Please tell me there are more Atheists out there...

Remove all ads!

Well accepted? That very much depend where. Atleast in here prostitution is legal allthough organized prostitution is illegal and so is advertising it. It's also legal in many other European countries including Germany. So its illegality is not all that well accpeted as you'd think. Personally my main concern with prostitution is the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases and sex slavery. Banning of prostitution would be inefficent anyway so I'd prefer to see us concentrating on cracking down the transportation of sex slaves to us and through us from our eastern neighbour.

 

Why am I doing what? I just stated my two cents and it degenerated into a religion war. You attack my views? That's your damn choice. You say I attack yours? If that's what you want to think, go ahead. I just state my two cents and I piss someone off (except Saber who thinks the way I do, too). I think what I think and if you don't agree with my views, that's your choice. I don't have to agree with yours either.

I've said my piece through and through and there's nothing left to be said. I have my views on the subject, and if it offends someone, too bad. I am done arguing.

 

Also it should be noted that in many places where prostitution is illegal, it's so because it is seen as harmful - not to one's "eternal soul", but physically. It can be dangerous for the prostitute and her possible children to deal with pimps and potentially abusive, drug-using, STD-carrying customers. The law might very well originate from religious rules, but it has relevance outside religion. Unlike trampling gays, for instance.

So prostitution *has* other reasons to be banned besides just what religion says. If the Bible or any such book condemns it too, fine. As stated before, separation of church and state means the law makers ignore the Bible and make the judgement calls for themselves, not turning every biblical law around for its own sake.

 

Actually, yes, I would like to see it illegal, but will grant that what concenting adultds do is their business, but they should keep their mockery of that which is, according to the majority, sacred private, which means no gay marriage, no Gay Pride festivals...

Because the Government is supporting the mockery of that which we hold most sacred. There are laws that punish severely vandalism of religious sites, but religious concepts are not protected. You'd probably get a stiff prison term for burning bibles in a public display, but the teachings are not so protected...

 

Any kind of physical vandalism towards something, religious site or not, is and should be illegal.

I think you missed the "as for others"-part. The first sentence in your response above is clearly an opinion of a religious person. I and many non-religious people don't think of traditional marriage as "sacred" in the way religious people do. We're running in circles again...

Don't get me wrong - I think it's a noble idea to devote to one person only, and with the right person I'd do the same thing, perhaps not through a ceremony in a church, but the idea would be similar. I don't see any reason not to let gay people do the same thing.

In some places gays can have a "civil wedding" - making their relationship official in the legal sense, without a church or priest or god involved in any way. I think that's a good solution, save for one thing: a civil wedding doesn't grant the same judicial rights as a religious church wedding.

 

Your argument can easilly be looked at the other way: what if the (perceived, seeing you don't actually have any evidence for your claims) majority believed that practicing Christianity - even in private - was offensive to their beliefs and thus it should be banned? By your logic here you should support such a move.

Of course, your view as I see it turns into tyranny by the majority (and even then: you still haven't proved it is a majority). What's the point in democracy if you aren't actually free to choose for yourself?

If we can dictate what's done in private by consenting adults - next can we dicate the necessary thoughts which should be made if the majority is against them?

 

Good points, Aikanaro. I'm assuming they're directed at Gnarf's previous argument.

One thing that got me thinking was the argument made before that religion is just like science in that it can be misused to suit someone's selfish desires.

However I think they differ in that the good that has been achieved by science couldn't have been achieved without it. What good religion has brought, could very well have been brought about without any kind of organized, easily misused religion at all. I'm referring to my previous arguments that people can and many do have strong ethics and morals even though they're not religious.

I've got a new example of the harmful effects religion can have. Anybody ever read about James Hetfield's mother? She was a member of a faith that didn't believe in medical science. She got cancer, but refused medical treatment, believing that faith would cure her.

It didn't.

