Jump to content
NZT48

marriage

Recommended Posts

*you're

 

I mean why did you say this:

NZT48 hasn't read the bible is what I got from that.

 

OR

 

If he did, he didn't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you take it literally. Then you don't. Or... You ignore the parts that you don't agree with. But then you do.. But then you don't. And then.. Wait does it agree with what you are thinking at the time? Of course it does. God said so. Except the part where it doesn't. But you can ignore that part because it's a METAPHOR and not meant to be taken literally except that other part.

 

Wait. You're (yup. You did catch that earlier. Thanks. I hate it when I get that wrong, yet I did.) a religious nut. Aren't you. You have haven't read the bible, or you don't understand it.

 

AD

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you having issues with quoting people, D, or it's a personal style thing to block quote it all and then break out specific bits?



I'm in favour of however many consenting adults wanting to marry each other, so yes, I do hope that SSM gets 'watered down' at some point such that the only prescription the State gives is consenting adult. Because it's not anyone else's business.

You're right in that marriage isn't a right, but rights are just rhetoric and talking about what is and isn't one is pretty meaningless.

You seem to have a weird preoccupation with adults marrying children. It's really bizarre. Especially considering the mix of progressive and conservative influences swirling around, and how Marriage isn't a religious thing but religious notions should pervail in defining it, and how this slippery slope doesn't seem to apply in other spheres like I don't know say drug usage. I mean, ask anyone from a certain age - marijuana usage inevitable leads to harder drugs and social decay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nich: Your ignoring the part that TRADITIONALLY it was 'consenting adult'. Specifically, Common Law Marriage was :

1) Cohabitate

2) Consent

3) Publicly present as married.

 

Number 3 is the interesting thing. It was purely "publicly" present. Nothing more. Nothing less. It was ONLY after religion got their hands on Common Law Marriage that it became "Present as Man and Wife".

 

Here's an interesting thought. Did you know their were instances of same sex marriage before all that foo-foo-na? They weren't ROMATICALLY involved. Oh goodness no. It was a business arrangement. And a good one too. Yup.. Marriage traditionally had nothing to do with religion. But business, and transfer of property. Nothing more. Nothing less. But then you get some nutjobs that realize that they can earn a bob-or-two off a ceremony, and then (important part here) have a KING that is also the head of religion (Read "Church of England") declare it is a religious ceremony? Why? Because if some posh French nob married the wrong person, then England could have lost land by inheritance. Nothing more. But, if you have the church controlling who gets married (And consider that in the 1500's the marriage act was such that a marriage wasn't recognized unless performed by an "Authrorized" clergyman. And Catholic wouldn't cut it. Had to be Church of England.) Well... Marriage becomes a farce at about this point... It become nothing more than a method of the king controlling what land goes where in the name of "God".

 

But.. Then.. Marriage was always religious. Except when it wasn't, thousands of years before hand, with the word "Marriage" being used literally.

 

Sorry. But this is a gripe of mine. I'm a heterosexual male, married to a female. And I think that Marriage is nothing more than a business arrangement as is often proven to be the case when you have to deal with insurance and tax.

 

AD

Edited by AccessDenied
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I said.

It is, fajw.

 

To reach that conclusion, you need a preconception about what makes something "godly". Where does that preconception come from, I wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you having issues with quoting people, D, or it's a personal style thing to block quote it all and then break out specific bits?

 

 

 

I don't know about Director, but for maybe a month now when I click "quote" on a post with multiple posters within it,

and I want to delete some but not all. I can delete the post made by the poster but not the poster . My curser no longer

is able to highlight the poster just the text ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you take it literally. Then you don't. Or... You ignore the parts that you don't agree with. But then you do.. But then you don't. And then.. Wait does it agree with what you are thinking at the time? Of course it does. God said so. Except the part where it doesn't. But you can ignore that part because it's a METAPHOR and not meant to be taken literally except that other part.

 

Wait. You're (yup. You did catch that earlier. Thanks. I hate it when I get that wrong, yet I did.) a religious nut. Aren't you. You have haven't read the bible, or you don't understand it.

 

AD

Three thoughts came to mind:

 

The Word says.

Sin & Salvation.

Scapegoat.

 

It's not cryptic; basic etymology skillz should enlighten you.

Nor do I suffer 'religion;' however I do believe that Jesus is who He said He is (refer to first thought).

God seeking dialogue with man isn't religion, it's basic communion.

Hiding from God while persistently striving to grasp immortality from a deity that looks remarkably like unto yourself is religion.

