Bigots, Idiots, and Hypocrites

I'm pro-gay marriage, and anyone who disagrees with me is evil.

« View full article »

Comments

Comment View Threshold:

00fil00, on 11/26/2009 5:55:16 AM
Total Posts: 38, Joined: 8/22/2006

How dare you quincy say that atheism is a religion. Please explain yourself how that's even possible. The only people who think that are so used to being inside a box they don't understand what it's like to be outside it.

Atheism is a lack of belief. Religion is a belief. We don't all go at lights-out to lack-of-belief parties or even talk about it, because there is nothing to talk about. People who are so used to believing in something can't even imagine life without it so presume people that don't believe follow the same life but in opposite.
It is the same if i said you didn't believe in purple hedgehogs then accused you of being in a gang that is against purple hedgehogs. The truth is, you've never even thought about purple hedgehogs, they don't enter your life as you go around walmart, you don't even remember the last time you were made to think of a purple hedgehog. How does that box me into a religion if it doesn't enter my life? In this same stupid argument dogs are part of this atheist religion too and all the tribes in the jungles that have only heard tales of white man and their god with a beard. Of course they aren't suddenly going to start believing in this beard guy but does that suddenly ship them into the same non-believing religion where we all apparently communicate and plot together? Why can't you people understand that going about your daily business without a care does not make you some sort of gang member who is anti religion.

Atheism is the lack of belief, ie. nothingness. You can't say outer space is solid mass in the same way you can't contradict and say not believing is religious.

And on another note, you assholes are so self obsessed and stupid. you are having a debate on gay marriage which is a universal topic but then bring up the constitution as defense. The constitution only affects America, which is only 1 small country out of 195 in the world. You would do the same if it was on famine, I know you would. Don't you see how undereducated you guys are where you know nothing of the outside world and have to use your own government's system to justify world topics. I guess I blame your schools. They make you do reports on Abraham Lincoln and shit when the rest of us are actually learning about Vikings, Romans and the history of everything.

I'm sick of reading American shit on shoutwire such as insulting people who don't agree with you as republicans and liberals and stuff. You're all so ignorant you probably think republican actually means something as a word to the rest of the world. The rest of us reading don't even know what you're talking about, we don't call parties by the same words you'll be SHOCKED to know. You're on the internet now, people from all over the world read this, try to grow up and have courtesy in the same way that I wouldn't go to Japan and expect them to understand if I started calling them douchebags. It's just fucking pathetic when during an argument someone calls someone else "oh I bet your a republican with words like that" not even knowing if they are American. Can't you see how dumb you look to the rest of the world that all you know and can relate to is inside your little walls?

| Comment Score: Excellent | Edit Comment

MAnCHild, on 11/26/2009 7:41:19 AM
Total Posts: 322, Joined: 9/10/2009

digitalantichrist wrote:

MAnCHild wrote:

digitalantichrist wrote:
^
Leviticus 18:22
But, interpretation may rely on context.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm

Tha
nks for the quote but I thought Leviticus was part of the Old Testament?
If so, anything from the New Testament?

lol, is it really that important, one part of a fairytale has about as much credibility as another, right? ;)

Still... I would like to know if there is any such quote in the New testament

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

MAnCHild, on 11/26/2009 7:42:32 AM
Total Posts: 323, Joined: 9/10/2009

Deadmanspoint wrote:
@ joeblows521 & NormanSmiley

You two now have the power to submit editorials yourselves if you wish.

...

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

Immaculate1, on 11/26/2009 11:23:47 AM
Total Posts: 8008, Joined: 7/16/2006

calvinien wrote:

The procreation ideal hasn't been a part of it in a good long time.

^ You're fucking joking, right?

| Comment Score: Trash | Edit Comment

joeblow521, on 11/26/2009 8:33:35 PM
Total Posts: 5, Joined: 4/11/2009

@00fil00

This is kinda nitpicking, yes the U.S. is 1 country, though at nearly 4 million square miles with a population of over 300 million it isn't small. We're the third or fourth by land mass and third by population. Our 2008 GDP was 1/5 of the worlds. Though our economy is in a down turn, our currency in a free fall, and our political system facing a civil unrest not seen since the 1960s, we're still a big kid on the block. That's beside the point though.

Though the classification of certain subregions is contested the North American continent is primarily dominated by three countries. Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. North America encompasses roughly 16% of the worlds and mass, it's combined population roughly 1/12th of the planets, but it only represents about 1.5% of it's total countries.

