage" as legislated and recognized by federal law is in effect nothing more than a contract, the law and its original consideration was by no means secular in origin. The law, by restriction of the constitution may not prefer any particular religious version of the sacrament, but the concept of "marriage" is definitively religious in origin. In our law, it is represented in a fair and non-specific way, that satisfies the vast majority of religions that value and hold it sacred. But not any specific one.
Ask yourself these questions:
Has the concept of "marriage" ever existed prior to, or even co-existent with the religious sacrament? (prior to say 1700's and the advent of Atheism)
Why does the law so closely coincide with, and have the same limitations as the tradition religious christian sacrament of marriage?
such as:
no polygamy
Age of consent and permission
Man and a woman (still does in most states)
No adultery (relaxed in recent years)
The federal requirement HAS changed to a more lax version, as have the states.
Because it IS essentially based from this concept. Due to first amendment concerns, a particular religion was not referred to or enforced, but it is silly to think it did not originate from the christian legacy we brought with us.
Simple, but obviously too complicated for you to follow.
Your bigotry? No, that is quite typical and noted several times. Again, personal freedoms do not bow down to your religion. There is that pesky Establishment clause and Separation of Church and State again.
Not bigoted at all. I would suggest you are blinkered from the truth by your agenda. My assertions remain true, even after I changed my subjective judgement on the ethical position.
It was and is a RELIGIOUS institution, not a "secular" one or created by DEISM or ATHEISM. Like it or not, that is the way it is. Since it IS a religious concept, (except for the change of heart I have had) were it not for individual constitutional protected right of a gay individual ( I am convinced but you have the majority of the population to go), then the legislative route (or "mob rule" as you gyus are fond of calling it) is the method of defining who is and can be "married".
Look there is still a TON of your post left, and I have run out of time in this session, more later.
first-
"start with your claim that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob that I am somehow violating the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and your freedoms. "
You say I said it, but where did I say this? Quote me directly? Looks like a straw man to me.
Your indolence and level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
And I clearly stated that we would start with the first one and then move onto others such as the second. You cannot even quote me properly or reflect my posts in context.
Are you sure you don’t work for Hannity rather than a chip manufacturer in Utah?
I have stated twice prior to this that the question were in a different thread. I have also provided the link.
I even went so far as to ask if I you were capable of following the link I posted or do I get more dishonest replies from you?
I guess I just get more dishonest replies.
You have also cried foul several times over topic shifts in threads, so again, follow the link I provided and discuss this in the proper thread.
And again, the link I posted will bring you to the question and your claim which I quoted in the linked post.
QUOTE
second-
"such as your idea that the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution, afterwards. "
"such as your idea that the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution, afterwards. "
And again, linked to in the proper thread. Unless you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest, indolent or using some of the most juvenile actions in order to avoid the question and your related quote, there really is no excuse for you not to follow the link I provided.
Just so you cannot cry about having to go back one whole page to find the link, here it is again.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=840#
You have your one question and a link to not only to the question but a quotation of your claim that the question is based upon.
Please follow the link so as not to appear to be a hypocrite by shifting the topic of this thread while you have denounced such behavior in the past.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| second- "such as your idea that the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution, afterwards. " |
And again, linked to in the proper thread. Unless you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest, indolent or using some of the most juvenile actions in order to avoid the question and your related quote, there really is no excuse for you not to follow the link I provided.
Just so you cannot cry about having to go back one whole page to find the link, here it is again.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=840#
You have your one question and a link to not only to the question but a quotation of your claim that the question is based upon.
Please follow the link so as not to appear to be a hypocrite by shifting the topic of this thread while you have denounced such behavior in the past.
Again, where did I say this? Quote me? Or did you just SAY I said it?
Again, on the linked page. Your avoidance of following the link and going to the proper thread for discussion of this paints you in a rather bad light.
Hehe okay, but would have been much clearer had you sopecifically quoted the passage that implied that, I will pursue the first question shortly.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 15 2008, 10:56 PM)
deadbeat....even if he showed you the quote....you still would argue....
Let us make this simpler...
Do you think "that by supporting a secular society that protects the rights of the individual over the rights of the mob ..violates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (or) your freedoms?
er, NO, but with some slight qualification
Since that is exactly what the bill of rights and constitution were written for (although I might argue "secular society", ANY society regardless of religious OR secular is supportable that meets those criteria.
The qualification that might be a YES is in the case where that individual right is NOT specifically spelled out in the constitution, and in the case of a greater need for the stability or saftey of the society at large (Drivers licenses and voting registration would be examples)
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 15 2008, 10:56 PM)
Second question
Do you think "the “moral majority” has the right to limit personal freedoms in violation of the Constitution"?
unqualifiedNEVER! The constitution is the ultimate and final authority, and is NEVER to be violated for any reason. That does not mean all individual rights not described are guaranteed absolutely, nor that the constitution may not be amended.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 15 2008, 10:56 PM)
Simply answer "yes" or "no"
Do notice that I changed the first question from the original statement.
So, answer the questions...if you can say "no" to both questions then it is obviously a strawman argument.
So sorta No? Mostly?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 15 2008, 01:21 AM)
QUOTE (DB+)
Uh...no. More blatant ignorance or dishonesty from you.
Coming from the bigoted person who has previously declared that marriage can only be between a man and a woman as declared in your religion.
Hmm...whatever, I have been persuaded otherwise now, especially after discussing it with Arthur, he made some very valid points and my reasoning was presented quite well I think.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 15 2008, 01:21 AM)
And again DB, marriage in the eyes for the law is nothing more than a contract, secular in nature. Are you saying that every marriage must undergo this “majority” approval?
Okay you are just misleading or misled here. While "marriage" as legislated and recognized by federal law is in effect nothing more than a contract, the law and its original consideration was by no means secular in origin. The law, by restriction of the constitution may not prefer any particular religious version of the sacrament, but the concept of "marriage" is definitively religious in origin. In our law, it is represented in a fair and non-specific way, that satisfies the vast majority of religions that value and hold it sacred. But not any specific one.
Ask yourself these questions:
Has the concept of "marriage" ever existed prior to, or even co-existent with the religious sacrament? (prior to say 1700's and the advent of Atheism)
Why does the law so closely coincide with, and have the same limitations as the tradition religious christian sacrament of marriage?
such as:
no polygamy
Age of consent and permission
Man and a woman (still does in most states)
No adultery (relaxed in recent years)
The federal requirement HAS changed to a more lax version, as have the states.
Because it IS essentially based from this concept. Due to first amendment concerns, a particular religion was not referred to or enforced, but it is silly to think it did not originate from the christian legacy we brought with us.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 15 2008, 01:21 AM)
QUOTE (DB+)
Simple, but obviously too complicated for you to follow.
Your bigotry? No, that is quite typical and noted several times. Again, personal freedoms do not bow down to your religion. There is that pesky Establishment clause and Separation of Church and State again.
Not bigoted at all. I would suggest you are blinkered from the truth by your agenda. My assertions remain true, even after I changed my subjective judgement on the ethical position.
It was and is a RELIGIOUS institution, not a "secular" one or created by DEISM or ATHEISM. Like it or not, that is the way it is. Since it IS a religious concept, (except for the change of heart I have had) were it not for individual constitutional protected right of a gay individual ( I am convinced but you have the majority of the population to go), then the legislative route (or "mob rule" as you gyus are fond of calling it) is the method of defining who is and can be "married".
Look there is still a TON of your post left, and I have run out of time in this session, more later.
So, I guess returning to the proper thread is out of the question then.
QUOTE (DB+)
Hmm...whatever, I have been persuaded otherwise now, especially after discussing it with Arthur, he made some very valid points and my reasoning was presented quite well I think.
Yes, and your change of position was recognized by many including myself.
I stated that marriage is secular in nature, not secular in origin.
I stated that marriage is secular in nature, not secular in origin.
The law, by restriction of the constitution may not prefer any particular religious version of the sacrament, but the concept of "marriage" is definitively religious in origin.
A claim backed by nothing but your opinion. And again, one that also claim that all laws originate from religion. You are assuming that based upon your religions views that marriage is religious in origin. It may be, but you have not proven that yet. It may also just be a natural extension of mankind’s desirer to bond with one person.
And again, religion plays no part in religion from a point of view of the law. I can get married without a ceremony or anyone representing any sort of religion. And anyone granted the ability to conduct or officiate a marriage has been granted such ability from the state.
Exactly. It is totally secular and the law is simply not concerned with the religious aspect that the people getting married decide to attach to or include in the process of getting married. But again, all of that extra pomp and circumstance is simply extra and unnecessary baggage.
Exactly. It is totally secular and the law is simply not concerned with the religious aspect that the people getting married decide to attach to or include in the process of getting married. But again, all of that extra pomp and circumstance is simply extra and unnecessary baggage.
Ask yourself these questions:
Has the concept of "marriage" ever existed prior to, or even co-existent with the religious sacrament? (prior to say 1700's and the advent of Atheism)
Yes. And the relevance of that would be? I am not denying that people attach religion to marriage just that ion our secular society it is not needed in order to get married.
Because it is a historical fact that in the history of the U.S. civil liberties are often wrongly limited based upon the misconceptions of those who follow the xian faith.
Am I to take it that since you are arguing that marriage is of and property of your faith in the history of the U.S. and that the U.S. laws have echoed your religion in the marriage laws that other restrictions are also of your faith and religion? Laws like not allowing interracial marriages due to claim of violating the xian religion?
If you are going to claim that the marriage laws echo your religious laws by restricting homosexuals from marrying you cannot hen turn around and claim that your religion and religious laws were not used to prevent people of different races from marrying.
Because it is a historical fact that in the history of the U.S. civil liberties are often wrongly limited based upon the misconceptions of those who follow the xian faith.
Am I to take it that since you are arguing that marriage is of and property of your faith in the history of the U.S. and that the U.S. laws have echoed your religion in the marriage laws that other restrictions are also of your faith and religion? Laws like not allowing interracial marriages due to claim of violating the xian religion?
If you are going to claim that the marriage laws echo your religious laws by restricting homosexuals from marrying you cannot hen turn around and claim that your religion and religious laws were not used to prevent people of different races from marrying.
such as:
no polygamy
Depending on the flavor of religion, that was not always illegal. In many secular views, polygamy is not considered taboo.
Again, that varies considerably. Child brides are also not unique to just one flavor of xian in recent times.
Again, that varies considerably. Child brides are also not unique to just one flavor of xian in recent times.
Man and a woman (still does in most states)
And that would be one of the last vestiges of the xian filter I spoke of earlier. Just like other restrictions with race based upon the objection of the various flavors of the xian religion at the time.
In the matter of adultery, that is simply a factor of the civil contract. One of the parties has violated a condition of the contract and the other can seek damage.
But while you are running off a list, do not forget the other aspects that were allowed under the guise of the religious marriage. For the longest time, no divorce was allowed. This may not seem that big of a problem unless you factor in the abuse of spouses, also sanctioned or ignored in the past and historically by your religion.
In the matter of adultery, that is simply a factor of the civil contract. One of the parties has violated a condition of the contract and the other can seek damage.
But while you are running off a list, do not forget the other aspects that were allowed under the guise of the religious marriage. For the longest time, no divorce was allowed. This may not seem that big of a problem unless you factor in the abuse of spouses, also sanctioned or ignored in the past and historically by your religion.
The federal requirement HAS changed to a more lax version, as have the states.
And it will continue to do so. I have mentioned before that people like you who demand that marriage is just a religious institution with such limitations will drive people into just seeking the separate but equal civil union just to avoid the whole controversy. The end result will be a greater decline is marriage.
Based from what concept? Religious marriage? Again, that is an unfounded assumption on your part.
As with most things in human society, the concept of marriage most likely started as simply a result of human activity that was later usurped and taken over by religion.
Based from what concept? Religious marriage? Again, that is an unfounded assumption on your part.
As with most things in human society, the concept of marriage most likely started as simply a result of human activity that was later usurped and taken over by religion.
Due to first amendment concerns, a particular religion was not referred to or enforced, but it is silly to think it did not originate from the christian legacy we brought with us.
And it is silly to assume it originate with a religion that was created long after marriage or bonding was a factor of human civilization. You assume that since the majority of those in the nation were xian and supported their view of marriage over others that it was and is the creation and property of religion.
If you claim that a person cannot exercise a freedom due to their choice on how to exercise it that is in conflict with your religion and you think it is perfectly okay to limit that person, then that is bigoted.
As I stated in the positive feedback I left for you, recognition and support of a right and/or personal freedom does not mean support for how a person exercises that right and/or personal freedom.
And you claim again I have an agenda, but you fail to cite exactly what that agenda is.
If you claim that a person cannot exercise a freedom due to their choice on how to exercise it that is in conflict with your religion and you think it is perfectly okay to limit that person, then that is bigoted.
As I stated in the positive feedback I left for you, recognition and support of a right and/or personal freedom does not mean support for how a person exercises that right and/or personal freedom.
And you claim again I have an agenda, but you fail to cite exactly what that agenda is.
It was and is a RELIGIOUS institution, not a "secular" one or created by DEISM or ATHEISM.
And again, that is an unfounded and unsupported claim. You are assuming that since the church had control of marriage for so long that they created it while you forget that marriage predate the creation of your religion.
Again, unfounded claim. I’m sure it comforts you to think your religion created marriage, but the fact that marriage or similar bonding predates the creation of your religion illustrated how your claim is not one of fact.
Again, unfounded claim. I’m sure it comforts you to think your religion created marriage, but the fact that marriage or similar bonding predates the creation of your religion illustrated how your claim is not one of fact.
Since it IS a religious concept, (except for the change of heart I have had) were it not for individual constitutional protected right of a gay individual ( I am convinced but you have the majority of the population to go), then the legislative route (or "mob rule" as you gyus are fond of calling it) is the method of defining who is and can be "married".
Again, it is not a religious concept. Even if we take your unfounded and historical inaccurate claim as fact it was, it is no longer and has not been for some time. It is a secular contract in the eyes of the law.
And the constitution need not protect specifically homosexuals to protect their rights to marry. Again, since marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, you cannot prevent them from marrying. Nowhere in the constitution is there protection for heterosexuals to marry, so why would there need to be protection for homosexuals?
There is no way the Constitution will be amended to outlaw same sex marriage and rulings prohibiting such will be overturned by the judicial system since current laws are a violation of the rights of an individual.
We can continue to hash out this one unless you would rather shift to explain how by supporting a secular society that I am violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights as you claimed before.
Yes, and your change of position was recognized by many including myself.
QUOTE
Okay you are just misleading or misled here. While "marriage" as legislated and recognized by federal law is in effect nothing more than a contract, the law and its original consideration was by no means secular in origin.
I stated that marriage is secular in nature, not secular in origin.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Okay you are just misleading or misled here. While "marriage" as legislated and recognized by federal law is in effect nothing more than a contract, the law and its original consideration was by no means secular in origin. |
I stated that marriage is secular in nature, not secular in origin.
The law, by restriction of the constitution may not prefer any particular religious version of the sacrament, but the concept of "marriage" is definitively religious in origin.
A claim backed by nothing but your opinion. And again, one that also claim that all laws originate from religion. You are assuming that based upon your religions views that marriage is religious in origin. It may be, but you have not proven that yet. It may also just be a natural extension of mankind’s desirer to bond with one person.
And again, religion plays no part in religion from a point of view of the law. I can get married without a ceremony or anyone representing any sort of religion. And anyone granted the ability to conduct or officiate a marriage has been granted such ability from the state.
QUOTE
In our law, it is represented in a fair and non-specific way, that satisfies the vast majority of religions that value and hold it sacred. But not any specific one.
Exactly. It is totally secular and the law is simply not concerned with the religious aspect that the people getting married decide to attach to or include in the process of getting married. But again, all of that extra pomp and circumstance is simply extra and unnecessary baggage.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In our law, it is represented in a fair and non-specific way, that satisfies the vast majority of religions that value and hold it sacred. But not any specific one. |
Exactly. It is totally secular and the law is simply not concerned with the religious aspect that the people getting married decide to attach to or include in the process of getting married. But again, all of that extra pomp and circumstance is simply extra and unnecessary baggage.
Ask yourself these questions:
Has the concept of "marriage" ever existed prior to, or even co-existent with the religious sacrament? (prior to say 1700's and the advent of Atheism)
Yes. And the relevance of that would be? I am not denying that people attach religion to marriage just that ion our secular society it is not needed in order to get married.