 

 

My opinion and preferred modality of life is obviously subject to all accumulated sensory input over 48 years but the existence of maths and language has lead me to believe in an intelligence that predates all living organisms.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATM I seem to not be able to delete posters within that I don't wish to quote so ....

 

D: "Well I guess those examples are a type of collectivism? And as you say, that's just human nature doing it's thing. I was more concerned about the kind of collectivism we get when we get the government to FORCE it on everyone. You see there's a huge difference between being persecuted by the state and merely being rejected by a particular group."

 

e: No guessing about it Director. I think it's more that you just don't want to see these religious organisations behaving as other big business does. To my mind it's the only way large corporations can survive and grow. And I disagree about the difference too , cos you know it's not just one religious corporation that frowns on the ssc it's pretty much most of them. So that one group becomes very many groups and just as scary as your state analogy...imo.

 

D: "Can't argue that either, though you didn't provide examples of what you mean I 'assume' you;re referring to odd Catholic child molester? And also, as you have observed the problem (as it ever is) is not one of 'Churches' or 'religions' but one of 'people'. Put those same evil selfish bastards /bitches into ANY group, religious, political, social, whatever and you're bound to get the same results. But getting back to the topic, if one of the basic beliefs of a particular group is that homosexuality (amongst many other things ) is WRONG, and you don't like that belief then find a group where that behaviour is accepted. It's not that hard. You don't hear me crying because Fernwood Gym discriminates against me because of MY sexuality do you?"

 

e: Oh, lol at the underlined. Recent history belies your comment on not just the Catholics, but you can throw the Jewish and Moslem bunch in there too. I reckon with your wide knowledge Director you can lay your hands on many more religions down through the ages that are guilty of rampant assault on their flock. Of course they'll give it a term such as penitence or some such but hey ... * shrugs * Totally agree with the comment about evil sods every where. << Doesn't matter though, with what you're stridently demanding of religions to be treated differently to other businesses, it more confirms my reasons for giving religions no leeway where the law of public business is concerned. In fact, given their ugly vile inhumane behaviour all religious corporations need to be turned inside out . It will never happen,

but gee it's a nice thought :)

Fernwood Gym that's the place that caters to only women, yes ? I say stand outside and protest your right to entry.

I don't like it at all. You either do that or open men's gyms bloody everywhere.

 

D: Yeah the argument doesn't work.

If I had to guess, I'd say <insert any moral behaviour> were doing it before religion came along.

So with that thought in mind, I really think it's about time they were treated as people who want to believe and

enjoy the full benefits of their chosen religion.

 

And again, you're missing a major point. People belong to certain worldviews because they believe the teachings of that worldview are TRUE. And if something is TRUE then it cannot be changed to accommodate the whims of the society of the day.

Now were there things 'thought' to be true once but were discovered later to be not true, sure, the Earth orbits the Sun and not the way around for e.g.

But that isn't the case with this particular issue and I don't think it's even possible to show otherwise, basically you;d have to prove that God doesn't exist and we all know how that discussion goes. :)

 

e: :) It does work Director. SSC don't have a moral issue about their adult consensual lifestyle. It's the religious dudes that seem to have a moral problem with how these people choose to live. Which is really fucking weird. It's okay to cover up decades / centuries of abuse to protect the church ( which ever faith ) but don't let consenting adults be happy and fulfilled in their lifestyle.

As for the " TRUE" bizness ... well that is flexible when they feel like it yeah ? Fighting racism loosened a few truisms.

 

D: That's because they've been framing the debate that way since about 1984? (or 1986? I cant remember now but there was a court case in the U.S. which caused them to change tack and start trying to equate what was then seen as a behavioural issue (which it is) with that of a race or emancipation). Homosexuals are equal because of their humanity they should have equal legal rights and equal human rights. I'm not sure that marriage is a 'right' anyway? Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections."

 

e: So just because the idea goes back to the 1980's it's not relevant now ? Course it is.

" Homosexuals are equal because of their humanity" ... Agreed.

"I'm not sure that marriage is a 'right' anyway?" ... Yeah it is. Whether it be a religious or civil ceremony.

 

Religions ARE corporations. They run churches, schools, orphanages etc.etc. They have administrators, accountants, etc.etc.

 

As for your comment on intergenerational unions. They have been happening forever. And I believe the youngest lot

come out of the religious belief system << assuming ;)

Then of course you get your twenty year old marrying an eighty year old ...

 

edit: bloody layout :(

 

 

No guessing about it Director. I think it's more that you just don't want to see these religious organisations behaving as other big business does.