 

Exactly: Are gay people harming *you* when they perform *sinful acts*? If you believe they are sinning, then, yes, they are sinning. But they are hurting no one. I wasn't aware that doing things that were harmless were illegal. But, in anycase, this thread isn't about homosexuality, although it is impossible now to go back to what it was...

 

I can only offer an old college joke: " I used to pray to God, until He fell off the mantle and broke."

 

No, I didn't. By the "as for others" part, it would mean that it is bad for a Jewish person to paint Swastikas all over a synagogue, but that doesn't apply to people outside the Jewish faith. That's a crock of . As you put it:

So are you putting the rights of others ahead of those that would commit Vandalism? If so, then you and I are just haggling over where the line ought be drawn.

Because that is publicly defacing something most sacred to Christianity. Marriage, to Christians, is very sacred. To extend this to Gays outright mocks that which we hold most sacred. It, to us, is the same as if you had defaced our churches with evil symbols. If they want to have gay sex, so be it, but don't throw it in our face.

First off, here in the west, people have died for the right to practice religion, and if you tried to outlaw it, many would still fight to the death to preserve or regain that right. We were given that right first, and if extending that right to other minorities can't be done without violating previously granted rights, then it ought not be granted. When the Government changed the definition of Marriage (here in Canada), they have attempted to supercede religious doctrine, which IIRC is a under the separation of Church and State...

They are free to choose, but this does not obligate government to condone these choices. A person's sexual relations are, ultimately, their own business, but the State should not legitimize something which, by their founding principles, is highly immoral.

Actually, Religion teaches people to look out for others, and to think of the greater good, rather than one's own selfish desires. Religion influences most moral codes more than people realize...

Faith is not about superceding God's will, but accepting it. Faith, in that case, was not meant to cure her cancer, but to make her comfortable when the end drew near. While I do not believe in refusal of medical treatment, some religions do. If she was comforted by the notion that she would some day return to a loving Heavenly Father, and was not afraid as the time drew near, then Faith did it's job.

No more than the KKK is harming people by burning crosses on their front lawn. It desecrates what people hold sacred, and thus there is a case against it. Gay Marriage mocks what we consider to be sacred, thus it shouldn't be allowed. I know that genie can't be put back in ght bottle, that's why I hope that the faithful will remember that betrayal whent he next election rolls around.

 

I hope I never have to die.

 

I don't know if someone else has also brought that argument up, but since I used the same one earlier in this thread I'll take the bait.

It's very hard to completely separate ethics from religion. As I said before, I'm agnostic yet I have my personal sense of ethics, which is completely unrelated to any religion or religious belief (or any other kind of faith for that matter). Can I say that I developed this sense of ethics without any outside influence? I don't think so. After all, I did grow up with religious people around me. My father's from a Muslim background and my mother from a Christian background, though neither of them is religious. However, their families are religious, and when you're around eight or ten years old those things do have an influence. It may very well be that my sense of ethics isn't as religion-independent as I think it is. In fact this is maybe a "good thing" that I could not have developed had I not had this exposure to religion in my youth.

I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't hold. This is exactly identical to the argument used by religious extremists to wipe out everyone else. If someone from another religion came and said that your religion mocks what he considers to be sacred, then your religion should not be allowed? I don't think so.

Yes. And so is it to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and just about most polytheistic religions that were there several thousands years before Christianity.

If something is sacred to you, that does not mean you have the right to monopolize it. I can perfectly understand that you, as a Christian holding Christian Marriage to be sacred, would be repelled by the idea of Gay Christian Marriage. After all, it is in a way "your" marriage. However, that's absolutely no excuse for actively preventing homosexuals from having a civil marriage. Which, in my opinion, is yet another argument for separation of Church and State.

Nobody's talking about violating your right to marriage. Unless you consider granting that right to anyone that's different from you to be a violation, at which point once again you're monopolizing something that's not yours to exclusively take.

 

I can burn a billion crosses if i wish, as long as I do it on my own property, and no one can do anything about it. Completely legal.

And just because something mocks you doesn't mean it should be illegal. If I made fun of you, I wouldn't be arrested, now would I? Yes, it might be rude, but legal nonetheless.