While the U.S. has one of the most culturally diverse populations on the planet what we're predominately exposed to is the quintessential American culture. The U.S is extremely isolated by it's size and location. We have only 2 bordering countries. Canada, whose culture while varied, is relatively similar to ours, plus we share a common language. It's entire population is equal to that of New York, just one of our states. So, not much "worldly" exposure there. Mexico to our south, only borders 4 of our 50 states, and while it's cultural influence can be readily seen to influence those states and much of the southwest it's biggest impact ends there. It's far more common for people in those states to speak spanish because of their exposure to it. The west coast, the mid west, the south and the east coast have a much more diluted exposure though.

So you're right, the everyday people of the united states do tend to take an isolationist viewpoint on most topics, but it's largely because.... it's just us here. From any point in the United States it's more than a days travel by car to get anywhere that isn't Mexico or Canada. Now I could be wrong here I admit, but I'm under the impression that central america, like mexico has a dominantly Latin culture/population. So that leaves South America as our only choice for exposure to more European and African thinking, which isn't exactly easy to get to by car, much less by car in a day or two, which leaves plane or boat travel, both of which can be prohibitively expensive. So, that further limits our exposure to other countries and their cultures. Honestly it's to be expected that we don't always think globally, though maybe not ideal.

However, you seem to be upset about us citing the Constitution in terms of the banning or legalization of gay marriage in the U.S. Forgive us. We should of course have used a hodgepodge of all legal doctrine from every other country to determine our stance on it. Though the laws of Africa, Europe, Asia, Austrailia, and South America have no legal standing in our country we were remiss in not including them in our quest to determine what our own laws allow....

The debate over gay marriage at it's core is a legal debate. Morality, religion yada yada yada all come into play when discussing it but in the end it will be a legal resolution. In the end (if the debate ever does end) the determination will be either yes it is legal, or no it isn't legal (with of course variations on a state level), so of course we are going to cite OUR OWN CONSTITUTION! Whatever happens when the U.S. comes to a conclusion of the gay marriage debate it will affect the legality of the U.S. and only the U.S. in legal terms. Yes this is a global issue, but one that has to be decided (in legal terms) by each country. And only the grandest of idiots would make a decision like this based on what the countries bordering you did, not deciding for yourself, not examining your own conscience, but bowing to consensus. If all the other countries jumped of a bridge would you?

I've had numerous friends from Europe visit me here in the states and they are always so surprised how polite people usually are, how walking down the street is a far different experience than what they expected, or how interested the majority of people are when they know they are from somewhere else. I've also been over to Europe fairly regularly and people are often surprised by me, saying I do not fit their predetermination of what an "American" would be like. The global view of America is too often based on the actions of our politicians, and an accurate portrayal of our people is filtered out. Many of us embrace other cultures and try to experience as much of them as we can, sure we have our share of xenophobes, but name me one country that doesn't. You're upset that we use our own constitution in reference to a legal matter, get over yourself. We will decide our laws, we will determine our own future, we will choose the best course of governance for our people and we will not be reduced to a quivering mass swaying to will of the shifting global winds. We have our choice to make, and you have yours, don't let someone else make it for you. Quit thinking that the world has to come together in unison for something to be decided, our differences are a vital part of our identities, but mostly, quit being such a snob, and blow it out your ass.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

quincy0191, on 11/27/2009 12:50:05 AM
Total Posts: 907, Joined: 4/14/2006

@00fil00:

Atheism is a religion in the same sense that theism is a religion: they are both an unverifiable belief regarding the supernatural. Atheism is not institutionalized the way that most religions are, but it is still a religion in the same way that any theism is a religion. The lack of a belief is a belief; it's a belief that there is a lack. That's a little confusing; it's easier to think about it this way: you don't have any ability to prove that God doesn't exist any more than any religious person has the ability to prove that God does exist, therefore you are just as religious as they are in the sense that you hold an unprovable (and simultaneously un-debunkable?...can't find the right word) belief. The key is to draw a line between religion and institutionalized religion; they are not always the same thing.