 

Dunno how you reached that conclusion? The descent of the Church over the last 2000 years is something I'm keenly aware of and lament often. That a lot of them (but not all by means) are run 'like' businesses (or familial empires) may actually be a result of the state interfering already my imposing regulations ( not sure about that though) or merely an expression of human (as opposed to divine) nature. But we could talk about the failings of the Church for a very long time. Regardless of what those failings are, the state does not have the right (except by force of course) do dictate morality to the Church. Everybody would just love it if all government policy had to be approved by the Catholic Church or the Islamic council council of Australia right? No? Then as I said, if separation of Church is so important then at least be consistent about it.

 

 

 

To my mind it's the only way large corporations can survive and grow.

 

'If' that's what THEY want to do, that should be their choice and theirs alone.

 

 

 

And I disagree about the difference too , cos you know it's not just one religious corporation that frowns on the ssc it's pretty much most of them. So that one group becomes very many groups and just as scary as your state analogy...imo.

 

Nah, there's way too much division amongst worldviews for them to form a cohesive body with any real impact on the political process. That most of them reject SSM should tell you something about the broader context of the natural order of the universe. :) And like I keep saying, if one mob wont SSM you then just go to the mob down the road and be done with it.

 

 

 

Recent history belies your comment on not just the Catholics, but you can throw the Jewish and Moslem bunch in there too. I reckon with your wide knowledge Director you can lay your hands on many more religions down through the ages that are guilty of rampant assault on their flock.

 

Plenty of atheist child molestors too. But it's not the worldview that are guilty of rampant assault on their flock, it's individual within those groups acting AGAINST the teachings of that group. Now of course you;re right that other have apparently covered these crimes up or ignored complaints and I'm right behind you if you want to hunt them down and drag them before the courts. I 'guess' your main complaint here is that groups that preach love and peace shouldn't be molesting kids, commuting murder and violence and torture. Sure, I agree. I'm not sure how we get from that to "let's force to do SSM's"?

 

 

 

Fernwood Gym that's the place that caters to only women, yes ?

I don't like it at all. You either do that or open men's gyms bloody everywhere.

 

EXACTLY! Fernwood wont SSM me, so I'll go to the gym next door and leave Fernwood to live their lives in whatever way makes them happy.

 

 

 

It does work Director. SSC don't have a moral issue about their adult consensual lifestyle. It's the religious dudes that seem to have a moral problem with how these people choose to live.

 

Yes. That's kinda the whole point. But apart from the Westboro Baptist hate group I don;t see too many of them going out of their way to give gay people a hard time.

 

 

 

 

Which is really fucking weird. It's okay to cover up decades / centuries of abuse to protect the church ( which ever faith ) but don't let consenting adults be happy and fulfilled in their lifestyle.

 

Yeah look, you keep bringing up all of this alleged abuse that's been going on 'for centuries', I've asked you for examples but none have been forthcoming. I don't see the point in why you keep on about it except to point out that some sections of the Church are hypocrites, as I say "welcome to the human race". So let me know what these 'covered up centuries of abuses' that you're concerned about actually are so that we can get past it. And 2 I totally fail to see how the Church are not letting consenting adults be happy and fulfilled in their lifestyle. I mean why do SSC's NEED to have the approval of an organisation that most of the them seem to hate anyway? Is it just selfishness in that some people 'want' a big Church wedding? Do YOU need the approval of third parties to validate YOUR relationships? I don't and I suggest that anyone who does probable has deeper issues that need addressing. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd appreciate it if you could explain that to me. :)

 

 

As for your comment on intergenerational unions. They have been happening forever.

 

Probably.

 

 

 

 

And I believe the youngest lot come out of the religious belief system << assuming ;)

 

:)

 

Heh, I know the Spartans were big into it but not as a religious thing. Prolly goes back further, because let's face it, the human race has not changed at all, ever in moral terms. Not sure if it was ever formalised into 'legislation' however. And hopefully wont be here, as I said for a few decades yet.

 

 

 

Then of course you get your twenty year old marrying an eighty year old ...

 

Hugh Heffner needs love too, and a 20 year old is old enough to decide for themselves, it's da law!

Are you having issues with quoting people, D, or it's a personal style thing to block quote it all and then break out specific bits?

 

 

 

 

 

You're right in that marriage isn't a right, but rights are just rhetoric and talking about what is and isn't one is pretty meaningless.

 

You seem to have a weird preoccupation with adults marrying children. It's really bizarre. Especially considering the mix of progressive and conservative influences swirling around, and how Marriage isn't a religious thing but religious notions should pervail in defining it, and how this slippery slope doesn't seem to apply in other spheres like I don't know say drug usage. I mean, ask anyone from a certain age - marijuana usage inevitable leads to harder drugs and social decay.