And marriage does not solely belong to you Christians. As Ziad said, many other religions practice it. If all of those religions (not sure exactly which ones, look at his post for exact religions) can do it, why can't anyone do it?

In the end, we are looking at equality. Heterosexual people can marry, so homosexual people should be allowed to marry. It is the same as if you say that only one group of people (say, men) can vote. It isn't fair, now is it? If one group of people has rights, so should the rest.

 

An attack is an attack. While it may be tempting to excuse one because no harm is intended, that doesn't hold in my book. Whether you attack out of malice or selfishness, you have still attacked.

While I have no authority to speak for those faiths, I believe that they too hold marriage sacred, and Gay marriage would mock their idea of marriage too.

Then why must it be marriage? Rights to gay couples is one thing. If a commonlaw relationship grants certain rights under the law, then the State can extend those rights to gay couples without trampling on the church. But when Marriage, a concept that predates any state in it's current form, suddenly that does place it in the church's hands. Doesn't seperation of Church and State mean that the State stays out of the Church's business?

My reference implied that it was not on their own property, but on public ground or the front lawn of those they seek to intimidate or offend.

Call me a fool, I'll likely assume the same opinion of you. If you have read what I say, and come to that opinion, then I've earned it. But to offend or mock a whole group for no particular reason other than you find that group distasteful is prohibited in some ways. If someone came in with a string of racial slurs, the Mods would likely at least warn them, if not throw them out. Many countries have laws that prohibit such behaviour. It is those laws that I appeal to.

Anyone can marry any person of the opposite gender that will concent to the union. Extending this to homosexual unions is the State meddling in the Church's business. When the state usurped marriage from religion, they overstepped the bounds of Seperation of Church and State...

 

Okay, this is getting wholly off-topic (remember the Atheists?), so I'll try my best to simply wrap this up.

• Gay Civil Unions (provided they have the same rights as hetero unions): yes
• Gay Marriage (apparently the wording matters): no

front lawn = private property

They can burn the cross in the street for all I care, but I, for one, would hit the gas pedal instead of the brake.

 

Pretentious:

From my viewpoint, claiming membership in a religion demands you fit this definition.

 

The only problem with blanketing all religious people with labels like that is I know too many who aren't pretentious to do so. It's fine when you're using theoretical people, but when using actual people such statements tend to fall apart.

During the school holidays when I had no contact with my religious friends, I thought a lot like that. After re-establishing contact with them, that dropped off. So: while in my view Christianity sucks, Christians do not necessarily need to.

Of course, some do - and I know a bunch of those as well.

 

only just noticed this thread... well i would lable myself an atheist... but i'm only young, so that might change drastically as such things tend to do...

 

She believed faith would cure her. And as the story goes, her final days were very painful. On a mental level she may have been comforted by her faith, but without it she probably would be alive today.

I can understand the church forbidding gay marriage, understanding and accepting being different concepts, but the kind of attitude that gays should just stay in the closet to keep religious people happy...?

Do you eat pork? Muslims and Jews find such a habit sinful and disgusting, so should it be outlawed? No eating bacon in public, because others can be offended?

I don't think you'll find many members of said faiths who would support such a motion (fundamentalists excluded), but the logic is the same as with wishing there'd be no Gay Pride festivals. It's an issue of one party's views being forced upon the other, based on nothing but the other side taking offense. Deeming that one side's views are somehow more valid than the other's.

The thing is that marriage is not only the church's business. There are legal issues, such as the spouse inheriting the other upon death.

Right on. I would pay extra attention to the "provided they have the same rights"-part. Civil unions don't, for the time being, give those same rights.

I think it would be a good idea to keep the legal things in marriage completely separate from religious things. That you could make legal contracts about distributing the property etc. just like with marriage, even without a church wedding or belonging to any faith. And that a church wedding wouldn't automatically mean such contracts, that they'd be done separately if so chosen, and the religious ritual would be just that - a religious ritual.