QUOTE
Why does the law so closely coincide with, and have the same limitations as the tradition religious christian sacrament of marriage?
Because it is a historical fact that in the history of the U.S. civil liberties are often wrongly limited based upon the misconceptions of those who follow the xian faith.
Am I to take it that since you are arguing that marriage is of and property of your faith in the history of the U.S. and that the U.S. laws have echoed your religion in the marriage laws that other restrictions are also of your faith and religion? Laws like not allowing interracial marriages due to claim of violating the xian religion?
If you are going to claim that the marriage laws echo your religious laws by restricting homosexuals from marrying you cannot hen turn around and claim that your religion and religious laws were not used to prevent people of different races from marrying.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why does the law so closely coincide with, and have the same limitations as the tradition religious christian sacrament of marriage? |
Because it is a historical fact that in the history of the U.S. civil liberties are often wrongly limited based upon the misconceptions of those who follow the xian faith.
Am I to take it that since you are arguing that marriage is of and property of your faith in the history of the U.S. and that the U.S. laws have echoed your religion in the marriage laws that other restrictions are also of your faith and religion? Laws like not allowing interracial marriages due to claim of violating the xian religion?
If you are going to claim that the marriage laws echo your religious laws by restricting homosexuals from marrying you cannot hen turn around and claim that your religion and religious laws were not used to prevent people of different races from marrying.
such as:
no polygamy
Depending on the flavor of religion, that was not always illegal. In many secular views, polygamy is not considered taboo.
QUOTE
Age of consent and permission
Again, that varies considerably. Child brides are also not unique to just one flavor of xian in recent times.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Age of consent and permission |
Again, that varies considerably. Child brides are also not unique to just one flavor of xian in recent times.
Man and a woman (still does in most states)
And that would be one of the last vestiges of the xian filter I spoke of earlier. Just like other restrictions with race based upon the objection of the various flavors of the xian religion at the time.
QUOTE
No adultery (relaxed in recent years)
In the matter of adultery, that is simply a factor of the civil contract. One of the parties has violated a condition of the contract and the other can seek damage.
But while you are running off a list, do not forget the other aspects that were allowed under the guise of the religious marriage. For the longest time, no divorce was allowed. This may not seem that big of a problem unless you factor in the abuse of spouses, also sanctioned or ignored in the past and historically by your religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No adultery (relaxed in recent years) |
In the matter of adultery, that is simply a factor of the civil contract. One of the parties has violated a condition of the contract and the other can seek damage.
But while you are running off a list, do not forget the other aspects that were allowed under the guise of the religious marriage. For the longest time, no divorce was allowed. This may not seem that big of a problem unless you factor in the abuse of spouses, also sanctioned or ignored in the past and historically by your religion.
The federal requirement HAS changed to a more lax version, as have the states.
And it will continue to do so. I have mentioned before that people like you who demand that marriage is just a religious institution with such limitations will drive people into just seeking the separate but equal civil union just to avoid the whole controversy. The end result will be a greater decline is marriage.
QUOTE
Because it IS essentially based from this concept.
Based from what concept? Religious marriage? Again, that is an unfounded assumption on your part.
As with most things in human society, the concept of marriage most likely started as simply a result of human activity that was later usurped and taken over by religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because it IS essentially based from this concept. |
Based from what concept? Religious marriage? Again, that is an unfounded assumption on your part.
As with most things in human society, the concept of marriage most likely started as simply a result of human activity that was later usurped and taken over by religion.
Due to first amendment concerns, a particular religion was not referred to or enforced, but it is silly to think it did not originate from the christian legacy we brought with us.
And it is silly to assume it originate with a religion that was created long after marriage or bonding was a factor of human civilization. You assume that since the majority of those in the nation were xian and supported their view of marriage over others that it was and is the creation and property of religion.
QUOTE
Not bigoted at all. I would suggest you are blinkered from the truth by your agenda. My assertions remain true, even after I changed my subjective judgement on the ethical position.
If you claim that a person cannot exercise a freedom due to their choice on how to exercise it that is in conflict with your religion and you think it is perfectly okay to limit that person, then that is bigoted.
As I stated in the positive feedback I left for you, recognition and support of a right and/or personal freedom does not mean support for how a person exercises that right and/or personal freedom.
And you claim again I have an agenda, but you fail to cite exactly what that agenda is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not bigoted at all. I would suggest you are blinkered from the truth by your agenda. My assertions remain true, even after I changed my subjective judgement on the ethical position. |
If you claim that a person cannot exercise a freedom due to their choice on how to exercise it that is in conflict with your religion and you think it is perfectly okay to limit that person, then that is bigoted.
As I stated in the positive feedback I left for you, recognition and support of a right and/or personal freedom does not mean support for how a person exercises that right and/or personal freedom.
And you claim again I have an agenda, but you fail to cite exactly what that agenda is.
It was and is a RELIGIOUS institution, not a "secular" one or created by DEISM or ATHEISM.
And again, that is an unfounded and unsupported claim. You are assuming that since the church had control of marriage for so long that they created it while you forget that marriage predate the creation of your religion.
QUOTE
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Again, unfounded claim. I’m sure it comforts you to think your religion created marriage, but the fact that marriage or similar bonding predates the creation of your religion illustrated how your claim is not one of fact.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Like it or not, that is the way it is. |
Again, unfounded claim. I’m sure it comforts you to think your religion created marriage, but the fact that marriage or similar bonding predates the creation of your religion illustrated how your claim is not one of fact.
Since it IS a religious concept, (except for the change of heart I have had) were it not for individual constitutional protected right of a gay individual ( I am convinced but you have the majority of the population to go), then the legislative route (or "mob rule" as you gyus are fond of calling it) is the method of defining who is and can be "married".
Again, it is not a religious concept. Even if we take your unfounded and historical inaccurate claim as fact it was, it is no longer and has not been for some time. It is a secular contract in the eyes of the law.
And the constitution need not protect specifically homosexuals to protect their rights to marry. Again, since marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, you cannot prevent them from marrying. Nowhere in the constitution is there protection for heterosexuals to marry, so why would there need to be protection for homosexuals?
There is no way the Constitution will be amended to outlaw same sex marriage and rulings prohibiting such will be overturned by the judicial system since current laws are a violation of the rights of an individual.
QUOTE
Look there is still a TON of your post left, and I have run out of time in this session, more later.
We can continue to hash out this one unless you would rather shift to explain how by supporting a secular society that I am violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights as you claimed before.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 16 2008, 03:57 PM)
So, I guess returning to the proper thread is out of the question then.
QUOTE
We need to get on with with REAL debate, so I'll start it off with this opening statement for any/all religious brains to criticize and/or debate.
God does not heal the sick. He does not give limbs back to war heroes. Natural disasters do not stop. Why does god not reveal himself? He (or so you say) wants us to have faith, but why would he test us when he could save us from eternal damnation so easily? Why put us through this?
No insults, and don't avoid the question.
God does not heal the sick. He does not give limbs back to war heroes. Natural disasters do not stop. Why does god not reveal himself? He (or so you say) wants us to have faith, but why would he test us when he could save us from eternal damnation so easily? Why put us through this?
No insults, and don't avoid the question.
PuckSR,
Are you trying to say this is the proper thread for a conversation of civil rights and individual freedoms over religious demands, mob rule and the like?
I was referring to the thread in which this conversation over this topic between deadbeat and myself took place.
I also didn't want to change the topic of this thread.
Are you trying to say this is the proper thread for a conversation of civil rights and individual freedoms over religious demands, mob rule and the like?
I was referring to the thread in which this conversation over this topic between deadbeat and myself took place.
I also didn't want to change the topic of this thread.
So what are we supposed to talk about now?
Gimme a hint?
Continue our converation or start over from the OP topic?
Gimme a hint?
Continue our converation or start over from the OP topic?
You seem to be using these lasts posts as an excuse again. As I stated before, we can continue to hash out this topic out unless you would rather shift to explain how by supporting a secular society that I am violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights as you claimed before.
My comment that PuckSR replied to was about you not posting in the thread where this conversation originated.
Since I have stated more than once that you should return to that thread and you ignored this, I find your concern over what to talk about now highly dubious. You have never cared about thread continuity unless it was a useful tool to avoid questions.
So you can re-read the April 16th posting I made and reply, pick other topic or just ignore this entirely.
My comment that PuckSR replied to was about you not posting in the thread where this conversation originated.
Since I have stated more than once that you should return to that thread and you ignored this, I find your concern over what to talk about now highly dubious. You have never cared about thread continuity unless it was a useful tool to avoid questions.
So you can re-read the April 16th posting I made and reply, pick other topic or just ignore this entirely.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 22 2008, 02:30 PM)
You seem to be using these lasts posts as an excuse again. As I stated before, we can continue to hash out this topic out unless you would rather shift to explain how by supporting a secular society that I am violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights as you claimed before.
My comment that PuckSR replied to was about you not posting in the thread where this conversation originated.
Since I have stated more than once that you should return to that thread and you ignored this, I find your concern over what to talk about now highly dubious. You have never cared about thread continuity unless it was a useful tool to avoid questions.
So you can re-read the April 16th posting I made and reply, pick other topic or just ignore this entirely.
Fine post your question in the ORIGINAL thread, I would be happy to continue this in the correct venue...
My comment that PuckSR replied to was about you not posting in the thread where this conversation originated.
Since I have stated more than once that you should return to that thread and you ignored this, I find your concern over what to talk about now highly dubious. You have never cared about thread continuity unless it was a useful tool to avoid questions.
So you can re-read the April 16th posting I made and reply, pick other topic or just ignore this entirely.
Fine post your question in the ORIGINAL thread, I would be happy to continue this in the correct venue...
Which question? The one you were replying to here or another?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 22 2008, 02:57 PM)
Which question? The one you were replying to here or another?
I have no idea, pick one that satisfies your outrage and lets go with it, start a new link for it, whatever, just let me know where it is and I will proceed from there
I have no idea, pick one that satisfies your outrage and lets go with it, start a new link for it, whatever, just let me know where it is and I will proceed from there
I have, over and over again.
You are either being intentional obtuse or are just not bright enough to follow the links or continue the conversation that was taking place in this thread at the top of this page, as indicated earlier.
Either continue the conversation from above, back up your earlier claim(s) or post more excuses, evasions and cop-out posts.
It is not my fault you cannot keep your own claims straight or remember what you posted and where.
Also not my responsibility to hold your hand either if you are too dumb, intentionally or not, to know how to use this forum or you are just being your typical obstinate self.
You are either being intentional obtuse or are just not bright enough to follow the links or continue the conversation that was taking place in this thread at the top of this page, as indicated earlier.
Either continue the conversation from above, back up your earlier claim(s) or post more excuses, evasions and cop-out posts.
It is not my fault you cannot keep your own claims straight or remember what you posted and where.
Also not my responsibility to hold your hand either if you are too dumb, intentionally or not, to know how to use this forum or you are just being your typical obstinate self.
The real answer is, there IS no question that has not been answered.
You just keep making outraged claims.
You just keep making outraged claims.
No, the real answer is that you are simply a shill. I mentioned specifically to go to the top of this very page and evidently you are incapable of doing that.
Besides, you also miss the fact that we are, or rather were, discussing your hollow claims.
So again, rather than act in an intellectually honest manner, you resort to your obtuse and obstinate behavior.
If you are not capable of even going to the top of the last page to address questioned directly asked of you then there is little chance in your acting and debating in a rational not to mention serious manner.
Equivocate all you wish, you still are proving my arguments for me.
Besides, you also miss the fact that we are, or rather were, discussing your hollow claims.
So again, rather than act in an intellectually honest manner, you resort to your obtuse and obstinate behavior.
If you are not capable of even going to the top of the last page to address questioned directly asked of you then there is little chance in your acting and debating in a rational not to mention serious manner.
Equivocate all you wish, you still are proving my arguments for me.
Ah the truth becomes apparent again to everyone.
You HAVE no real argument or question. You have no idea what you are even talking about, which is why you cannot state what it might be.
But thanks for clearing that up for all of us.
You HAVE no real argument or question. You have no idea what you are even talking about, which is why you cannot state what it might be.
But thanks for clearing that up for all of us.
QUOTE (DB+)
Ah the truth becomes apparent again to everyone.
You mean the everyone who has left you those massive amounts of positive feedback comments for your rational, logical and honest debates?
When you debate a person, you are supposed to do just that and not seek the appeal or approval of the “audience” at it were. I find it odd how many people like you seek to speak to those who might be reading this thread rather than just debate the argument.
More material proof of the claims from people like PuckSR that you are simply an attention whore.
Ignoring the questions I have posted does not mean they do no exists.
Again, on the top of the last page are several posts and several questions.
And again, you would have to be intellectually dishonest or just dishonest to begin with not to address them.
Ignoring the questions I have posted does not mean they do no exists.
Again, on the top of the last page are several posts and several questions.
And again, you would have to be intellectually dishonest or just dishonest to begin with not to address them.
You have no idea what you are even talking about, which is why you cannot state what it might be.
And again, I have stated over and over what my questions are. You continue to ignore them. And on top of that, there are the other times where you have simply cowered away from the conversation rather than address the questions I posted or used cop-out replies.
And again, equivocate all you wish, you still are proving my arguments for me.
But I’m sure that rather than go back one page, act like you posses a fragment of honesty and address my questions in an intellectually honest manner, you can just stalk Gorgeous and post SPAM replies from thread to thread.
Ignoring the questions I have posted does not mean they do no exists.
Again, on the top of the last page are several posts and several questions.
And again, you would have to be intellectually dishonest or just dishonest to begin with not to address them.
And again, I have stated over and over what my questions are. You continue to ignore them. And on top of that, there are the other times where you have simply cowered away from the conversation rather than address the questions I posted or used cop-out replies.
And again, equivocate all you wish, you still are proving my arguments for me.
But I’m sure that rather than go back one page, act like you posses a fragment of honesty and address my questions in an intellectually honest manner, you can just stalk Gorgeous and post SPAM replies from thread to thread.
Just again you demonstrate that even you do not know what your "questions" are.
You do not remember, and actually do not need to, because you just get indignant and outraged, and make some new weird claims without actually saying anything directly. You will not specifically ask or argue anything, because you are incapable of doing so.
So...all you have to do is ACTUALLY ASK a question, I would be happy to answer it.
You mean the everyone who has left you those massive amounts of positive feedback comments for your rational, logical and honest debates?
When you debate a person, you are supposed to do just that and not seek the appeal or approval of the “audience” at it were. I find it odd how many people like you seek to speak to those who might be reading this thread rather than just debate the argument.
More material proof of the claims from people like PuckSR that you are simply an attention whore.
QUOTE
You HAVE no real argument or question.
Ignoring the questions I have posted does not mean they do no exists.
Again, on the top of the last page are several posts and several questions.
And again, you would have to be intellectually dishonest or just dishonest to begin with not to address them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You HAVE no real argument or question. |
Ignoring the questions I have posted does not mean they do no exists.
Again, on the top of the last page are several posts and several questions.
And again, you would have to be intellectually dishonest or just dishonest to begin with not to address them.
You have no idea what you are even talking about, which is why you cannot state what it might be.
And again, I have stated over and over what my questions are. You continue to ignore them. And on top of that, there are the other times where you have simply cowered away from the conversation rather than address the questions I posted or used cop-out replies.
QUOTE
But thanks for clearing that up for all of us.
And again, equivocate all you wish, you still are proving my arguments for me.
But I’m sure that rather than go back one page, act like you posses a fragment of honesty and address my questions in an intellectually honest manner, you can just stalk Gorgeous and post SPAM replies from thread to thread.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 25 2008, 01:32 PM)
Ignoring the questions I have posted does not mean they do no exists.
Again, on the top of the last page are several posts and several questions.
And again, you would have to be intellectually dishonest or just dishonest to begin with not to address them.
And again, I have stated over and over what my questions are. You continue to ignore them. And on top of that, there are the other times where you have simply cowered away from the conversation rather than address the questions I posted or used cop-out replies.
And again, equivocate all you wish, you still are proving my arguments for me.
But I’m sure that rather than go back one page, act like you posses a fragment of honesty and address my questions in an intellectually honest manner, you can just stalk Gorgeous and post SPAM replies from thread to thread.
Just again you demonstrate that even you do not know what your "questions" are.
You do not remember, and actually do not need to, because you just get indignant and outraged, and make some new weird claims without actually saying anything directly. You will not specifically ask or argue anything, because you are incapable of doing so.