 

 

 

Are you having issues with quoting people, D, or it's a personal style thing to block quote it all and then break out specific bits?

 

A bit of both. :)

 

Just trying to copy the bits I want to comment on/reply to but I can't get rid of other bits.....nothing personal. :)

 

 

 

I'm in favour of however many consenting adults wanting to marry each other, so yes, I do hope that SSM gets 'watered down' at some point such that the only prescription the State gives is consenting adult. Because it's not anyone else's business.

 

Yes I agree, the state should stay out of EVERYONE's relationships, let the free market figure it out.

 

 

 

You seem to have a weird preoccupation with adults marrying children. It's really bizarre.

 

No I don't. Just raised it as an endgame for the current moral path we're treading. I 'might' be wrong and as someone else here noted, it's smart to predict things to occur after you're dead. :) So just saying.

 

 

 

Especially considering the mix of progressive and conservative influences swirling around, and how Marriage isn't a religious thing but religious notions should pervail in defining it,

 

Behind those 'religious notions' is the natural order of the universe, defined (or expressed) through the nature of God. We can go with that order to the best of our ability or we can go against it to our peril. Obviously most religious prefer to go with it. :)

 

 

 

and how this slippery slope doesn't seem to apply in other spheres like I don't know say drug usage. I mean, ask anyone from a certain age - marijuana usage inevitable leads to harder drugs and social decay.

 

Cannabis CAN lead to harder drugs but in most cases it doesn't. The slippery-slope of drug addiction is again a psychological issue and not so much a problem with the drug itself (yeah I know heroin and tobacco and chemically addictive so I guess other drugs are to, but cannabis isn't, at least not that I've heard). Still not seeing the relevance though, yes slipper-slopes exist everywhere, I just positioned one in the context of giving societal approval to SSM's. Cause and effect and all that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D: "Regardless of what those failings are, the state does not have the right (except by force of course) do dictate morality to the Church. Everybody would just love it if all government policy had to be approved by the Catholic Church or the Islamic council council of Australia right? No? Then as I said, if separation of Church is so important then at least be consistent about it."

 

e: For me this whole thing is about the Churches ( which ever faith ) total lack of morality. It's why I honestly don't believe they have

the right to deny anyone who wants to be included. It was you who mentioned bank robbers ( I think earlier ). Sure if they want to

renew or discover their inner faith then religion should have no qualms << they're human beings after all.

It's a little ingenuous of you to talk of separation of church from state .

For that to be a totally doable deed it would have to mean that all those in ANY governing positions were agnostics at the least, but

more preferably atheist . Imagine the furore that would create !

 

I keep harping as you say about the churches lack of ANY decency when dealing lawfully with those who destroy the lives of their

flock, because it comes to the core and (for me ) totally undermines the whole fucking concept of religion. And that's any religion.

I'm not going to go looking for links to any of it. There is no need. We both know that it still goes on amongst all of the religions.

And it's a handy distraction for you to avoid the reasonable assumption that ssc have the same capacity as you of being moral

human beings with a faith / hope that life and their religion is ready to accept them and honour their choice of partner as they would

a hetro couple.

It beggars belief that you think there are so few that changing the religious system for those few doesn't matter.

 

Child fucking and killing is so totally fucking rampant through out the world. The hunt to stop that seems to be so imeshed

in horrible murky waters, a bit like the ' war against drugs '. It's beset with people whose greed and lack of humanity is

always top priority.

It's the fact that the churches or rather their holier than thou image has tolerated it with such vigorous secrecy up until recent

times makes me feel physically ill.

They do not deserve to be treated any differently to big business.

 

edit: just to be clear, I see nothing wrong with a twenty year old marrying an eighty year old.

 

edit 2: The world is overpopulated and by some reported to be at critical mass.

Just think, if the churches pulled their fucking heads in and allowed ssc to marry with all the grace and

ceremony as hetro couples I reckon the numbers coming out of the closet to celebrate and live the life,

might well have an impact on population growth ...just sayin' :P~

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e: For me this whole thing is about the Churches ( which ever faith ) total lack of morality. It's why I honestly don't believe they have

the right to deny anyone who wants to be included. It was you who mentioned bank robbers ( I think earlier ). Sure if they want to

renew or discover their inner faith then religion should have no qualms << they're human beings after all.

It's a little ingenuous of you to talk of separation of church from state .

For that to be a totally doable deed it would have to mean that all those in ANY governing positions were agnostics at the least, but

more preferably atheist . Imagine the furore that would create !

 

D: Hey don;t get me wrong, I can totally where you're coming from on that point and up to a point I kind-of-sort-of agree. Remove the beam from your own eye and all that. But on this issue I don;t see it as the Church trying to force the non-Churched into doing anything as much as the Church trying to hold the sanctity (despite all the flaws you mentioned) of it's own walls. To the Church you might as well mandate that Satan worshippers should be allowed to worship in Cathedrals. :) But if Churched people shouldn't be allowed to decide what goes on within the Church because of their own fallen morality the how much LESS of right does the state (or anyone else) have to make those decisions in light of THEIR fallen morality? It's the great human equaliser and because none of us are innocent in that regard then there are other things that need to be taken into consideration other than someone moral failings. Those issues include freedom of religion, freedom from state persecution, freedom of association and probably a few other things besides. :)

 

 

 

I keep harping as you say about the churches lack of ANY decency when dealing lawfully with those who destroy the lives of their

flock, because it comes to the core and (for me ) totally undermines the whole fucking concept of religion. And that's any religion.

 

And I'm saying that without examples that's total BS. There is NO systematic abuses or the destroying-of-lives in any mainstream religion (with the exception of Islam, 'maybe') and so you point is moot. Of course there are instances of that kind of thing EVERYWHERE, wherever people are, not just in 'religion' as you insist. And then I have already conceded that you have a valid point when such crimes are covered up but again those relatively rare events in no way undo all of the GOOD done by religious groups. I haven't been to a Church yet that does help the poor and needy in some capacity, even the tiny little ones with no money.

 

 

 

And it's a handy distraction for you to avoid the reasonable assumption that ssc have the same capacity as you of being moral

human beings with a faith / hope that life and their religion is ready to accept them and honour their choice of partner as they would

a hetro couple.

 

Based on YOUR particular definition of what is moral, then yes. The Church has a different viewpoint on that score as we have debated before. Absolutists and relativists will NEVER be on the same page on any moral issue.

 

 

 

It beggars belief that you think there are so few that changing the religious system for those few doesn't matter.

 

Changing the truth is beyond my pay grade. :) Or did you mean so few SSC's?

 

 

 

Child fucking and killing is so totally fucking rampant through out the world. The hunt to stop that seems to be so imeshed

in horrible murky waters, a bit like the ' war against drugs '. It's beset with people whose greed and lack of humanity is

always top priority.

It's the fact that the churches or rather their holier than thou image has tolerated it with such vigorous secrecy up until recent

times makes me feel physically ill.

They do not deserve to be treated any differently to big business.

 

Well you're entitled to you view and I agree with you, except for the last part. Abuses should be exposed and dealt with by the law. Not by 'treating them all like businesses', would that stop the abuse andbring the guilty to justice?

 

 

 

edit: just to be clear, I see nothing wrong with a twenty year old marrying an eighty year old.

 

:)

 

 

 

edit 2: The world is overpopulated and by some reported to be at critical mass.

Just think, if the churches pulled their fucking heads in and allowed ssc to marry with all the grace and

ceremony as hetro couples I reckon the numbers coming out of the closet to celebrate and live the life,

might well have an impact on population growth ...just sayin' :P~

 

Nice theory but a) they don't need to get married for that to happen and b) most of them want to adopt or have surrogate babies (It's my RIGHT as a man to have babies!) anyway so the worlds alleged overpopulation problems will not be solved by the gays. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Director said :"There is NO systematic abuses or the destroying-of-lives in any mainstream religion"

 

Wow, that's a brave statement to make.

 

Tell me Director, how many kids do you think one teacher can damage ? Sorta depends on the size of his class doesn't it ?

And the amount of decades that one teacher is allowed to ' teach '.

 

How many lives apart from the actual victim do you think these ' religious ' people affect ?

 

Take off your rose coloured specs and actually see the crippling nature of what is going on. It's like a fucking virus

that spreads out from the victim. It affects the biological family first and then if that victim manages to want to live,

it affects all their life and those they connect with.

 

edit 2: And yes the above questions are also extremely relevant to the issues of the Islamic religion.

 

Bloody hell ! I seriously didn't think that ^^ needed saying.

 

There is no morality left in organised religion. And yet these Organised religions insist on being treated above the

general law of the land .

 

edit:

Director said :

Nice theory but a) they don't need to get married for that to happen and b) most of them want to adopt or have surrogate babies (It's my RIGHT as a man to have babies!) anyway so the worlds alleged overpopulation problems will not be solved by the gays. :)

 

Most of them huh ? Gees Louise :(

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow....

 

 

NZT48 hasn't read the bible is what I got from that.