So...all you have to do is ACTUALLY ASK a question, I would be happy to answer it.
QUOTE (DB+)
Just again you demonstrate that even you do not know what your "questions" are.
This is the level your avoidance has stooped to? Wow. New low.
So, let us review. I posted a rather long list of question on another thread and you avoided those by ignoring them and refusing to go back to answer them
Then, in this thread, when I confronted you about those questions, you did anything to avoid going back to that thread even after links were provided.
Then I chose one main question for you to address and after a time you again resorted to ignoring them yet again.
I have posted them over and over and they still are listed one page back.
Your dishonesty and devious nature is painfully obvious at this point. You cannot act in an honest and rational manner just as surely as you cannot go back one
page to address one question to started to discuss but ran away from.
Keep digging to lowers levels. I have stated question directly but you are just a dishonest attention whore who cannot debate honestly or rationally.
Again, you are not capable of going back one page. Such dishonesty. Here is the link if the task of clicking on the last page is to difficult or taxing.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20705&st=240#
Should I report the entire post for you to ignore again?
You will not specifically ask or argue anything, because you are incapable of doing so.
And you sink to outright lying again. Follow the link unless of course I do have to
hold your hand and repost the entire set from the last page. Do you need me to hold your hand and do it for you?
Keep digging to lowers levels. I have stated question directly but you are just a dishonest attention whore who cannot debate honestly or rationally.
Again, you are not capable of going back one page. Such dishonesty. Here is the link if the task of clicking on the last page is to difficult or taxing.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20705&st=240#
Should I report the entire post for you to ignore again?
You will not specifically ask or argue anything, because you are incapable of doing so.
And you sink to outright lying again. Follow the link unless of course I do have to
hold your hand and repost the entire set from the last page. Do you need me to hold your hand and do it for you?
So...all you have to do is ACTUALLY ASK a question, I would be happy to answer it.
Again, such a lie. I have asked the questions twice now, and you keep avoiding them. Here, let me make it real simple for you. Here is the entire post you cannot go back one page to address.
So, I guess returning to the proper thread is out of the question then.
I stated that marriage is secular in nature, not secular in origin.
This is the level your avoidance has stooped to? Wow. New low.
So, let us review. I posted a rather long list of question on another thread and you avoided those by ignoring them and refusing to go back to answer them
Then, in this thread, when I confronted you about those questions, you did anything to avoid going back to that thread even after links were provided.
Then I chose one main question for you to address and after a time you again resorted to ignoring them yet again.
I have posted them over and over and they still are listed one page back.
Your dishonesty and devious nature is painfully obvious at this point. You cannot act in an honest and rational manner just as surely as you cannot go back one
page to address one question to started to discuss but ran away from.
QUOTE
You do not remember, and actually do not need to, because you just get indignant and outraged, and make some new weird claims without actually saying anything directly.
Keep digging to lowers levels. I have stated question directly but you are just a dishonest attention whore who cannot debate honestly or rationally.
Again, you are not capable of going back one page. Such dishonesty. Here is the link if the task of clicking on the last page is to difficult or taxing.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20705&st=240#
Should I report the entire post for you to ignore again?
You will not specifically ask or argue anything, because you are incapable of doing so.
And you sink to outright lying again. Follow the link unless of course I do have to
hold your hand and repost the entire set from the last page. Do you need me to hold your hand and do it for you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You do not remember, and actually do not need to, because you just get indignant and outraged, and make some new weird claims without actually saying anything directly. |
Keep digging to lowers levels. I have stated question directly but you are just a dishonest attention whore who cannot debate honestly or rationally.
Again, you are not capable of going back one page. Such dishonesty. Here is the link if the task of clicking on the last page is to difficult or taxing.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20705&st=240#
Should I report the entire post for you to ignore again?
You will not specifically ask or argue anything, because you are incapable of doing so.
And you sink to outright lying again. Follow the link unless of course I do have to
hold your hand and repost the entire set from the last page. Do you need me to hold your hand and do it for you?
So...all you have to do is ACTUALLY ASK a question, I would be happy to answer it.
Again, such a lie. I have asked the questions twice now, and you keep avoiding them. Here, let me make it real simple for you. Here is the entire post you cannot go back one page to address.
So, I guess returning to the proper thread is out of the question then.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Hmm...whatever, I have been persuaded otherwise now, especially after discussing it with Arthur, he made some very valid points and my reasoning was presented quite well I think. Yes, and your change of position was recognized by many including myself. QUOTE (DB+) Okay you are just misleading or misled here. While "marriage" as legislated and recognized by federal law is in effect nothing more than a contract, the law and its original consideration was by no means secular in origin. |
I stated that marriage is secular in nature, not secular in origin.
QUOTE (DB+)
The law, by restriction of the constitution may not prefer any particular religious version of the sacrament, but the concept of "marriage" is definitively religious in origin.
A claim backed by nothing but your opinion. And again, one that also claim that all laws originate from religion. You are assuming that based upon your religions views that marriage is religious in origin. It may be, but you have not proven that yet. It may also just be a natural extension of mankind’s desirer to bond with one person.
And again, religion plays no part in religion from a point of view of the law. I can get married without a ceremony or anyone representing any sort of religion. And anyone granted the ability to conduct or officiate a marriage has been granted such ability from the state.
A claim backed by nothing but your opinion. And again, one that also claim that all laws originate from religion. You are assuming that based upon your religions views that marriage is religious in origin. It may be, but you have not proven that yet. It may also just be a natural extension of mankind’s desirer to bond with one person.
And again, religion plays no part in religion from a point of view of the law. I can get married without a ceremony or anyone representing any sort of religion. And anyone granted the ability to conduct or officiate a marriage has been granted such ability from the state.
QUOTE (DB+)
In our law, it is represented in a fair and non-specific way, that satisfies the vast majority of religions that value and hold it sacred. But not any specific one.
Exactly. It is totally secular and the law is simply not concerned with the religious aspect that the people getting married decide to attach to or include in the process of getting married. But again, all of that extra pomp and circumstance is simply extra and unnecessary baggage.
Yes. And the relevance of that would be? I am not denying that people attach religion to marriage just that ion our secular society it is not needed in order to get married.
Yes. And the relevance of that would be? I am not denying that people attach religion to marriage just that ion our secular society it is not needed in order to get married.
Why does the law so closely coincide with, and have the same limitations as the tradition religious christian sacrament of marriage?
Because it is a historical fact that in the history of the U.S. civil liberties are often wrongly limited based upon the misconceptions of those who follow the xian faith.
Am I to take it that since you are arguing that marriage is of and property of your faith in the history of the U.S. and that the U.S. laws have echoed your religion in the marriage laws that other restrictions are also of your faith and religion? Laws like not allowing interracial marriages due to claim of violating the xian religion?
If you are going to claim that the marriage laws echo your religious laws by restricting homosexuals from marrying you cannot hen turn around and claim that your religion and religious laws were not used to prevent people of different races from marrying.
Exactly. It is totally secular and the law is simply not concerned with the religious aspect that the people getting married decide to attach to or include in the process of getting married. But again, all of that extra pomp and circumstance is simply extra and unnecessary baggage.
QUOTE
Ask yourself these questions:
Has the concept of "marriage" ever existed prior to, or even co-existent with the religious sacrament? (prior to say 1700's and the advent of Atheism)
Has the concept of "marriage" ever existed prior to, or even co-existent with the religious sacrament? (prior to say 1700's and the advent of Atheism)
Yes. And the relevance of that would be? I am not denying that people attach religion to marriage just that ion our secular society it is not needed in order to get married.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ask yourself these questions: Has the concept of "marriage" ever existed prior to, or even co-existent with the religious sacrament? (prior to say 1700's and the advent of Atheism) |
Yes. And the relevance of that would be? I am not denying that people attach religion to marriage just that ion our secular society it is not needed in order to get married.
Why does the law so closely coincide with, and have the same limitations as the tradition religious christian sacrament of marriage?
Because it is a historical fact that in the history of the U.S. civil liberties are often wrongly limited based upon the misconceptions of those who follow the xian faith.
Am I to take it that since you are arguing that marriage is of and property of your faith in the history of the U.S. and that the U.S. laws have echoed your religion in the marriage laws that other restrictions are also of your faith and religion? Laws like not allowing interracial marriages due to claim of violating the xian religion?
If you are going to claim that the marriage laws echo your religious laws by restricting homosexuals from marrying you cannot hen turn around and claim that your religion and religious laws were not used to prevent people of different races from marrying.
QUOTE (DB+)
such as:
no polygamy
Depending on the flavor of religion, that was not always illegal. In many secular views, polygamy is not considered taboo.
no polygamy
Depending on the flavor of religion, that was not always illegal. In many secular views, polygamy is not considered taboo.
QUOTE (DB+)
Age of consent and permission
Again, that varies considerably. Child brides are also not unique to just one flavor of xian in recent times.
Again, that varies considerably. Child brides are also not unique to just one flavor of xian in recent times.
QUOTE (DB+)
Man and a woman (still does in most states)
And that would be one of the last vestiges of the xian filter I spoke of earlier. Just like other restrictions with race based upon the objection of the various flavors of the xian religion at the time.
And that would be one of the last vestiges of the xian filter I spoke of earlier. Just like other restrictions with race based upon the objection of the various flavors of the xian religion at the time.
QUOTE (DB+)
No adultery (relaxed in recent years)
In the matter of adultery, that is simply a factor of the civil contract. One of the parties has violated a condition of the contract and the other can seek damage.
But while you are running off a list, do not forget the other aspects that were allowed under the guise of the religious marriage. For the longest time, no divorce was allowed. This may not seem that big of a problem unless you factor in the abuse of spouses, also sanctioned or ignored in the past and historically by your religion.
In the matter of adultery, that is simply a factor of the civil contract. One of the parties has violated a condition of the contract and the other can seek damage.
But while you are running off a list, do not forget the other aspects that were allowed under the guise of the religious marriage. For the longest time, no divorce was allowed. This may not seem that big of a problem unless you factor in the abuse of spouses, also sanctioned or ignored in the past and historically by your religion.
QUOTE (DB+)
The federal requirement HAS changed to a more lax version, as have the states.
And it will continue to do so. I have mentioned before that people like you who demand that marriage is just a religious institution with such limitations will drive people into just seeking the separate but equal civil union just to avoid the whole controversy. The end result will be a greater decline is marriage.
And it will continue to do so. I have mentioned before that people like you who demand that marriage is just a religious institution with such limitations will drive people into just seeking the separate but equal civil union just to avoid the whole controversy. The end result will be a greater decline is marriage.
QUOTE (DB+)
Because it IS essentially based from this concept.
Based from what concept? Religious marriage? Again, that is an unfounded assumption on your part.
As with most things in human society, the concept of marriage most likely started as simply a result of human activity that was later usurped and taken over by religion.
Based from what concept? Religious marriage? Again, that is an unfounded assumption on your part.
As with most things in human society, the concept of marriage most likely started as simply a result of human activity that was later usurped and taken over by religion.
QUOTE (DB+)
Due to first amendment concerns, a particular religion was not referred to or enforced, but it is silly to think it did not originate from the christian legacy we brought with us.
And it is silly to assume it originate with a religion that was created long after marriage or bonding was a factor of human civilization. You assume that since the majority of those in the nation were xian and supported their view of marriage over others that it was and is the creation and property of religion.
And it is silly to assume it originate with a religion that was created long after marriage or bonding was a factor of human civilization. You assume that since the majority of those in the nation were xian and supported their view of marriage over others that it was and is the creation and property of religion.
QUOTE (DB+)
Not bigoted at all. I would suggest you are blinkered from the truth by your agenda. My assertions remain true, even after I changed my subjective judgement on the ethical position.
If you claim that a person cannot exercise a freedom due to their choice on how to exercise it that is in conflict with your religion and you think it is perfectly okay to limit that person, then that is bigoted.
As I stated in the positive feedback I left for you, recognition and support of a right and/or personal freedom does not mean support for how a person exercises that right and/or personal freedom.
And you claim again I have an agenda, but you fail to cite exactly what that agenda is.
If you claim that a person cannot exercise a freedom due to their choice on how to exercise it that is in conflict with your religion and you think it is perfectly okay to limit that person, then that is bigoted.
As I stated in the positive feedback I left for you, recognition and support of a right and/or personal freedom does not mean support for how a person exercises that right and/or personal freedom.
And you claim again I have an agenda, but you fail to cite exactly what that agenda is.
QUOTE (DB+)
It was and is a RELIGIOUS institution, not a "secular" one or created by DEISM or ATHEISM.
And again, that is an unfounded and unsupported claim. You are assuming that since the church had control of marriage for so long that they created it while you forget that marriage predate the creation of your religion.
And again, that is an unfounded and unsupported claim. You are assuming that since the church had control of marriage for so long that they created it while you forget that marriage predate the creation of your religion.
QUOTE (DB+)
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Again, unfounded claim. I’m sure it comforts you to think your religion created marriage, but the fact that marriage or similar bonding predates the creation of your religion illustrated how your claim is not one of fact.
Again, unfounded claim. I’m sure it comforts you to think your religion created marriage, but the fact that marriage or similar bonding predates the creation of your religion illustrated how your claim is not one of fact.
QUOTE (DB+)
Since it IS a religious concept, (except for the change of heart I have had) were it not for individual constitutional protected right of a gay individual ( I am convinced but you have the majority of the population to go), then the legislative route (or "mob rule" as you gyus are fond of calling it) is the method of defining who is and can be "married".
Again, it is not a religious concept. Even if we take your unfounded and historical inaccurate claim as fact it was, it is no longer and has not been for some time. It is a secular contract in the eyes of the law.
And the constitution need not protect specifically homosexuals to protect their rights to marry. Again, since marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, you cannot prevent them from marrying. Nowhere in the constitution is there protection for heterosexuals to marry, so why would there need to be protection for homosexuals?
There is no way the Constitution will be amended to outlaw same sex marriage and rulings prohibiting such will be overturned by the judicial system since current laws are a violation of the rights of an individual.
Again, it is not a religious concept. Even if we take your unfounded and historical inaccurate claim as fact it was, it is no longer and has not been for some time. It is a secular contract in the eyes of the law.
And the constitution need not protect specifically homosexuals to protect their rights to marry. Again, since marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, you cannot prevent them from marrying. Nowhere in the constitution is there protection for heterosexuals to marry, so why would there need to be protection for homosexuals?
There is no way the Constitution will be amended to outlaw same sex marriage and rulings prohibiting such will be overturned by the judicial system since current laws are a violation of the rights of an individual.
QUOTE (DB+)
Look there is still a TON of your post left, and I have run out of time in this session, more later.
We can continue to hash out this one unless you would rather shift to explain how by supporting a secular society that I am violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights as you claimed before.
So, now you have no more excuses unless of course you decide to just ignore these questions from the last page or post more cowardly and/or flippant replies.
I really will not be surprised if you do. Like I stated before. Every time you face and actually debate and cannot shift out of the corner you have painted yourself in, you cower away using questionable if not downright distasteful actions.
And again, equivocate all you wish, you still are proving my arguments for me. For example, you acted in exactly the manner I mentioned.
So either fulfill more of my prediction about your behavior or try to act like a rational person actually interested in debate.
In short order, step up or step off.
QUOTE (DB)
Hmm...whatever, I have been persuaded otherwise now, especially after discussing it with Arthur, he made some very valid points and my reasoning was presented quite well I think.
Yes, and your change of position was recognized by many including myself.
QUOTE (DB)
Okay you are just misleading or misled here. While "marriage" as legislated and recognized by federal law is in effect nothing more than a contract, the law and its original consideration was by no means secular in origin.
I stated that marriage is secular in nature, not secular in origin.
So then you must admit that the concept of "marriage" and its further inclusion and reference to it in our law, is based on the christian sacrament of marriage. Due to the constitutional restrictions, the legislation MUST be secular in nature, and prefer no particular religion, so no particular religion is required, it is (legally) of a secular nature. But DESCENDED FROM RELIGION. Obviously.
QUOTE (DB)
The law, by restriction of the constitution may not prefer any particular religious version of the sacrament, but the concept of "marriage" is definitively religious in origin.
A claim backed by nothing but your opinion. And again, one that also claim that all laws originate from religion. You are assuming that based upon your religions views that marriage is religious in origin. It may be, but you have not proven that yet. It may also just be a natural extension of mankind’s desirer to bond with one person.
And here you vacillate. It (the legal concept of marriage) is exactly descended from the religious sacrament. Do point to any other source you can find. The name, the institution it represents, the very character of the relationship as laid down in law is representative of the religious concept. The legal advantages and repsonsibilites of "marriage" are predicated and were formed into law based on the religious institution. Denying it is just silly.
And here you vacillate. It (the legal concept of marriage) is exactly descended from the religious sacrament. Do point to any other source you can find. The name, the institution it represents, the very character of the relationship as laid down in law is representative of the religious concept. The legal advantages and repsonsibilites of "marriage" are predicated and were formed into law based on the religious institution. Denying it is just silly.
And again, religion plays no part in religion from a point of view of the law. I can get married without a ceremony or anyone representing any sort of religion. And anyone granted the ability to conduct or officiate a marriage has been granted such ability from the state.
That is because legally, the sacrament and institution of marriage must be considered independent of any particular religion or faith. But, the original concept is and was derived and limited by the religious description before the laws were made.
QUOTE (DB)
In our law, it is represented in a fair and non-specific way, that satisfies the vast majority of religions that value and hold it sacred. But not any specific one.
Exactly. It is totally secular and the law is simply not concerned with the religious aspect that the people getting married decide to attach to or include in the process of getting married. But again, all of that extra pomp and circumstance is simply extra and unnecessary baggage.
That "extra pomp and circumstance" and the religious values behind it are what were responsible for the laws creating the secular institution of marriage. Since legal advantages or consequences cannot constitutionally prefer any particular religion, they are generic in nature, but obviously encompass the religious idea of marriage.
That "extra pomp and circumstance" and the religious values behind it are what were responsible for the laws creating the secular institution of marriage. Since legal advantages or consequences cannot constitutionally prefer any particular religion, they are generic in nature, but obviously encompass the religious idea of marriage.
QUOTE
Ask yourself these questions:
Has the concept of "marriage" ever existed prior to, or even co-existent with the religious sacrament? (prior to say 1700's and the advent of Atheism)
Yes. And the relevance of that would be? I am not denying that people attach religion to marriage just that ion our secular society it is not needed in order to get married.
Really? I think you misspoke. Do tell of a single secular, non-religious example of "marriage" (including the WORD marriage, as that is so important in your argument, it must not be called anything else!).
QUOTE (DB)
Why does the law so closely coincide with, and have the same limitations as the tradition religious christian sacrament of marriage?
Because it is a historical fact that in the history of the U.S. civil liberties are often wrongly limited based upon the misconceptions of those who follow the xian faith.
That is the point. This WAS a christian nation, but that does not mean our values cannot change. That is the mistake you make. Thinking you must redefine the past or change our historical tradition to enact what you want. You confuse the issue, and in doing so defeat your own cause by basing your case on misrepresentation. (Although it is inadvertant I am sure).
That is the point. This WAS a christian nation, but that does not mean our values cannot change. That is the mistake you make. Thinking you must redefine the past or change our historical tradition to enact what you want. You confuse the issue, and in doing so defeat your own cause by basing your case on misrepresentation. (Although it is inadvertant I am sure).
Am I to take it that since you are arguing that marriage is of and property of your faith in the history of the U.S. and that the U.S. laws have echoed your religion in the marriage laws that other restrictions are also of your faith and religion? Laws like not allowing interracial marriages due to claim of violating the xian religion?
No, that is a monster of your own making you are battling. The legal concept of marriage was derived from religious sources, BUT, (in the LEGAL treatment) it must comply with consitutional limitations, and be modified to preserve equal treatment of human and civil individual rights as well.
If you are going to claim that the marriage laws echo your religious laws by restricting homosexuals from marrying you cannot hen turn around and claim that your religion and religious laws were not used to prevent people of different races from marrying.
My religion does not make that restriction now. It is not a fair comparison I think.
My religion does not make that restriction now. It is not a fair comparison I think.
QUOTE (DB)
such as:
no polygamy
Depending on the flavor of religion, that was not always illegal. In many secular views, polygamy is not considered taboo.
Another argument that this was a "christian" nation, our laws very obviously prefer a "christian" interpretation to many of the ethical and moral questions, including Polygamy, which you astutely point out.
QUOTE (DB)
Age of consent and permission
Again, that varies considerably. Child brides are also not unique to just one flavor of xian in recent times.
QUOTE (DB)
Man and a woman (still does in most states)
And that would be one of the last vestiges of the xian filter I spoke of earlier. Just like other restrictions with race based upon the objection of the various flavors of the xian religion at the time.
But that is EXACTLY my point. It was and always has been a religious concept, embodied as best we could in law to meet constitutional limitations, and prevent preferment of any religion.
But that is EXACTLY my point. It was and always has been a religious concept, embodied as best we could in law to meet constitutional limitations, and prevent preferment of any religion.
QUOTE (DB)
No adultery (relaxed in recent years)
In the matter of adultery, that is simply a factor of the civil contract. One of the parties has violated a condition of the contract and the other can seek damage.
Come on. Again, this is another limitation based on christian values.
But while you are running off a list, do not forget the other aspects that were allowed under the guise of the religious marriage. For the longest time, no divorce was allowed. This may not seem that big of a problem unless you factor in the abuse of spouses, also sanctioned or ignored in the past and historically by your religion.
QUOTE (DB)
The federal requirement HAS changed to a more lax version, as have the states.
And it will continue to do so. I have mentioned before that people like you who demand that marriage is just a religious institution with such limitations will drive people into just seeking the separate but equal civil union just to avoid the whole controversy. The end result will be a greater decline is marriage.
QUOTE (DB)
Because it IS essentially based from this concept.
Based from what concept? Religious marriage? Again, that is an unfounded assumption on your part.
Oh no, it is well-founded and obvious to even a casual observer.
YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT FACT DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT OR POSITION UNTENABLE.
Just because it was and is a reflection of a religious concept, does not make it impossible to change. ESPECIALLY why you should embrace the idea of Atheism as a religion. Or make a NEW word that includes religion and atheism, but means the source of your ethical and moral jedgements, whatever they may be.
You do not need this point to win the argument.
Oh no, it is well-founded and obvious to even a casual observer.
YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT FACT DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT OR POSITION UNTENABLE.
Just because it was and is a reflection of a religious concept, does not make it impossible to change. ESPECIALLY why you should embrace the idea of Atheism as a religion. Or make a NEW word that includes religion and atheism, but means the source of your ethical and moral jedgements, whatever they may be.
You do not need this point to win the argument.
As with most things in human society, the concept of marriage most likely started as simply a result of human activity that was later usurped and taken over by religion.
QUOTE (DB)
Due to first amendment concerns, a particular religion was not referred to or enforced, but it is silly to think it did not originate from the christian legacy we brought with us.
And it is silly to assume it originate with a religion that was created long after marriage or bonding was a factor of human civilization. You assume that since the majority of those in the nation were xian and supported their view of marriage over others that it was and is the creation and property of religion.
Again, it must be dawning on you by now that it is INDEED derived from religious sources. But that does not matter to win your argument. Which I have already submitted to from a constitutional standpoint.
Gay marriage should be allowed, not because of religious or any traditional restraints that prevent it need removed, but merely because from an EQUAL PROTECTION standpoint, the rights, priviledges and restrictions that it entails should not be denied Gays. From a religious standpoint, the Churches in question can still deny marriage to Gays in their particular faith. But from a LEGAL standpoint that discrimination is unfair. It can be made a purely Legal contract, and then if there is a particular religion that will accept it, it would even become a RELIGIOUS one too. Denying the proper tradition and history is foolish I think. It is not needed.
QUOTE (DB)
Not bigoted at all. I would suggest you are blinkered from the truth by your agenda. My assertions remain true, even after I changed my subjective judgement on the ethical position.
If you claim that a person cannot exercise a freedom due to their choice on how to exercise it that is in conflict with your religion and you think it is perfectly okay to limit that person, then that is bigoted.
Of course your statement is correct from a legal standpoint. My PARTICULAR religion cannot be considered. However, the CONSENSUS view of the american people WOULD hold sway, if it were not a question of constitutionally guaranteed individual rights.
I think now it IS a matter of equal protection guaranteed under the constitution, and therefore the consensus opinion is irrelevant. And so Gay Marriage should be allowed.
Of course your statement is correct from a legal standpoint. My PARTICULAR religion cannot be considered. However, the CONSENSUS view of the american people WOULD hold sway, if it were not a question of constitutionally guaranteed individual rights.
I think now it IS a matter of equal protection guaranteed under the constitution, and therefore the consensus opinion is irrelevant. And so Gay Marriage should be allowed.
As I stated in the positive feedback I left for you, recognition and support of a right and/or personal freedom does not mean support for how a person exercises that right and/or personal freedom.
And you claim again I have an agenda, but you fail to cite exactly what that agenda is.
The common one I see among Atheists, to try to rewrite history. This WAS a christian nation, but with a secular government to PROTECT all religious freedom. All you have to do, is finally understand that your belief system, whatever it is, Atheism or whatever, functions as a religion in regards to social conduct and legal considerations. It has been granted EQUIVALENCY to religion in a constitutional consideration, so legally, it IS a religion. Perhaps the word offends, just like religious peiople find gay "marriage" offensive, but most people offended would consider granting the same thing with a different name.
Whatever.
QUOTE (DB)
It was and is a RELIGIOUS institution, not a "secular" one or created by DEISM or ATHEISM.
And again, that is an unfounded and unsupported claim. You are assuming that since the church had control of marriage for so long that they created it while you forget that marriage predate the creation of your religion.
Yes, yes, so you continue to say...but there is not a single recorded historical incidence of what you say. Again, you fail to see that losing that point does not lose the battle. You have already won the battle.
Yes, yes, so you continue to say...but there is not a single recorded historical incidence of what you say. Again, you fail to see that losing that point does not lose the battle. You have already won the battle.
QUOTE (DB)
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Again, unfounded claim. I’m sure it comforts you to think your religion created marriage, but the fact that marriage or similar bonding predates the creation of your religion illustrated how your claim is not one of fact.
QUOTE (DB)
Since it IS a religious concept, (except for the change of heart I have had) were it not for individual constitutional protected right of a gay individual ( I am convinced but you have the majority of the population to go), then the legislative route (or "mob rule" as you gyus are fond of calling it) is the method of defining who is and can be "married".
Again, it is not a religious concept. Even if we take your unfounded and historical inaccurate claim as fact it was, it is no longer and has not been for some time. It is a secular contract in the eyes of the law.
blah blah blah, it is. I have demonstrated it is, there are countless obvious exampkles in Christian religion, as I pointed out above, and no source of support for your claim I have been seen or know of.
And the constitution need not protect specifically homosexuals to protect their rights to marry. Again, since marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, you cannot prevent them from marrying. Nowhere in the constitution is there protection for heterosexuals to marry, so why would there need to be protection for homosexuals?
It is a LEGAL concept, not a constitutional one. Marriage does not appear even a single time in the constitution. The LAWS enacted have defined and described marriage, and have VERY SPECIFICALLY restricted it to a man and a woman.
It is a LEGAL concept, not a constitutional one. Marriage does not appear even a single time in the constitution. The LAWS enacted have defined and described marriage, and have VERY SPECIFICALLY restricted it to a man and a woman.
There is no way the Constitution will be amended to outlaw same sex marriage and rulings prohibiting such will be overturned by the judicial system since current laws are a violation of the rights of an individual.
Bravo, I am in complete agreement. Constitutional amendment would be necessary to override the Equal Protection of Gays, and that will not and should not be enacted.
QUOTE (DB)
Look there is still a TON of your post left, and I have run out of time in this session, more later.
We can continue to hash out this one unless you would rather shift to explain how by supporting a secular society that I am violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights as you claimed before.
By confusing SECULAR with ATHEIST. As in the concept of Marriage, a SECULAR government may reflect and contain religious values, but only so long as individual rights are not trampled, and no religion (even Atheism) is preferred.
Hang on...what are you going on about marriage for?
I would hardly say that marriage in the US is based on the Christian sacrement.
Marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years.
Really? "Marriage" as defined by US law exists as a secular institution somewhere else? Where exactly? Nowhere.
In fact, you get into a little bit of trouble even trying to define the "Christian" sacrament of marriage.
Marriage in the US definitely resembles Roman marriage more closely than it resembles Jewish marriage. It might be argued that the Christians adopted the Roman traditions over the Jewish traditions, but that causes a sticky situation(since Christianity is based on Judaism and not Roman paganism)
More semantics. The Roman and Jewish tradition were BOTH RELIGIOUS were they not? Gee, no SECULAR examples there at all huh?
There are some traditions that are permissible in both Judaism, Roman law, and US law....but are not permitted by Christianity
i.e. Divorce
Jesus spoke clearly that divorce should not occur, yet US law allows divorce for any number of reasons.
In the bible, God permits incestuous marriages and polygamy(despite there being many non-related and able-bodied men around)....yet neither is allowed in the US.
In fact, the bible frowns on marriage:
"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.--1 Corinthians 7:27"
Yet, US law encourages marriage(via legal rights and tax breaks) and makes divorce accessible and easy.
Seems that the US marriage tradition is firmly grounded in common tradition throughout the world....and not on Christianity
Nice try. All of the examples you give were religious traditions, although not all Christians. The first and every law concerning marriage in the united states reflects the christian sacrament, or a secular version of it.
Your quoting of the bible as an Atheist, and your Atheistic interpretations mean nothing to those of religion.
No, I am quoting the bible as someone who has studied it extensively.
I am not an Atheist, but you don't seem to care.
I am commenting on this entire conversation as a student of history and politics. You seem to be woefully ignorant of both topics.(You thought John Locke was a bad guy!)
I am still waiting for you to explain how "divorce due to unhappiness" is Christian.
I am still waiting to find a "Christian" statement about power of attorney.
You just make this stuff up...its hilarious
No, I am quoting the bible as someone who has studied it extensively.
I am not an Atheist, but you don't seem to care.
I am commenting on this entire conversation as a student of history and politics. You seem to be woefully ignorant of both topics.(You thought John Locke was a bad guy!)
I am still waiting for you to explain how "divorce due to unhappiness" is Christian.
I am still waiting to find a "Christian" statement about power of attorney.
You just make this stuff up...its hilarious
I find your blatantly ignoring the obvious, while contriving VERY unlikely alternatives and suggesting them as even plausible hilarious.
But that is just me.
Do tell me, where is Locke's signature on our documents?
We can continue to hash out this one unless you would rather shift to explain how by supporting a secular society that I am violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights as you claimed before.
So, now you have no more excuses unless of course you decide to just ignore these questions from the last page or post more cowardly and/or flippant replies.
I really will not be surprised if you do. Like I stated before. Every time you face and actually debate and cannot shift out of the corner you have painted yourself in, you cower away using questionable if not downright distasteful actions.
And again, equivocate all you wish, you still are proving my arguments for me. For example, you acted in exactly the manner I mentioned.
QUOTE
But I’m sure that rather than go back one page, act like you posses a fragment of honesty and address my questions in an intellectually honest manner, you can just stalk Gorgeous and post SPAM replies from thread to thread.
So either fulfill more of my prediction about your behavior or try to act like a rational person actually interested in debate.
In short order, step up or step off.
GeneSplicer, deadbeat is a complete waste of time and trouble, an intellectual vacuum sucking up thinking people's time and resources. 
Let's let him wallow in his own pool of slime, disingenuous discourse and pure, unfathomable stupidity and go on with our lives and our science.
I've never seen a more complete waste of cyberspace than his posts, save that of newguy, Dad1 and a few other deadbeats!
He couldn't have chosen a more appropriate moniker if we had chosen one for him! (())
He must have some level of self awareness to have chosen deadbeat as his name!
"Nature abhors a vacuum!"
Let's let him wallow in his own pool of slime, disingenuous discourse and pure, unfathomable stupidity and go on with our lives and our science.
I've never seen a more complete waste of cyberspace than his posts, save that of newguy, Dad1 and a few other deadbeats!
He couldn't have chosen a more appropriate moniker if we had chosen one for him! ((
))He must have some level of self awareness to have chosen deadbeat as his name!
"Nature abhors a vacuum!"
QUOTE
QUOTE (DB)
Hmm...whatever, I have been persuaded otherwise now, especially after discussing it with Arthur, he made some very valid points and my reasoning was presented quite well I think.