 

OR

 

If he did, he didn't understand it.

 

Assuming NZT48 is a he of course.

 

AD

 

 

Because you take it literally. Then you don't. Or... You ignore the parts that you don't agree with. But then you do.. But then you don't. And then.. Wait does it agree with what you are thinking at the time? Of course it does. God said so. Except the part where it doesn't. But you can ignore that part because it's a METAPHOR and not meant to be taken literally except that other part.

 

Wait. You're (yup. You did catch that earlier. Thanks. I hate it when I get that wrong, yet I did.) a religious nut. Aren't you. You have haven't read the bible, or you don't understand it.

 

AD

Enlighten me.

 

That's not what I said.

It is, fajw.

No; it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Director said :"There is NO systematic abuses or the destroying-of-lives in any mainstream religion"

 

Wow, that's a brave statement to make.

 

Tell me Director, how many kids do you think one teacher can damage ? Sorta depends on the size of his class doesn't it ?

And the amount of decades that one teacher is allowed to ' teach '.

 

How many lives apart from the actual victim do you think these ' religious ' people affect ?

 

Take off your rose coloured specs and actually see the crippling nature of what is going on. It's like a fucking virus

that spreads out from the victim. It affects the biological family first and then if that victim manages to want to live,

it affects all their life and those they connect with.

 

edit 2: And yes the above questions are also extremely relevant to the issues of the Islamic religion.

 

Bloody hell ! I seriously didn't think that ^^ needed saying.

 

There is no morality left in organised religion. And yet these Organised religions insist on being treated above the

general law of the land .

 

edit:

Director said :

Nice theory but a) they don't need to get married for that to happen and b) most of them want to adopt or have surrogate babies (It's my RIGHT as a man to have babies!) anyway so the worlds alleged overpopulation problems will not be solved by the gays. :)

 

Most of them huh ? Gees Louise :(

 

 

 

Director said :"There is NO systematic abuses or the destroying-of-lives in any mainstream religion"

 

Wow, that's a brave statement to make.

 

Tell me Director, how many kids do you think one teacher can damage ? Sorta depends on the size of his class doesn't it ?

And the amount of decades that one teacher is allowed to ' teach '.

 

How many lives apart from the actual victim do you think these ' religious ' people affect ?

 

Take off your rose coloured specs and actually see the crippling nature of what is going on. It's like a fucking virus

that spreads out from the victim. It affects the biological family first and then if that victim manages to want to live,

it affects all their life and those they connect with.

 

Which is why I keep trying to get you to elaborate on what you;re talking about...cos I have NO idea at this point.

 

 

 

There is no morality left in organised religion. And yet these Organised religions insist on being treated above the

general law of the land .

 

Yeah I'd hardly go tooting the horn of the virtues of the 'law of the land' as superior to any other laws. And to insist that they be forced over a higher law is even braver. :)

 

 

Nice theory but a) they don't need to get married for that to happen and b) most of them want to adopt or have surrogate babies (It's my RIGHT as a man to have babies!) anyway so the worlds alleged overpopulation problems will not be solved by the gays. :)

 

Most of them huh ? Gees Louise :(

 

What? It must be true, the media harp on about it constantly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Director said : "Which is why I keep trying to get you to elaborate on what you;re talking about...cos I have NO idea at this point."

 

edit : :(

 

edit 2 : I'm done here you can google better than me .Ballarart is a recent beginning for you

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Director said : "Which is why I keep trying to get you to elaborate on what you;re talking about...cos I have NO idea at this point."

 

edit : :(

 

edit 2 : I'm done here you can google better than me .Ballarart is a recent beginning for you

Okies, nice chat. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e: "For me this whole thing is about the Churches ( which ever faith ) total lack of morality."


W. Got my UP. I totally agree that man is the inherant problem of 'organized religion.'

Mankind also appears to be the main species depleting resources in such abundance that it will lead to a dead world in short order.


Lack of self disipline with the inabillity to pass on what little wisdom, knowledge, understanding, truth, visions and dreams we have is one of Western societies problems. Who gets taught self-discipline these days? The only real self discipline to be taught nowdays would be in military schools or educational facilities that produce the worlds finest specialized engineers.

The problem with most governments is that they don't want to get involved with the issues that are dividing, destroying or, more is the case, of benefit to the nation.



(Some people also get struck down in a dazzling moment of lucidity and manage to recognize the difference between 'right' and 'wrong'("What is Truth?"). Honest Intropspection is a starting point).




e. "There is no morality left in organised religion. And yet these Organised religions insist on being treated above the

general law of the land ."