Yes, and your change of position was recognized by many including myself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (DB) Hmm...whatever, I have been persuaded otherwise now, especially after discussing it with Arthur, he made some very valid points and my reasoning was presented quite well I think. Yes, and your change of position was recognized by many including myself. |
QUOTE (DB)
Okay you are just misleading or misled here. While "marriage" as legislated and recognized by federal law is in effect nothing more than a contract, the law and its original consideration was by no means secular in origin.
I stated that marriage is secular in nature, not secular in origin.
So then you must admit that the concept of "marriage" and its further inclusion and reference to it in our law, is based on the christian sacrament of marriage. Due to the constitutional restrictions, the legislation MUST be secular in nature, and prefer no particular religion, so no particular religion is required, it is (legally) of a secular nature. But DESCENDED FROM RELIGION. Obviously.
QUOTE
QUOTE (DB)
The law, by restriction of the constitution may not prefer any particular religious version of the sacrament, but the concept of "marriage" is definitively religious in origin.
A claim backed by nothing but your opinion. And again, one that also claim that all laws originate from religion. You are assuming that based upon your religions views that marriage is religious in origin. It may be, but you have not proven that yet. It may also just be a natural extension of mankind’s desirer to bond with one person.
And here you vacillate. It (the legal concept of marriage) is exactly descended from the religious sacrament. Do point to any other source you can find. The name, the institution it represents, the very character of the relationship as laid down in law is representative of the religious concept. The legal advantages and repsonsibilites of "marriage" are predicated and were formed into law based on the religious institution. Denying it is just silly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (DB) The law, by restriction of the constitution may not prefer any particular religious version of the sacrament, but the concept of "marriage" is definitively religious in origin. A claim backed by nothing but your opinion. And again, one that also claim that all laws originate from religion. You are assuming that based upon your religions views that marriage is religious in origin. It may be, but you have not proven that yet. It may also just be a natural extension of mankind’s desirer to bond with one person. |
And here you vacillate. It (the legal concept of marriage) is exactly descended from the religious sacrament. Do point to any other source you can find. The name, the institution it represents, the very character of the relationship as laid down in law is representative of the religious concept. The legal advantages and repsonsibilites of "marriage" are predicated and were formed into law based on the religious institution. Denying it is just silly.
And again, religion plays no part in religion from a point of view of the law. I can get married without a ceremony or anyone representing any sort of religion. And anyone granted the ability to conduct or officiate a marriage has been granted such ability from the state.
That is because legally, the sacrament and institution of marriage must be considered independent of any particular religion or faith. But, the original concept is and was derived and limited by the religious description before the laws were made.
QUOTE
QUOTE (DB)
In our law, it is represented in a fair and non-specific way, that satisfies the vast majority of religions that value and hold it sacred. But not any specific one.
Exactly. It is totally secular and the law is simply not concerned with the religious aspect that the people getting married decide to attach to or include in the process of getting married. But again, all of that extra pomp and circumstance is simply extra and unnecessary baggage.
That "extra pomp and circumstance" and the religious values behind it are what were responsible for the laws creating the secular institution of marriage. Since legal advantages or consequences cannot constitutionally prefer any particular religion, they are generic in nature, but obviously encompass the religious idea of marriage.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (DB) In our law, it is represented in a fair and non-specific way, that satisfies the vast majority of religions that value and hold it sacred. But not any specific one. Exactly. It is totally secular and the law is simply not concerned with the religious aspect that the people getting married decide to attach to or include in the process of getting married. But again, all of that extra pomp and circumstance is simply extra and unnecessary baggage. |
That "extra pomp and circumstance" and the religious values behind it are what were responsible for the laws creating the secular institution of marriage. Since legal advantages or consequences cannot constitutionally prefer any particular religion, they are generic in nature, but obviously encompass the religious idea of marriage.
QUOTE
Ask yourself these questions:
Has the concept of "marriage" ever existed prior to, or even co-existent with the religious sacrament? (prior to say 1700's and the advent of Atheism)
Yes. And the relevance of that would be? I am not denying that people attach religion to marriage just that ion our secular society it is not needed in order to get married.
Really? I think you misspoke. Do tell of a single secular, non-religious example of "marriage" (including the WORD marriage, as that is so important in your argument, it must not be called anything else!).
QUOTE
QUOTE (DB)
Why does the law so closely coincide with, and have the same limitations as the tradition religious christian sacrament of marriage?
Because it is a historical fact that in the history of the U.S. civil liberties are often wrongly limited based upon the misconceptions of those who follow the xian faith.
That is the point. This WAS a christian nation, but that does not mean our values cannot change. That is the mistake you make. Thinking you must redefine the past or change our historical tradition to enact what you want. You confuse the issue, and in doing so defeat your own cause by basing your case on misrepresentation. (Although it is inadvertant I am sure).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (DB) Why does the law so closely coincide with, and have the same limitations as the tradition religious christian sacrament of marriage? Because it is a historical fact that in the history of the U.S. civil liberties are often wrongly limited based upon the misconceptions of those who follow the xian faith. |
That is the point. This WAS a christian nation, but that does not mean our values cannot change. That is the mistake you make. Thinking you must redefine the past or change our historical tradition to enact what you want. You confuse the issue, and in doing so defeat your own cause by basing your case on misrepresentation. (Although it is inadvertant I am sure).
Am I to take it that since you are arguing that marriage is of and property of your faith in the history of the U.S. and that the U.S. laws have echoed your religion in the marriage laws that other restrictions are also of your faith and religion? Laws like not allowing interracial marriages due to claim of violating the xian religion?
No, that is a monster of your own making you are battling. The legal concept of marriage was derived from religious sources, BUT, (in the LEGAL treatment) it must comply with consitutional limitations, and be modified to preserve equal treatment of human and civil individual rights as well.
QUOTE
If you are going to claim that the marriage laws echo your religious laws by restricting homosexuals from marrying you cannot hen turn around and claim that your religion and religious laws were not used to prevent people of different races from marrying.
My religion does not make that restriction now. It is not a fair comparison I think.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If you are going to claim that the marriage laws echo your religious laws by restricting homosexuals from marrying you cannot hen turn around and claim that your religion and religious laws were not used to prevent people of different races from marrying. |
My religion does not make that restriction now. It is not a fair comparison I think.
QUOTE (DB)
such as:
no polygamy
Depending on the flavor of religion, that was not always illegal. In many secular views, polygamy is not considered taboo.
Another argument that this was a "christian" nation, our laws very obviously prefer a "christian" interpretation to many of the ethical and moral questions, including Polygamy, which you astutely point out.
QUOTE
QUOTE (DB)
Age of consent and permission
Again, that varies considerably. Child brides are also not unique to just one flavor of xian in recent times.
QUOTE (DB)
Man and a woman (still does in most states)
And that would be one of the last vestiges of the xian filter I spoke of earlier. Just like other restrictions with race based upon the objection of the various flavors of the xian religion at the time.
But that is EXACTLY my point. It was and always has been a religious concept, embodied as best we could in law to meet constitutional limitations, and prevent preferment of any religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (DB) Age of consent and permission Again, that varies considerably. Child brides are also not unique to just one flavor of xian in recent times. QUOTE (DB) Man and a woman (still does in most states) And that would be one of the last vestiges of the xian filter I spoke of earlier. Just like other restrictions with race based upon the objection of the various flavors of the xian religion at the time. |
But that is EXACTLY my point. It was and always has been a religious concept, embodied as best we could in law to meet constitutional limitations, and prevent preferment of any religion.
QUOTE (DB)
No adultery (relaxed in recent years)
In the matter of adultery, that is simply a factor of the civil contract. One of the parties has violated a condition of the contract and the other can seek damage.
Come on. Again, this is another limitation based on christian values.
QUOTE
But while you are running off a list, do not forget the other aspects that were allowed under the guise of the religious marriage. For the longest time, no divorce was allowed. This may not seem that big of a problem unless you factor in the abuse of spouses, also sanctioned or ignored in the past and historically by your religion.
QUOTE (DB)
The federal requirement HAS changed to a more lax version, as have the states.
And it will continue to do so. I have mentioned before that people like you who demand that marriage is just a religious institution with such limitations will drive people into just seeking the separate but equal civil union just to avoid the whole controversy. The end result will be a greater decline is marriage.
QUOTE (DB)
Because it IS essentially based from this concept.
Based from what concept? Religious marriage? Again, that is an unfounded assumption on your part.
Oh no, it is well-founded and obvious to even a casual observer.
YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT FACT DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT OR POSITION UNTENABLE.
Just because it was and is a reflection of a religious concept, does not make it impossible to change. ESPECIALLY why you should embrace the idea of Atheism as a religion. Or make a NEW word that includes religion and atheism, but means the source of your ethical and moral jedgements, whatever they may be.
You do not need this point to win the argument.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
But while you are running off a list, do not forget the other aspects that were allowed under the guise of the religious marriage. For the longest time, no divorce was allowed. This may not seem that big of a problem unless you factor in the abuse of spouses, also sanctioned or ignored in the past and historically by your religion. QUOTE (DB) The federal requirement HAS changed to a more lax version, as have the states. And it will continue to do so. I have mentioned before that people like you who demand that marriage is just a religious institution with such limitations will drive people into just seeking the separate but equal civil union just to avoid the whole controversy. The end result will be a greater decline is marriage. QUOTE (DB) Because it IS essentially based from this concept. Based from what concept? Religious marriage? Again, that is an unfounded assumption on your part. |
Oh no, it is well-founded and obvious to even a casual observer.
YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT FACT DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT OR POSITION UNTENABLE.
Just because it was and is a reflection of a religious concept, does not make it impossible to change. ESPECIALLY why you should embrace the idea of Atheism as a religion. Or make a NEW word that includes religion and atheism, but means the source of your ethical and moral jedgements, whatever they may be.
You do not need this point to win the argument.
As with most things in human society, the concept of marriage most likely started as simply a result of human activity that was later usurped and taken over by religion.
QUOTE (DB)
Due to first amendment concerns, a particular religion was not referred to or enforced, but it is silly to think it did not originate from the christian legacy we brought with us.
And it is silly to assume it originate with a religion that was created long after marriage or bonding was a factor of human civilization. You assume that since the majority of those in the nation were xian and supported their view of marriage over others that it was and is the creation and property of religion.
Again, it must be dawning on you by now that it is INDEED derived from religious sources. But that does not matter to win your argument. Which I have already submitted to from a constitutional standpoint.
Gay marriage should be allowed, not because of religious or any traditional restraints that prevent it need removed, but merely because from an EQUAL PROTECTION standpoint, the rights, priviledges and restrictions that it entails should not be denied Gays. From a religious standpoint, the Churches in question can still deny marriage to Gays in their particular faith. But from a LEGAL standpoint that discrimination is unfair. It can be made a purely Legal contract, and then if there is a particular religion that will accept it, it would even become a RELIGIOUS one too. Denying the proper tradition and history is foolish I think. It is not needed.
QUOTE
QUOTE (DB)
Not bigoted at all. I would suggest you are blinkered from the truth by your agenda. My assertions remain true, even after I changed my subjective judgement on the ethical position.
If you claim that a person cannot exercise a freedom due to their choice on how to exercise it that is in conflict with your religion and you think it is perfectly okay to limit that person, then that is bigoted.
Of course your statement is correct from a legal standpoint. My PARTICULAR religion cannot be considered. However, the CONSENSUS view of the american people WOULD hold sway, if it were not a question of constitutionally guaranteed individual rights.
I think now it IS a matter of equal protection guaranteed under the constitution, and therefore the consensus opinion is irrelevant. And so Gay Marriage should be allowed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (DB) Not bigoted at all. I would suggest you are blinkered from the truth by your agenda. My assertions remain true, even after I changed my subjective judgement on the ethical position. If you claim that a person cannot exercise a freedom due to their choice on how to exercise it that is in conflict with your religion and you think it is perfectly okay to limit that person, then that is bigoted. |
Of course your statement is correct from a legal standpoint. My PARTICULAR religion cannot be considered. However, the CONSENSUS view of the american people WOULD hold sway, if it were not a question of constitutionally guaranteed individual rights.
I think now it IS a matter of equal protection guaranteed under the constitution, and therefore the consensus opinion is irrelevant. And so Gay Marriage should be allowed.
As I stated in the positive feedback I left for you, recognition and support of a right and/or personal freedom does not mean support for how a person exercises that right and/or personal freedom.
And you claim again I have an agenda, but you fail to cite exactly what that agenda is.
The common one I see among Atheists, to try to rewrite history. This WAS a christian nation, but with a secular government to PROTECT all religious freedom. All you have to do, is finally understand that your belief system, whatever it is, Atheism or whatever, functions as a religion in regards to social conduct and legal considerations. It has been granted EQUIVALENCY to religion in a constitutional consideration, so legally, it IS a religion. Perhaps the word offends, just like religious peiople find gay "marriage" offensive, but most people offended would consider granting the same thing with a different name.
Whatever.
QUOTE
QUOTE (DB)
It was and is a RELIGIOUS institution, not a "secular" one or created by DEISM or ATHEISM.
And again, that is an unfounded and unsupported claim. You are assuming that since the church had control of marriage for so long that they created it while you forget that marriage predate the creation of your religion.
Yes, yes, so you continue to say...but there is not a single recorded historical incidence of what you say. Again, you fail to see that losing that point does not lose the battle. You have already won the battle.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (DB) It was and is a RELIGIOUS institution, not a "secular" one or created by DEISM or ATHEISM. And again, that is an unfounded and unsupported claim. You are assuming that since the church had control of marriage for so long that they created it while you forget that marriage predate the creation of your religion. |
Yes, yes, so you continue to say...but there is not a single recorded historical incidence of what you say. Again, you fail to see that losing that point does not lose the battle. You have already won the battle.
QUOTE (DB)
Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Again, unfounded claim. I’m sure it comforts you to think your religion created marriage, but the fact that marriage or similar bonding predates the creation of your religion illustrated how your claim is not one of fact.
QUOTE (DB)
Since it IS a religious concept, (except for the change of heart I have had) were it not for individual constitutional protected right of a gay individual ( I am convinced but you have the majority of the population to go), then the legislative route (or "mob rule" as you gyus are fond of calling it) is the method of defining who is and can be "married".
Again, it is not a religious concept. Even if we take your unfounded and historical inaccurate claim as fact it was, it is no longer and has not been for some time. It is a secular contract in the eyes of the law.
blah blah blah, it is. I have demonstrated it is, there are countless obvious exampkles in Christian religion, as I pointed out above, and no source of support for your claim I have been seen or know of.
QUOTE
And the constitution need not protect specifically homosexuals to protect their rights to marry. Again, since marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, you cannot prevent them from marrying. Nowhere in the constitution is there protection for heterosexuals to marry, so why would there need to be protection for homosexuals?
It is a LEGAL concept, not a constitutional one. Marriage does not appear even a single time in the constitution. The LAWS enacted have defined and described marriage, and have VERY SPECIFICALLY restricted it to a man and a woman.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And the constitution need not protect specifically homosexuals to protect their rights to marry. Again, since marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, you cannot prevent them from marrying. Nowhere in the constitution is there protection for heterosexuals to marry, so why would there need to be protection for homosexuals? |
It is a LEGAL concept, not a constitutional one. Marriage does not appear even a single time in the constitution. The LAWS enacted have defined and described marriage, and have VERY SPECIFICALLY restricted it to a man and a woman.
There is no way the Constitution will be amended to outlaw same sex marriage and rulings prohibiting such will be overturned by the judicial system since current laws are a violation of the rights of an individual.
Bravo, I am in complete agreement. Constitutional amendment would be necessary to override the Equal Protection of Gays, and that will not and should not be enacted.
QUOTE
QUOTE (DB)
Look there is still a TON of your post left, and I have run out of time in this session, more later.
We can continue to hash out this one unless you would rather shift to explain how by supporting a secular society that I am violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights as you claimed before.
By confusing SECULAR with ATHEIST. As in the concept of Marriage, a SECULAR government may reflect and contain religious values, but only so long as individual rights are not trampled, and no religion (even Atheism) is preferred.
Hang on...what are you going on about marriage for?
I would hardly say that marriage in the US is based on the Christian sacrement.
Marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years.
In fact, you get into a little bit of trouble even trying to define the "Christian" sacrament of marriage.
Marriage in the US definitely resembles Roman marriage more closely than it resembles Jewish marriage. It might be argued that the Christians adopted the Roman traditions over the Jewish traditions, but that causes a sticky situation(since Christianity is based on Judaism and not Roman paganism)
There are some traditions that are permissible in both Judaism, Roman law, and US law....but are not permitted by Christianity
i.e. Divorce
Jesus spoke clearly that divorce should not occur, yet US law allows divorce for any number of reasons.
In the bible, God permits incestuous marriages and polygamy(despite there being many non-related and able-bodied men around)....yet neither is allowed in the US.
In fact, the bible frowns on marriage:
"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.--1 Corinthians 7:27"
Yet, US law encourages marriage(via legal rights and tax breaks) and makes divorce accessible and easy.
Seems that the US marriage tradition is firmly grounded in common tradition throughout the world....and not on Christianity
QUOTE
So then you must admit that the concept of "marriage" and its further inclusion and reference to it in our law, is based on the christian sacrament of marriage. Due to the constitutional restrictions, the legislation MUST be secular in nature, and prefer no particular religion, so no particular religion is required, it is (legally) of a secular nature. But DESCENDED FROM RELIGION. Obviously.
I would hardly say that marriage in the US is based on the Christian sacrement.
Marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years.
In fact, you get into a little bit of trouble even trying to define the "Christian" sacrament of marriage.
Marriage in the US definitely resembles Roman marriage more closely than it resembles Jewish marriage. It might be argued that the Christians adopted the Roman traditions over the Jewish traditions, but that causes a sticky situation(since Christianity is based on Judaism and not Roman paganism)
There are some traditions that are permissible in both Judaism, Roman law, and US law....but are not permitted by Christianity
i.e. Divorce
Jesus spoke clearly that divorce should not occur, yet US law allows divorce for any number of reasons.
In the bible, God permits incestuous marriages and polygamy(despite there being many non-related and able-bodied men around)....yet neither is allowed in the US.
In fact, the bible frowns on marriage:
"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.--1 Corinthians 7:27"
Yet, US law encourages marriage(via legal rights and tax breaks) and makes divorce accessible and easy.
Seems that the US marriage tradition is firmly grounded in common tradition throughout the world....and not on Christianity
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 28 2008, 03:49 AM)
Hang on...what are you going on about marriage for?
I would hardly say that marriage in the US is based on the Christian sacrement.
Marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years.
Really? "Marriage" as defined by US law exists as a secular institution somewhere else? Where exactly? Nowhere.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 28 2008, 03:49 AM)
In fact, you get into a little bit of trouble even trying to define the "Christian" sacrament of marriage.
Marriage in the US definitely resembles Roman marriage more closely than it resembles Jewish marriage. It might be argued that the Christians adopted the Roman traditions over the Jewish traditions, but that causes a sticky situation(since Christianity is based on Judaism and not Roman paganism)
More semantics. The Roman and Jewish tradition were BOTH RELIGIOUS were they not? Gee, no SECULAR examples there at all huh?
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 28 2008, 03:49 AM)
There are some traditions that are permissible in both Judaism, Roman law, and US law....but are not permitted by Christianity
i.e. Divorce
Jesus spoke clearly that divorce should not occur, yet US law allows divorce for any number of reasons.
In the bible, God permits incestuous marriages and polygamy(despite there being many non-related and able-bodied men around)....yet neither is allowed in the US.
In fact, the bible frowns on marriage:
"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.--1 Corinthians 7:27"
Yet, US law encourages marriage(via legal rights and tax breaks) and makes divorce accessible and easy.
Seems that the US marriage tradition is firmly grounded in common tradition throughout the world....and not on Christianity
Nice try. All of the examples you give were religious traditions, although not all Christians. The first and every law concerning marriage in the united states reflects the christian sacrament, or a secular version of it.
Your quoting of the bible as an Atheist, and your Atheistic interpretations mean nothing to those of religion.
QUOTE
Nice try. All of the examples you give were religious traditions, although not all Christians. The first and every law concerning marriage in the united states reflects the christian sacrament, or a secular version of it.
Your quoting of the bible as an Atheist, and your Atheistic interpretations mean nothing to those of religion.
Your quoting of the bible as an Atheist, and your Atheistic interpretations mean nothing to those of religion.
No, I am quoting the bible as someone who has studied it extensively.
I am not an Atheist, but you don't seem to care.
I am commenting on this entire conversation as a student of history and politics. You seem to be woefully ignorant of both topics.(You thought John Locke was a bad guy!)
I am still waiting for you to explain how "divorce due to unhappiness" is Christian.
I am still waiting to find a "Christian" statement about power of attorney.
You just make this stuff up...its hilarious
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 28 2008, 04:24 AM)
No, I am quoting the bible as someone who has studied it extensively.
I am not an Atheist, but you don't seem to care.
I am commenting on this entire conversation as a student of history and politics. You seem to be woefully ignorant of both topics.(You thought John Locke was a bad guy!)
I am still waiting for you to explain how "divorce due to unhappiness" is Christian.
I am still waiting to find a "Christian" statement about power of attorney.
You just make this stuff up...its hilarious
I find your blatantly ignoring the obvious, while contriving VERY unlikely alternatives and suggesting them as even plausible hilarious.
But that is just me.
Do tell me, where is Locke's signature on our documents?
AFAIK marriage was secular then religion adopted it to limit sex.
It's not in the bible is it?
And at one time women didn't have the vote and that was changed.
So why not change the governments definition of marriage.
I would love to see Canada pass a declaration that it's definition is strictly for legal purposes and should not be used in any other way.
It's not in the bible is it?
And at one time women didn't have the vote and that was changed.
So why not change the governments definition of marriage.
I would love to see Canada pass a declaration that it's definition is strictly for legal purposes and should not be used in any other way.
QUOTE (DB+)
So then you must admit that the concept of "marriage" and its further inclusion and reference to it in our law, is based on the christian sacrament of marriage.
Only if I run with the baseless premise that your religion created marriage. Again, you keep making this claim over and over totally ignoring the fact that marriage and similar bonding practices predated the creation of your religion.
Obviously not. Again, where is your proof to support your claim that marriage originated with your religion?
Obviously not. Again, where is your proof to support your claim that marriage originated with your religion?
And here you vacillate.
Only if you are not following the conversation. Considering you could not remember a conversation you have only one page prior, that would be of not surprise.
And again, where is your proof? Claiming that marriage is xian since the RCC took control of it at one time is not proof. Again, marriage predates the creation of your religion, so how can it be the creation of your religion?
And again, where is your proof? Claiming that marriage is xian since the RCC took control of it at one time is not proof. Again, marriage predates the creation of your religion, so how can it be the creation of your religion?
Do point to any other source you can find
Only if I run with the baseless premise that your religion created marriage. Again, you keep making this claim over and over totally ignoring the fact that marriage and similar bonding practices predated the creation of your religion.
QUOTE
Due to the constitutional restrictions, the legislation MUST be secular in nature, and prefer no particular religion, so no particular religion is required, it is (legally) of a secular nature. But DESCENDED FROM RELIGION. Obviously.
Obviously not. Again, where is your proof to support your claim that marriage originated with your religion?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Due to the constitutional restrictions, the legislation MUST be secular in nature, and prefer no particular religion, so no particular religion is required, it is (legally) of a secular nature. But DESCENDED FROM RELIGION. Obviously. |
Obviously not. Again, where is your proof to support your claim that marriage originated with your religion?
And here you vacillate.
Only if you are not following the conversation. Considering you could not remember a conversation you have only one page prior, that would be of not surprise.
QUOTE
It (the legal concept of marriage) is exactly descended from the religious sacrament.
And again, where is your proof? Claiming that marriage is xian since the RCC took control of it at one time is not proof. Again, marriage predates the creation of your religion, so how can it be the creation of your religion?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It (the legal concept of marriage) is exactly descended from the religious sacrament. |
And again, where is your proof? Claiming that marriage is xian since the RCC took control of it at one time is not proof. Again, marriage predates the creation of your religion, so how can it be the creation of your religion?
Do point to any other source you can find
.
Again DB, that is not how debates work. You keep making the claim that marriage is the sole creation of and property of the xian faith and/or the RCC. It falls upon you to back up that claim if you can. And as with your claim that all laws originate from religion, it is not my fault is you have again made an untenable and overly-broad and baseless claim.
And again, a religion and religious concept part of a religion that was created after marriage or similar bonding practices already existed. Just because the RCC or any organization once took control or had control over marriage or any other social aspect to our society does not mean they created it, own it and control it.
And again, a religion and religious concept part of a religion that was created after marriage or similar bonding practices already existed. Just because the RCC or any organization once took control or had control over marriage or any other social aspect to our society does not mean they created it, own it and control it.
The legal advantages and repsonsibilites of "marriage" are predicated and were formed into law based on the religious institution. Denying it is just silly.
And again, claiming that since religion once controlled something that it owns it is ridiculous. The legal advantages have nothing to do with religion but the stability of the marriage or family.
Do you have an example of legal advantaged that are derived from religion?
Do you have an example of these responsibilities you speak of? Especially in relation to them being religious in origin and nature and not secular in origin or nature?
Making the same baseless claim over and over is just silly. Where is your proof?
Even in this, you display your lack of understanding and your xian bias. In a marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace as I mentioned, sacrament is irrelevant since it is a religious notion and concept.
Even in this, you display your lack of understanding and your xian bias. In a marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace as I mentioned, sacrament is irrelevant since it is a religious notion and concept.
But, the original concept is and was derived and limited by the religious description before the laws were made.
Again, making this claim over and over does not make it true. Where is your proof to this claim?
And again, where is your proof for these claims? I don’t even see one of your excuses for a link.
The religious values you speak of would never permit the creation of a secular institution of marriage. That would result in the loss of control of a very powerful tool the RCC could use for its own benefit.
If I am wrong, then show me where the RCC instituted and developed secular marriage prior to the time they were forced to.
Or you can show me how the RCC or religion built the secular intuition of marriage when, even in our modern time, the RCC and religion (xian in general) stand firmly against anything they do not see as an approved xian marriage.
And again, where is your proof for these claims? I don’t even see one of your excuses for a link.
The religious values you speak of would never permit the creation of a secular institution of marriage. That would result in the loss of control of a very powerful tool the RCC could use for its own benefit.
If I am wrong, then show me where the RCC instituted and developed secular marriage prior to the time they were forced to.
Or you can show me how the RCC or religion built the secular intuition of marriage when, even in our modern time, the RCC and religion (xian in general) stand firmly against anything they do not see as an approved xian marriage.
Since legal advantages or consequences cannot constitutionally prefer any particular religion, they are generic in nature, but obviously encompass the religious idea of marriage.
Yes, since they address marriage in general, they encompass the religious idea of marriage but this is not the same as the claim that marriage is derived from your religion or the property of it. Again, you and others choose to include extra pomp and circumstance that is simply irrelevant and not necessary to get married.
Not at all. You are just about to be intellectually dishonest again and shift the goal posts.
Not at all. You are just about to be intellectually dishonest again and shift the goal posts.
Do tell of a single secular, non-religious example of "marriage" (including the WORD marriage, as that is so important in your argument, it must not be called anything else!).
And this is where you are being intellectually dishonest and shifting the goal posts. My argument has been and included the fact that marriage and similar bonding ritual predate the creation of your religion.
Now you try to again play word games and limit the argument to the term marriage only. That is intellectually dishonest.
You asked me :
Again DB, that is not how debates work. You keep making the claim that marriage is the sole creation of and property of the xian faith and/or the RCC. It falls upon you to back up that claim if you can. And as with your claim that all laws originate from religion, it is not my fault is you have again made an untenable and overly-broad and baseless claim.
QUOTE
The name, the institution it represents, the very character of the relationship as laid down in law is representative of the religious concept.
And again, a religion and religious concept part of a religion that was created after marriage or similar bonding practices already existed. Just because the RCC or any organization once took control or had control over marriage or any other social aspect to our society does not mean they created it, own it and control it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The name, the institution it represents, the very character of the relationship as laid down in law is representative of the religious concept. |
And again, a religion and religious concept part of a religion that was created after marriage or similar bonding practices already existed. Just because the RCC or any organization once took control or had control over marriage or any other social aspect to our society does not mean they created it, own it and control it.
The legal advantages and repsonsibilites of "marriage" are predicated and were formed into law based on the religious institution. Denying it is just silly.
And again, claiming that since religion once controlled something that it owns it is ridiculous. The legal advantages have nothing to do with religion but the stability of the marriage or family.
Do you have an example of legal advantaged that are derived from religion?
Do you have an example of these responsibilities you speak of? Especially in relation to them being religious in origin and nature and not secular in origin or nature?
Making the same baseless claim over and over is just silly. Where is your proof?
QUOTE
That is because legally, the sacrament and institution of marriage must be considered independent of any particular religion or faith.
Even in this, you display your lack of understanding and your xian bias. In a marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace as I mentioned, sacrament is irrelevant since it is a religious notion and concept.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is because legally, the sacrament and institution of marriage must be considered independent of any particular religion or faith. |
Even in this, you display your lack of understanding and your xian bias. In a marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace as I mentioned, sacrament is irrelevant since it is a religious notion and concept.
But, the original concept is and was derived and limited by the religious description before the laws were made.
Again, making this claim over and over does not make it true. Where is your proof to this claim?
QUOTE
That "extra pomp and circumstance" and the religious values behind it are what were responsible for the laws creating the secular institution of marriage.
And again, where is your proof for these claims? I don’t even see one of your excuses for a link.
The religious values you speak of would never permit the creation of a secular institution of marriage. That would result in the loss of control of a very powerful tool the RCC could use for its own benefit.
If I am wrong, then show me where the RCC instituted and developed secular marriage prior to the time they were forced to.
Or you can show me how the RCC or religion built the secular intuition of marriage when, even in our modern time, the RCC and religion (xian in general) stand firmly against anything they do not see as an approved xian marriage.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That "extra pomp and circumstance" and the religious values behind it are what were responsible for the laws creating the secular institution of marriage. |
And again, where is your proof for these claims? I don’t even see one of your excuses for a link.
The religious values you speak of would never permit the creation of a secular institution of marriage. That would result in the loss of control of a very powerful tool the RCC could use for its own benefit.
If I am wrong, then show me where the RCC instituted and developed secular marriage prior to the time they were forced to.
Or you can show me how the RCC or religion built the secular intuition of marriage when, even in our modern time, the RCC and religion (xian in general) stand firmly against anything they do not see as an approved xian marriage.
Since legal advantages or consequences cannot constitutionally prefer any particular religion, they are generic in nature, but obviously encompass the religious idea of marriage.
Yes, since they address marriage in general, they encompass the religious idea of marriage but this is not the same as the claim that marriage is derived from your religion or the property of it. Again, you and others choose to include extra pomp and circumstance that is simply irrelevant and not necessary to get married.
QUOTE
Really? I think you misspoke.
Not at all. You are just about to be intellectually dishonest again and shift the goal posts.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Really? I think you misspoke. |
Not at all. You are just about to be intellectually dishonest again and shift the goal posts.
Do tell of a single secular, non-religious example of "marriage" (including the WORD marriage, as that is so important in your argument, it must not be called anything else!).
And this is where you are being intellectually dishonest and shifting the goal posts. My argument has been and included the fact that marriage and similar bonding ritual predate the creation of your religion.
Now you try to again play word games and limit the argument to the term marriage only. That is intellectually dishonest.
You asked me :
QUOTE (DB+)
Has the concept of "marriage" ever existed prior to, or even co-existent with the religious sacrament? (prior to say 1700's and the advent of Atheism)
And I answered yes. The concept of marriage, as in pair bonding, predates the 1700s or even the 14th century form which the term marriage originates.
Unless you are trying to argue that marriage never existed prior to the creation of the term, then you being dishonest in your attempt to debate here.
If you are trying to argue that until the term marriage was created that marriage did not exists, the you are trying to be pedantic to the point of lunacy.
As I have stated before and as you have so brilliantly illustrated here, you and other xians are hung up on the term marriage and erroneously think it is the property of your religion, your church and only open to you. You would be in error on those claims.
LOL. Back to the old talking points I see. This was never and is not a xian nation. Parroting that claim over and over, and distorting and quote mining any and all source you can find, will not change that fact. This nation is not xian in design, form or function.
LOL. Back to the old talking points I see. This was never and is not a xian nation. Parroting that claim over and over, and distorting and quote mining any and all source you can find, will not change that fact. This nation is not xian in design, form or function.
That is the mistake you make. Thinking you must redefine the past or change our historical tradition to enact what you want.