W.Yep. Just like the government that you allow to rule over you. Say "Baaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaa..."





e. "It's [the world, if my understanding o context is not mistaken] beset with people whose greed and lack of humanity is

always top priority."

W. Mentioned something about this earlier... something about sin...



.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e. "There is no morality left in organised religion. And yet these Organised religions insist on being treated above the
general law of the land ."
W.Yep. Just like the government that you allow to rule over you. Say "Baaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaa..."

I never said anything good about the government. Not once. :) And I'll only think about saying " "Baaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaa..."

after you, maybe, maybe not.

 

I simply said and say that Organised religions are corporations, with, imo, no right to claim special moral privilege.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No; it's not.

If you so firmly believe you are misunderstood, then perhaps you should put in a little more effort explaining yourself. Making prima facie statements like "X is wrong." "God." etc, try writing a paragraph or so explaining why you believe this is the case, and the evidence you used to arrive at this conclusion.

 

You will continue to meet dismissal and ridicule unless you do us all this favour, fajw. Nobody on this forum is exempt from making at least the TINIEST, TINIEST bit of effort to add weight to the point they are making, particularly when pressed on it.

 

So I put it to you again.

 

Yes. Your argument is tautological. You say its godliness comes from "accurate prophecy". Who established that the accuracy of a document is an attribute that constitutes godliness?

 

It's godly because it's accurate, what makes something godly?

 

By the metric of accurate prophecy, the papers written by Peter Higgs et al in 1964 must be incredibly godly, as they accurately predicted prophecised the existence of the eponymous boson decades before they had the equipment to test for its existence. Einstein must be holier than the pope for all the phenomena he accurately predicted prophecised.

 

So perhaps you can explain, in your own words (without using a copy-paste), and in more than just a few of them, exactly what you meant.

 

Have a go! Just a few sentences mate!

Edited by SquallStrife
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

e. "There is no morality left in organised religion. And yet these Organised religions insist on being treated above the
general law of the land ."
W.Yep. Just like the government that you allow to rule over you. Say "Baaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaa..."

I never said anything good about the government. Not once. :) And I'll only think about saying " "Baaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaa..."

after you, maybe, maybe not.

 

I simply said and say that Organised religions are corporations, with, imo, no right to claim special moral privilege.

 

My apologies for the tongue-in-cheek.
Lost on the audience.
The reference was to Messrs Bob Guccione, Gore Vidal and Tinto Brass' movie Caligula, and related more to subjugating oneself to the powers that be while secretly desiring to singularly surpass their rule & malevolent power.
Could you please enlighten me on the the type of person who has the "right to claim special moral privilege?"
If such are walking the planet right now then we really need to employ them in government & teaching roles.
.
Edited by A.S.Wolfe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

e. "There is no morality left in organised religion. And yet these Organised religions insist on being treated above the
general law of the land ."
W.Yep. Just like the government that you allow to rule over you. Say "Baaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaa..."

I never said anything good about the government. Not once. :) And I'll only think about saying " "Baaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaa..."

after you, maybe, maybe not.

 

I simply said and say that Organised religions are corporations, with, imo, no right to claim special moral privilege.

 

My apologies for the tongue-in-cheek.
Lost on the audience.
The reference was to Messrs Bob Guccione, Gore Vidal and Tinto Brass' movie Caligula, and related more to subjugating oneself to the powers that be while secretly desiring to singularly surpass their rule & malevolent power.
Could you please enlighten me on the the type of person who has the "right to claim special moral privilege?"
If such are walking the planet right now then we really need to employ them in government & teaching roles.
.

 

I did get, or at least assumed your tongue-in-cheek . :P~

 

No. Not only am I short on enlightenment, I also don't believe ' moral privilege ' is a thing.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D:

 

Relevence was exactly that - slippery slopes are fear mongering. 'Natural order of the universe' and 'God said so' are meaningless (we know SFA about the Universe, and 'God said so' is fraught with a plethora of assumptions even as mundane as whether God really said that or people just think God said that). SSM is not ok because... an interpretation of a book told you so? A bunch of old conservative cultures didn't like it either? And yet drugs are ok because you like them.

Not to sound dismissive, I just don't share the axioms your assumptions are built upon.

I don't see Churches being forced into it, because it's becoming easier to get exemptions from the anti-discrimination act. And even if they are, well, they just have to put up some more hoops to hide the real reason they're saying no. Just like any other company that employs people and deals with customers.