Not at all. I simply choose not to give credit where credit is not due.
I have yet to confuse the issue and have argued the same point I started with. As with homosexual marriage, the right is one of a personal freedom and not property of any faith or religion. It is a basic human desires to bond or pair with another. You claim that it is the creation of your religion, but have yet to prove so.
I have yet to confuse the issue and have argued the same point I started with. As with homosexual marriage, the right is one of a personal freedom and not property of any faith or religion. It is a basic human desires to bond or pair with another. You claim that it is the creation of your religion, but have yet to prove so.
No, that is a monster of your own making you are battling.
No, this is a fact of your xian heritage and history of marriage.
Again, you claim it was but I see no proof other than your claims. And you brush over the fact that laws against interracial marriage were claimed to be part and parcel of the religious tradition of the xian marriage. Is that a sign of the xian nation changing or were these devout xians simply in error?
Again, you claim it was but I see no proof other than your claims. And you brush over the fact that laws against interracial marriage were claimed to be part and parcel of the religious tradition of the xian marriage. Is that a sign of the xian nation changing or were these devout xians simply in error?
My religion does not make that restriction now. It is not a fair comparison I think.
Up until a few weeks ago, your religion saw fit to deny homosexuals the right to marry. You yourself may have changed your mind, but your religion has not.
And it is a very fair comparison. If you are going to try to claim traditional ownership and creation of marriage in the U.S., you cannot be selective about that control and ownership.
And if it were not for the overly zealous xians preaching that interracial marriage was not allowed according to the word of god, then many peoples freedoms would not have been violated just as they are being violated now by the traditional control you are claiming is fact.
So by your reasoning, any nation that does not allow polygamy is also xian in origin. Your claim is very flawed. Similarity does not mean related point of origin or authority.
So by your reasoning, any nation that does not allow polygamy is also xian in origin. Your claim is very flawed. Similarity does not mean related point of origin or authority.
But that is EXACTLY my point. It was and always has been a religious concept, embodied as best we could in law to meet constitutional limitations, and prevent preferment of any religion.
And what interpretation of constitutional limitations allowed for the xians to denounce and block interracial marriages based upon xian religious objections?
If it were kept secular as it is supposed to be, the xian could scream all they like and not be allowed to violate personal freedoms.
And again, you claim it always has been a religious concept, yet you offer nothing but your claim. Sources?
And your source for that claim? I’m sure prior to the RCC “creating” marriage, men and woman violated their vows and received absolutely no punishment for it.
And I’m sure that all marriages that the RCC oversaw never allowed a marriage to violated by adultery and not punish the guilty party.
Again, similarity does not mean related point of origin unless that point in human nature. This is a common sense application of a civil contract.
And your source for that claim? I’m sure prior to the RCC “creating” marriage, men and woman violated their vows and received absolutely no punishment for it.
And I’m sure that all marriages that the RCC oversaw never allowed a marriage to violated by adultery and not punish the guilty party.
Again, similarity does not mean related point of origin unless that point in human nature. This is a common sense application of a civil contract.
Just because it was and is a reflection of a religious concept, does not make it impossible to change.
If your claim were true, but you have yet to prove it. The topic is not change, but your claims about marriage.
I have no religion, contrary to your claims that everything is a religion.
I have no religion, contrary to your claims that everything is a religion.
Again, it must be dawning on you by now that it is INDEED derived from religious sources.
Not at all. Your repetition of the claim is not proof of your claim. And again, you ignore the fact that marriage or similar bonding practices predate the creation of your religion.
You have rambled and have not addressed the points or questions. You have also yet to back up your claims.
You have rambled and have not addressed the points or questions. You have also yet to back up your claims.
The common one I see among Atheists, to try to rewrite history. This WAS a christian nation, but with a secular government to PROTECT all religious freedom.
It is not a “rewrite” of history. This was not and is not a xian nation. By form, function and laws, it does not reflect a xian nation at all. All one has to do to see what a xian nation would look like is to study what the rule of the RCC was. That is diametrically opposed to what we stand for; personal freedom.
Again, you can quote mine and distort all you like, but you cannot prove with fact that this is a xian nation.
Again, you simply reach and try to claim all are religions or just equivalent.
Again, you simply reach and try to claim all are religions or just equivalent.
It has been granted EQUIVALENCY to religion in a constitutional consideration, so legally, it IS a religion.
And again, this is a total fallacy on your part. Protection does not mean it is a religion. And parroting this claim over and over does not make it true.
Everytime you make this hollow claim, you are unable to back it up honestly or address one fundamental flaw in your claim. If atheism is legal considered a religion then please cite where it is restricted as such as your RC faith is by law.
Calling atheism a religion is not so much offensive to me as it is just a dishonest tactic.
Calling atheism a religion is not so much offensive to me as it is just a dishonest tactic.
Yes, yes, so you continue to say...but there is not a single recorded historical incidence of what you say.
So you are trying to argue that prior to the RCC creating marriage in the 14th century (origin of the term) that marriage or similar pair bonding simply did not exists?
You fail to see that you are hiding behind more pedantic maneuvers.
You fail to see that you are hiding behind more pedantic maneuvers.
blah blah blah, it is. I have demonstrated it is, there are countless obvious exampkles in Christian religion, as I pointed out above, and no source of support for your claim I have been seen or know of.
And again, you are being myopic and pedantic trying to hide behind the term marriage only and ignoring the concept I have been addressing.
You have not proven nor cited one example that supports your claim that marriage is the creation of the church.
And again, marriage or similar pair bonding existed prior to your church unless you think no one married or bonded prior to the RCC.
Yes, but you stated that a constitutional protection for homosexuals could be added. Why would it be needed if no heterosexual protection is required?
Yes, but you stated that a constitutional protection for homosexuals could be added. Why would it be needed if no heterosexual protection is required?
Marriage does not appear even a single time in the constitution. The LAWS enacted have defined and described marriage, and have VERY SPECIFICALLY restricted it to a man and a woman.
You mean recent restrictions or historical ones?
I am not the one confusing secular with atheism. You are. When I mentioned the my views are more in line with the secular society we live in, you took offense and claim I was trying to force my view onto you.
I am not the one confusing secular with atheism. You are. When I mentioned the my views are more in line with the secular society we live in, you took offense and claim I was trying to force my view onto you.
As in the concept of Marriage, a SECULAR government may reflect and contain religious values, but only so long as individual rights are not trampled, and no religion (even Atheism) is preferred.
Again with the dig that atheism is a religion. I’m sure it comforts you to dismiss it as such, but as with your claims about the origin of marriage and all laws, you have provided nothing of substance to back up your claims.
And you keep missing the main point. Atheism is more congruent with a secular society than traditional religions would be. You think that is atheists pushing their values onto you, but you are in error.
The only way you would think that a secular society was pushing atheistic value into you is if you viewed secular with atheism.
More historical ignorance on your part. Do you ever bother to research your claim or do you just blindly accept the RC dogma?
And PuckSR mentioned Pagan, not secular.
Depending on the time in history and the position of the people involved, the marriage ceremony varied.
http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
More historical ignorance on your part. Do you ever bother to research your claim or do you just blindly accept the RC dogma?
And PuckSR mentioned Pagan, not secular.
Depending on the time in history and the position of the people involved, the marriage ceremony varied.
http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
Roman Marriage
prior to 445 BC, intermarriage (connubium) between patricians and plebeians was forbidden. After that the children of such marriages took the social rank of the father, be it patrician or plebeian, regardless of the mother's status. After both families had agreed to a marriage, and the consent of the parents or persons in authority was given, the marriage contract was drawn up and signed by both parties. Once settled, the wedding day was then arranged with important care to note that is could not fall upon the Kalends, Nones, or Ides of any month, or on any day in May or February.
The bride was dressed in a long white robe, with a bridal veil, and shoes of a bright yellow color. She was escorted in the evening to her future husband's home by three boys, one of whom carried a torch, the other two supporting her by the arm. They were accompanied by friends of both parties. The groom received the bride at the door, which she entered with distaff and spindle in hand.
The keys of the house were then delivered to her. The day ended with a feast given by the husband, after which the bride was conducted to the bridal couch, in the atrium, which was adorned with flowers. On the following day another feast was given by the husband, and the wife performed certain religious rites.
The position of the Roman woman after marriage was very different from that of the Greeks. She presided over the whole household, educated her children, watched over and preserved the honor of the house, and shared the honors and respect shown to her husband. While few women were able to hold positions of power within the political or social system, many did run the household and private lives of their husbands with complete authority.
Here is an article that covers some of the differences in class.
http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/marrcustwom.html
And I’m sure to get the simplistic reply that if any gods or religious holidays are mentioned, that marriages were primarily religious in Rome.
This, despite you arguing that marriages did not exists before the RCC. Odd how scholars seem to think they did.
You may also wish to actually study Roman gods, the way they were viewed, worshiped and their influences on Roman society. It is much different that the traditional monotheism most are accustomed to.
There can be nothing 'beyond' what is Natural. What is Natural is whatever exists, and it exists because it is Natural to do so. So, 'supernatural' is just another metaphor for aspects of existence that we have yet to discover.
So supernatural is just an attempt to explain or represent the unknown.
This is also Reality. The more understanding of Reality we have/are, the more we will be able to exist within it, as parts of it. We may 'count on ourselves' when we are in accord with Reality.
What? This is the oddest New-age psycho speak I have ever heard of.
If we exist in reality, how could we possibly NOT BE in accord with it. Unless you are speaking of our understanding of it being in accord with what is observed.
Sounds like meaningless babble to me.
Well that was a pretty expansive statement....
So, if we could find a single example prior to 200 years ago of marriage not being religious....we would have proven you WRONG and a LIAR
Simple Enough
Prior to the Marriage Act of 1753, marriage in the UK was the result of two people saying "We are married". There was no requirement for a license, a clergyman, or even a government involvement.
Common-law marriage is another great example.
It has existed for centuries...and requires no religious consent or overtones
So there we go....
I just listed two forms of marriage that the Church(or a religion) actually banned because they were not intertwined with religion, but rather practicality. They also were free from any state influence.
Guess you were wrong...but that happens a lot
Well that was a pretty expansive statement....
So, if we could find a single example prior to 200 years ago of marriage not being religious....we would have proven you WRONG and a LIAR
Simple Enough
Prior to the Marriage Act of 1753, marriage in the UK was the result of two people saying "We are married". There was no requirement for a license, a clergyman, or even a government involvement.
Common-law marriage is another great example.
It has existed for centuries...and requires no religious consent or overtones
So there we go....
I just listed two forms of marriage that the Church(or a religion) actually banned because they were not intertwined with religion, but rather practicality. They also were free from any state influence.
Guess you were wrong...but that happens a lot
In America, as I have pointed out, our original laws governing and restricting marriage were loosely based a generic interpretation of the prevailing Christian concept of the sacrament of Marriage.
Actually our laws were firmly based on European tradition(Christian or not). The existence of the common law marriage, the fact that all states had to recognize marriage in other states, and the concept of divorce were all traditional European(but distinctly non-Christian) ideas.
Looks like you are wrong again....
Geez....do you even bother to try to look this crap up before you post it? It reads as if you just "suppose" something is true...and then post it on a "gut feeling"
Well that was a pretty expansive statement....
So, if we could find a single example prior to 200 years ago of marriage not being religious....we would have proven you WRONG and a LIAR
HAHA typical left wing liberal nonsense. Look up the definition of LIAR. Being WRONG does not make you a liar. Bet you hate Dubya and call him a liar too? Again typical.
Simple Enough
Prior to the Marriage Act of 1753, marriage in the UK was the result of two people saying "We are married". There was no requirement for a license, a clergyman, or even a government involvement.
Reference please? You sure this was not descendant of prechristian Wiccan or celtic/druidic practice? Betcha it was.
Common-law marriage is another great example.
It has existed for centuries...and requires no religious consent or overtones
Reference please? Mere statements of your beliefs are not adequate, do show some support for those assertions.
And I answered yes. The concept of marriage, as in pair bonding, predates the 1700s or even the 14th century form which the term marriage originates.
Unless you are trying to argue that marriage never existed prior to the creation of the term, then you being dishonest in your attempt to debate here.
If you are trying to argue that until the term marriage was created that marriage did not exists, the you are trying to be pedantic to the point of lunacy.
As I have stated before and as you have so brilliantly illustrated here, you and other xians are hung up on the term marriage and erroneously think it is the property of your religion, your church and only open to you. You would be in error on those claims.
QUOTE
That is the point. This WAS a christian nation, but that does not mean our values cannot change.
LOL. Back to the old talking points I see. This was never and is not a xian nation. Parroting that claim over and over, and distorting and quote mining any and all source you can find, will not change that fact. This nation is not xian in design, form or function.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is the point. This WAS a christian nation, but that does not mean our values cannot change. |
LOL. Back to the old talking points I see. This was never and is not a xian nation. Parroting that claim over and over, and distorting and quote mining any and all source you can find, will not change that fact. This nation is not xian in design, form or function.
That is the mistake you make. Thinking you must redefine the past or change our historical tradition to enact what you want.
Not at all. I simply choose not to give credit where credit is not due.
QUOTE
You confuse the issue, and in doing so defeat your own cause by basing your case on misrepresentation. (Although it is inadvertant I am sure).
I have yet to confuse the issue and have argued the same point I started with. As with homosexual marriage, the right is one of a personal freedom and not property of any faith or religion. It is a basic human desires to bond or pair with another. You claim that it is the creation of your religion, but have yet to prove so.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You confuse the issue, and in doing so defeat your own cause by basing your case on misrepresentation. (Although it is inadvertant I am sure). |
I have yet to confuse the issue and have argued the same point I started with. As with homosexual marriage, the right is one of a personal freedom and not property of any faith or religion. It is a basic human desires to bond or pair with another. You claim that it is the creation of your religion, but have yet to prove so.
No, that is a monster of your own making you are battling.
No, this is a fact of your xian heritage and history of marriage.
QUOTE
The legal concept of marriage was derived from religious sources, BUT, (in the LEGAL treatment) it must comply with consitutional limitations, and be modified to preserve equal treatment of human and civil individual rights as well.
Again, you claim it was but I see no proof other than your claims. And you brush over the fact that laws against interracial marriage were claimed to be part and parcel of the religious tradition of the xian marriage. Is that a sign of the xian nation changing or were these devout xians simply in error?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The legal concept of marriage was derived from religious sources, BUT, (in the LEGAL treatment) it must comply with consitutional limitations, and be modified to preserve equal treatment of human and civil individual rights as well. |
Again, you claim it was but I see no proof other than your claims. And you brush over the fact that laws against interracial marriage were claimed to be part and parcel of the religious tradition of the xian marriage. Is that a sign of the xian nation changing or were these devout xians simply in error?
My religion does not make that restriction now. It is not a fair comparison I think.
Up until a few weeks ago, your religion saw fit to deny homosexuals the right to marry. You yourself may have changed your mind, but your religion has not.
And it is a very fair comparison. If you are going to try to claim traditional ownership and creation of marriage in the U.S., you cannot be selective about that control and ownership.
And if it were not for the overly zealous xians preaching that interracial marriage was not allowed according to the word of god, then many peoples freedoms would not have been violated just as they are being violated now by the traditional control you are claiming is fact.
QUOTE
Another argument that this was a "christian" nation, our laws very obviously prefer a "christian" interpretation to many of the ethical and moral questions, including Polygamy, which you astutely point out.
So by your reasoning, any nation that does not allow polygamy is also xian in origin. Your claim is very flawed. Similarity does not mean related point of origin or authority.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Another argument that this was a "christian" nation, our laws very obviously prefer a "christian" interpretation to many of the ethical and moral questions, including Polygamy, which you astutely point out. |
So by your reasoning, any nation that does not allow polygamy is also xian in origin. Your claim is very flawed. Similarity does not mean related point of origin or authority.
But that is EXACTLY my point. It was and always has been a religious concept, embodied as best we could in law to meet constitutional limitations, and prevent preferment of any religion.
And what interpretation of constitutional limitations allowed for the xians to denounce and block interracial marriages based upon xian religious objections?
If it were kept secular as it is supposed to be, the xian could scream all they like and not be allowed to violate personal freedoms.
And again, you claim it always has been a religious concept, yet you offer nothing but your claim. Sources?
QUOTE
Come on. Again, this is another limitation based on christian values.
And your source for that claim? I’m sure prior to the RCC “creating” marriage, men and woman violated their vows and received absolutely no punishment for it.
And I’m sure that all marriages that the RCC oversaw never allowed a marriage to violated by adultery and not punish the guilty party.
Again, similarity does not mean related point of origin unless that point in human nature. This is a common sense application of a civil contract.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Come on. Again, this is another limitation based on christian values. |
And your source for that claim? I’m sure prior to the RCC “creating” marriage, men and woman violated their vows and received absolutely no punishment for it.
And I’m sure that all marriages that the RCC oversaw never allowed a marriage to violated by adultery and not punish the guilty party.
Again, similarity does not mean related point of origin unless that point in human nature. This is a common sense application of a civil contract.
Just because it was and is a reflection of a religious concept, does not make it impossible to change.
If your claim were true, but you have yet to prove it. The topic is not change, but your claims about marriage.
QUOTE
ESPECIALLY why you should embrace the idea of Atheism as a religion.
I have no religion, contrary to your claims that everything is a religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ESPECIALLY why you should embrace the idea of Atheism as a religion. |
I have no religion, contrary to your claims that everything is a religion.
Again, it must be dawning on you by now that it is INDEED derived from religious sources.
Not at all. Your repetition of the claim is not proof of your claim. And again, you ignore the fact that marriage or similar bonding practices predate the creation of your religion.
QUOTE
But that does not matter to win your argument. Which I have already submitted to from a constitutional standpoint.
You have rambled and have not addressed the points or questions. You have also yet to back up your claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But that does not matter to win your argument. Which I have already submitted to from a constitutional standpoint. |
You have rambled and have not addressed the points or questions. You have also yet to back up your claims.
The common one I see among Atheists, to try to rewrite history. This WAS a christian nation, but with a secular government to PROTECT all religious freedom.
It is not a “rewrite” of history. This was not and is not a xian nation. By form, function and laws, it does not reflect a xian nation at all. All one has to do to see what a xian nation would look like is to study what the rule of the RCC was. That is diametrically opposed to what we stand for; personal freedom.
Again, you can quote mine and distort all you like, but you cannot prove with fact that this is a xian nation.
QUOTE
All you have to do, is finally understand that your belief system, whatever it is, Atheism or whatever, functions as a religion in regards to social conduct and legal considerations.
Again, you simply reach and try to claim all are religions or just equivalent.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All you have to do, is finally understand that your belief system, whatever it is, Atheism or whatever, functions as a religion in regards to social conduct and legal considerations. |
Again, you simply reach and try to claim all are religions or just equivalent.
It has been granted EQUIVALENCY to religion in a constitutional consideration, so legally, it IS a religion.
And again, this is a total fallacy on your part. Protection does not mean it is a religion. And parroting this claim over and over does not make it true.
Everytime you make this hollow claim, you are unable to back it up honestly or address one fundamental flaw in your claim. If atheism is legal considered a religion then please cite where it is restricted as such as your RC faith is by law.
QUOTE
Perhaps the word offends, just like religious peiople find gay "marriage" offensive, but most people offended would consider granting the same thing with a different name.
Calling atheism a religion is not so much offensive to me as it is just a dishonest tactic.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps the word offends, just like religious peiople find gay "marriage" offensive, but most people offended would consider granting the same thing with a different name. |
Calling atheism a religion is not so much offensive to me as it is just a dishonest tactic.
Yes, yes, so you continue to say...but there is not a single recorded historical incidence of what you say.
So you are trying to argue that prior to the RCC creating marriage in the 14th century (origin of the term) that marriage or similar pair bonding simply did not exists?
QUOTE
Again, you fail to see that losing that point does not lose the battle. You have already won the battle.
You fail to see that you are hiding behind more pedantic maneuvers.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, you fail to see that losing that point does not lose the battle. You have already won the battle. |
You fail to see that you are hiding behind more pedantic maneuvers.
blah blah blah, it is. I have demonstrated it is, there are countless obvious exampkles in Christian religion, as I pointed out above, and no source of support for your claim I have been seen or know of.
And again, you are being myopic and pedantic trying to hide behind the term marriage only and ignoring the concept I have been addressing.
You have not proven nor cited one example that supports your claim that marriage is the creation of the church.
And again, marriage or similar pair bonding existed prior to your church unless you think no one married or bonded prior to the RCC.
QUOTE
It is a LEGAL concept, not a constitutional one.
Yes, but you stated that a constitutional protection for homosexuals could be added. Why would it be needed if no heterosexual protection is required?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is a LEGAL concept, not a constitutional one. |
Yes, but you stated that a constitutional protection for homosexuals could be added. Why would it be needed if no heterosexual protection is required?
Marriage does not appear even a single time in the constitution. The LAWS enacted have defined and described marriage, and have VERY SPECIFICALLY restricted it to a man and a woman.
You mean recent restrictions or historical ones?
QUOTE
By confusing SECULAR with ATHEIST.
I am not the one confusing secular with atheism. You are. When I mentioned the my views are more in line with the secular society we live in, you took offense and claim I was trying to force my view onto you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By confusing SECULAR with ATHEIST. |
I am not the one confusing secular with atheism. You are. When I mentioned the my views are more in line with the secular society we live in, you took offense and claim I was trying to force my view onto you.
As in the concept of Marriage, a SECULAR government may reflect and contain religious values, but only so long as individual rights are not trampled, and no religion (even Atheism) is preferred.
Again with the dig that atheism is a religion. I’m sure it comforts you to dismiss it as such, but as with your claims about the origin of marriage and all laws, you have provided nothing of substance to back up your claims.
And you keep missing the main point. Atheism is more congruent with a secular society than traditional religions would be. You think that is atheists pushing their values onto you, but you are in error.
The only way you would think that a secular society was pushing atheistic value into you is if you viewed secular with atheism.
QUOTE
More semantics. The Roman and Jewish tradition were BOTH RELIGIOUS were they not? Gee, no SECULAR examples there at all huh?
More historical ignorance on your part. Do you ever bother to research your claim or do you just blindly accept the RC dogma?
And PuckSR mentioned Pagan, not secular.
Depending on the time in history and the position of the people involved, the marriage ceremony varied.
http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More semantics. The Roman and Jewish tradition were BOTH RELIGIOUS were they not? Gee, no SECULAR examples there at all huh? |
More historical ignorance on your part. Do you ever bother to research your claim or do you just blindly accept the RC dogma?
And PuckSR mentioned Pagan, not secular.
Depending on the time in history and the position of the people involved, the marriage ceremony varied.
http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
Roman Marriage
prior to 445 BC, intermarriage (connubium) between patricians and plebeians was forbidden. After that the children of such marriages took the social rank of the father, be it patrician or plebeian, regardless of the mother's status. After both families had agreed to a marriage, and the consent of the parents or persons in authority was given, the marriage contract was drawn up and signed by both parties. Once settled, the wedding day was then arranged with important care to note that is could not fall upon the Kalends, Nones, or Ides of any month, or on any day in May or February.
The bride was dressed in a long white robe, with a bridal veil, and shoes of a bright yellow color. She was escorted in the evening to her future husband's home by three boys, one of whom carried a torch, the other two supporting her by the arm. They were accompanied by friends of both parties. The groom received the bride at the door, which she entered with distaff and spindle in hand.
The keys of the house were then delivered to her. The day ended with a feast given by the husband, after which the bride was conducted to the bridal couch, in the atrium, which was adorned with flowers. On the following day another feast was given by the husband, and the wife performed certain religious rites.
The position of the Roman woman after marriage was very different from that of the Greeks. She presided over the whole household, educated her children, watched over and preserved the honor of the house, and shared the honors and respect shown to her husband. While few women were able to hold positions of power within the political or social system, many did run the household and private lives of their husbands with complete authority.
Here is an article that covers some of the differences in class.
http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/marrcustwom.html
And I’m sure to get the simplistic reply that if any gods or religious holidays are mentioned, that marriages were primarily religious in Rome.
This, despite you arguing that marriages did not exists before the RCC. Odd how scholars seem to think they did.
You may also wish to actually study Roman gods, the way they were viewed, worshiped and their influences on Roman society. It is much different that the traditional monotheism most are accustomed to.
Religion is a high risk beleif. Should we count on supernatural or should we count on ourselves?
QUOTE (Majkl+Apr 28 2008, 09:07 PM)
Religion is a high risk beleif. Should we count on supernatural or should we count on ourselves?
There can be nothing 'beyond' what is Natural. What is Natural is whatever exists, and it exists because it is Natural to do so. So, 'supernatural' is just another metaphor for aspects of existence that we have yet to discover.
This is also Reality. The more understanding of Reality we have/are, the more we will be able to exist within it, as parts of it. We may 'count on ourselves' when we are in accord with Reality.
g.
There can be nothing 'beyond' what is Natural. What is Natural is whatever exists, and it exists because it is Natural to do so. So, 'supernatural' is just another metaphor for aspects of existence that we have yet to discover.
This is also Reality. The more understanding of Reality we have/are, the more we will be able to exist within it, as parts of it. We may 'count on ourselves' when we are in accord with Reality.
g.
Hello Gorgeus
What i wanted to say is that we act like there is a certain future. But we dont know really what our chances of survival really are. We havent got a clue. We may be rare stuff in the universe but not special. One has to strip away a few things to get the raw facts out. We dont know if any other races exist or not. We simply dont have that fact. And one thinks sanely that we should act as facts as we have them here and now are telling us unless we simply dont have that choice really.
What i wanted to say is that we act like there is a certain future. But we dont know really what our chances of survival really are. We havent got a clue. We may be rare stuff in the universe but not special. One has to strip away a few things to get the raw facts out. We dont know if any other races exist or not. We simply dont have that fact. And one thinks sanely that we should act as facts as we have them here and now are telling us unless we simply dont have that choice really.
QUOTE (Majkl+Apr 28 2008, 09:41 PM)
Hello Gorgeus
What i wanted to say is that we act like there is a certain future. But we dont know really what our chances of survival really are. We havent got a clue. We may be rare stuff in the universe but not special. One has to strip away a few things to get the raw facts out. We dont know if any other races exist or not. We simply dont have that fact. And one thinks sanely that we should act as facts as we have them here and now are telling us unless we simply dont have that choice really.
Well, we do have a certain amount of 'clue'. It is not a question of 'all' or 'nothing'. This seems to be a recurring theme with people, that they think in such 'black and white' ways.
We do have many 'facts'. We do know that some 'other races' exist. Life is abundant on this Planet, at the moment, and we are currently destroying many aspects of it that we know very little about. This does not have to happen, as we can become more conscious of our destructive natures, and decide upon a course of action as a consequence of greater understanding.
There is a certain future. It is not 'certain' that we will survive much longer to actually see it, or take part in it, but it will still exist in some form or another, with or without 'Humans'. Our choice exists in a limited form; we can do what we are capable of, when the opportunity arises, or choose not to. The more we understand, the more 'capable' we become.
g.
What i wanted to say is that we act like there is a certain future. But we dont know really what our chances of survival really are. We havent got a clue. We may be rare stuff in the universe but not special. One has to strip away a few things to get the raw facts out. We dont know if any other races exist or not. We simply dont have that fact. And one thinks sanely that we should act as facts as we have them here and now are telling us unless we simply dont have that choice really.
Well, we do have a certain amount of 'clue'. It is not a question of 'all' or 'nothing'. This seems to be a recurring theme with people, that they think in such 'black and white' ways.
We do have many 'facts'. We do know that some 'other races' exist. Life is abundant on this Planet, at the moment, and we are currently destroying many aspects of it that we know very little about. This does not have to happen, as we can become more conscious of our destructive natures, and decide upon a course of action as a consequence of greater understanding.
There is a certain future. It is not 'certain' that we will survive much longer to actually see it, or take part in it, but it will still exist in some form or another, with or without 'Humans'. Our choice exists in a limited form; we can do what we are capable of, when the opportunity arises, or choose not to. The more we understand, the more 'capable' we become.
g.
Gene and PuckSR you are both being obtuse.
I did not say the RCC founded marriage, I said RELIGION did. Since every example in recorded history (prior to recent times) intertwines religion (even Pagan) with marriage, you cannot defend any kind of secular precedent.
You merely try to confuse the issue by saying it was only the RCC.
In America, as I have pointed out, our original laws governing and restricting marriage were loosely based a generic interpretation of the prevailing Christian concept of the sacrament of Marriage.
You are only fooling yourselves.
I did not say the RCC founded marriage, I said RELIGION did. Since every example in recorded history (prior to recent times) intertwines religion (even Pagan) with marriage, you cannot defend any kind of secular precedent.
You merely try to confuse the issue by saying it was only the RCC.
In America, as I have pointed out, our original laws governing and restricting marriage were loosely based a generic interpretation of the prevailing Christian concept of the sacrament of Marriage.
You are only fooling yourselves.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Apr 28 2008, 09:30 PM)
There can be nothing 'beyond' what is Natural. What is Natural is whatever exists, and it exists because it is Natural to do so. So, 'supernatural' is just another metaphor for aspects of existence that we have yet to discover.
So supernatural is just an attempt to explain or represent the unknown.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Apr 28 2008, 09:30 PM)
This is also Reality. The more understanding of Reality we have/are, the more we will be able to exist within it, as parts of it. We may 'count on ourselves' when we are in accord with Reality.
What? This is the oddest New-age psycho speak I have ever heard of.
If we exist in reality, how could we possibly NOT BE in accord with it. Unless you are speaking of our understanding of it being in accord with what is observed.
Sounds like meaningless babble to me.
QUOTE
I did not say the RCC founded marriage, I said RELIGION did. Since every example in recorded history (prior to recent times) intertwines religion (even Pagan) with marriage, you cannot defend any kind of secular precedent.
Well that was a pretty expansive statement....
So, if we could find a single example prior to 200 years ago of marriage not being religious....we would have proven you WRONG and a LIAR
Simple Enough
Prior to the Marriage Act of 1753, marriage in the UK was the result of two people saying "We are married". There was no requirement for a license, a clergyman, or even a government involvement.
Common-law marriage is another great example.
It has existed for centuries...and requires no religious consent or overtones
So there we go....
I just listed two forms of marriage that the Church(or a religion) actually banned because they were not intertwined with religion, but rather practicality. They also were free from any state influence.
Guess you were wrong...but that happens a lot
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I did not say the RCC founded marriage, I said RELIGION did. Since every example in recorded history (prior to recent times) intertwines religion (even Pagan) with marriage, you cannot defend any kind of secular precedent. |
Well that was a pretty expansive statement....
So, if we could find a single example prior to 200 years ago of marriage not being religious....we would have proven you WRONG and a LIAR
Simple Enough
Prior to the Marriage Act of 1753, marriage in the UK was the result of two people saying "We are married". There was no requirement for a license, a clergyman, or even a government involvement.
Common-law marriage is another great example.
It has existed for centuries...and requires no religious consent or overtones
So there we go....
I just listed two forms of marriage that the Church(or a religion) actually banned because they were not intertwined with religion, but rather practicality. They also were free from any state influence.
Guess you were wrong...but that happens a lot
In America, as I have pointed out, our original laws governing and restricting marriage were loosely based a generic interpretation of the prevailing Christian concept of the sacrament of Marriage.
Actually our laws were firmly based on European tradition(Christian or not). The existence of the common law marriage, the fact that all states had to recognize marriage in other states, and the concept of divorce were all traditional European(but distinctly non-Christian) ideas.
Looks like you are wrong again....
Geez....do you even bother to try to look this crap up before you post it? It reads as if you just "suppose" something is true...and then post it on a "gut feeling"
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 29 2008, 01:15 AM)
Well that was a pretty expansive statement....
So, if we could find a single example prior to 200 years ago of marriage not being religious....we would have proven you WRONG and a LIAR
HAHA typical left wing liberal nonsense. Look up the definition of LIAR. Being WRONG does not make you a liar. Bet you hate Dubya and call him a liar too? Again typical.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 29 2008, 01:15 AM)
Simple Enough
Prior to the Marriage Act of 1753, marriage in the UK was the result of two people saying "We are married". There was no requirement for a license, a clergyman, or even a government involvement.
Reference please? You sure this was not descendant of prechristian Wiccan or celtic/druidic practice? Betcha it was.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 29 2008, 01:15 AM)
Common-law marriage is another great example.
It has existed for centuries...and requires no religious consent or overtones
Reference please? Mere statements of your beliefs are not adequate, do show some support for those assertions.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Apr 29 2008, 01:15 AM)