This line you want to enforce is implicitly enforcing the political will of Churchgoers on non-religious folk.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D:

 

Relevence was exactly that - slippery slopes are fear mongering. 'Natural order of the universe' and 'God said so' are meaningless (we know SFA about the Universe, and 'God said so' is fraught with a plethora of assumptions even as mundane as whether God really said that or people just think God said that). SSM is not ok because... an interpretation of a book told you so? A bunch of old conservative cultures didn't like it either? And yet drugs are ok because you like them.

 

Not to sound dismissive, I just don't share the axioms your assumptions are built upon.

 

 

I don't see Churches being forced into it, because it's becoming easier to get exemptions from the anti-discrimination act. And even if they are, well, they just have to put up some more hoops to hide the real reason they're saying no. Just like any other company that employs people and deals with customers.

 

This line you want to enforce is implicitly enforcing the political will of Churchgoers on non-religious folk.

 

 

 

'Natural order of the universe' and 'God said so' are meaningless...

 

Lols. Well I guess you;re entitled to your POV, from my POV everything BUT those things are meaningless.

 

 

 

SSM is not ok because... an interpretation of a book told you so? A bunch of old conservative cultures didn't like it either?

 

I never mentioned any book nor old conservative cultures. At least my 'assumptions' are not 'imaginings'. :)

 

 

 

And yet drugs are ok because you like them.

 

I don;t see that there is a moral component to 'drugs' at all. And I REALLY don't see anyone lobbying to force people to accept them. The only lobbying in that regard is to stop the persecution of people who CHOOSE to use them. The comparison between drugs and SSM simply isn't here. If you're trying to point out any personal inconsistencies I miught have then that isn't working either because as I say, the two topics are not related.

 

 

 

Not to sound dismissive, I just don't share the axioms your assumptions are built upon.

 

That's OK, I see that you have your own so, like, fair enough.

 

 

 

I don't see Churches being forced into it, because it's becoming easier to get exemptions from the anti-discrimination act.

 

Can post links if you like, of course they wont be from here as we haven't passed ze legislation yet, but like, everywhere else Churches, ministers, priests are being persecuted over this issue DESPITE the prior promises of politicians.

 

 

 

 

And even if they are, well, they just have to put up some more hoops to hide the real reason they're saying no.

 

And why the hell should they have to?

 

 

 

Just like any other company that employs people and deals with customers.

 

lols, mere rhetoric. They are Churches (or synagogues, or mosques or temples) and attendees. Not companies and customers. Nice try though.

 

 

 

This line you want to enforce is implicitly enforcing the political will of Churchgoers on non-religious folk.

 

Now we're just getting into BS territory. No one in the Church is FORCING non-religious folk to do anything. If people WANT to attend Church then are welcome to, but the Church/Synagogue/Mosque has RULES and if you don't like those rules then don't join the group...join another one that better suits your needs. And why would non-religious folk want anything to do with religious groups anyway?

 

So basically, as I keep repeating, have your SS relationship and have it legally protected, if that's what you 'really' want (*wink wink*) but stop trying to force your morality down everyone else's throat, because you really hate it if we try to do that to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we're just getting into BS territory. No one in the Church is FORCING non-religious folk to do anything.

The implication is that church-based groups are lobbying and protesting to prevent SSM becoming a thing. To my mind, that's forcing attempting to force the broader community to adhere to the church group's rules.

 

stop trying to force your morality down everyone else's throat, because you really hate it if we try to do that to do.

Chicken and the egg bro. It's all reactionary.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now we're just getting into BS territory. No one in the Church is FORCING non-religious folk to do anything.

The implication is that church-based groups are lobbying and protesting to prevent SSM becoming a thing. To my mind, that's forcing attempting to force the broader community to adhere to the church group's rules.

 

stop trying to force your morality down everyone else's throat, because you really hate it if we try to do that to do.

Chicken and the egg bro. It's all reactionary.

 

'Maybe' as far I understand it the marriage rules are already there and are independent of 'the Church' as they apply to all people equally. So it's not like the 'Church' has this new rule that it's trying to force on everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do kind of understand what you mean about legislating for it being a bit rough, and there's a few extremists, but there's no real separation of church and state anyway, lets not kid ourselves.

Churches have crashed waves over almost everything that they should just stay out of, but you object to what Squall says about it being more a reaction.

I feel that the churches are indefinsible over this, even if it feels like a "yeah, well now it's OUR turn!" kind of thing. - Which I heavily object to when I see views expressed by extreme third wave feminists about turning the world on it's head and now oppressing men.

But wait, I don't feel that this is one of those cases where the churches are hard done by, the rest of society is now accepting gays as normal and the same as everyone else, if churches are so tied up in the law and such, they should wear the consequences.

 

I hope that made sense, it's my take on it anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×