And I wrote this from the American perspective because I am American and this is a prominent issue in America. It applies to foreign countries in a couple senses: first, since America is the most influential nation on the planet, what we do matters to everyone else (this effect has been increasing exponentially as globalization increases). Second, the basic documents regarding democratic government in foreign countries are largely based on our Constitution, which in turn takes its cues from ancient Greece/Rome and the Magna Carta, and if our equal rights provisions so starkly contrast our practices there's a good bet yours do too. Third, whatever your country's stance on gay marriage, you probably agree with a large percentage of the American people on a divisive issue, and our arguments and debates likely transplant fairly well to your situation. I know there have been plenty of policy debates regarding Canada or the UK that have been significant for US residents as well.

@joeblow:

I don't have time to write a detailed rebuttal because of Thanksgiving social obligations, so you'll have to wait until Monday. I know how much you want my feedback; I'll edit this post when I can write a worthy response.

EDIT:

It's a new comment, no reason to write it here as well.

| Comment Score: Trash | Edit Comment

digitalantichrist, on 11/27/2009 3:33:41 AM
Total Posts: 595, Joined: 6/24/2006

^ Quincy I usually agree with you, but on atheism, I don't. The lack of a hobby is not a hobby. The lack of belief, is not a belief.

Atheism is the rejection of indefensible theistic claims, or the absence of theism, nothing more.

http://atheism.about.com/od/mythdefiningatheism/a/LackBelief.htm

I think you're a wee bit guilty of fuzzying up the argument by confering only one definition on the term 'belief', and you confer the religious definition. You define belief in terms of faith. Others may define belief as a psychological state where a given proposition is said to be true.

I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. Does this somehow make me a sun worshipper? Is it a religious belief? Shurely not. My belief is based on evidence.

I don't believe in deities because, as a social scientist, I enjoy studying anthropology and through it, the emergence of human culture. Anthropology (and sociology) gives us great insights into the development of creation myths and their associated deities. Once you trace back the root of one supreme being to that of a simple regional mountain or wind god, then you find yourself coming to the dawning realisation of how insanely primitive the belief in deities is.

We are all (pretty much) atheists with regard to Woden, we dismiss him without much thought as a mythical figure, this does not constitute a religious belief, simply the rejection of an outdated theistic claim. It may even be argued upon a basis of evidence.

If Woden, or Thor, or Eros were real, surely we'd still be aware of their presence in the same way that the ancients seemingly were? Or could it be that the stories we know of these gods are myths and allegories? If once much worshipped deities and the acts attributed to them are now seen as amusingly quaint flights of fancy, then why not take that stance with the remaining deities?

All atheism is is the rejection of the deistic concept. The difference between atheists and Christians is one God. If you're happy enough to reject the Norse pantheon of Gods, then why not go that one step further and reject the other remaining Gods? If you don't, then you're guilty of a double standard. If you reject all the other Gods, but not this one Judeo-Christian god (who shares the same weight of evidence as Norse, Greek, Hindu and Roman Gods), then you're not being intellectually rigourous.

If you stick to your guns and say 'No, I believe in the Jewish/Christian God', then you'd better be willing to fill the sky up with the other pantheons, and while you're at it, the demons, wood sprites, trolls and giants that come with them. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite, applying one rule to your God, and another rule to others. Afterall, there's about as much evidence for the god Uranus, or Cronus, as there is for Jehovah.

My rejection of theistic claims is based on historical and anthropoligical evidence (as well as a Laplacian viewpoint). If this is religion, then you've conferred an almost universal meaning on the term.

ha, I just realised I could have used the term 'catholic' in that last sentence ;)

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

quincy0191, on 11/30/2009 12:37:30 AM
Total Posts: 910, Joined: 4/14/2006

@joeblow:

I made this a new comment because I'm a lying liar from Liarsville and to ensure you read it by upping the comment count.

Okay, I got the whole "homosexuality is a sin" thing already. And I don't dismiss your beliefs; you can believe whatever the hell you want (which I've said a couple times now). And you acknowledge that you can't have a logical argument with someone who believes in illogical things, and God is the mother (father?) of all illogical things. So I see no value in trying to convince you that religion is ridiculous, because I can't. You've basically said I can't. Unlike you, I can be convinced that religion isn't ridiculous; if I experienced firsthand an act of God, one which defied natural law as I know it, and which others shared (ensuring it was not a hallucination) I would believe in the supernatural. That hasn't happened, so there's no reason to believe in things not seen. You should look up the Russell's Teapot argument; it's one of the best arguments against religion in my opinion. And the idea that transcending logic is a good thing is insane; logic is the most objective judgment system we have, and therefore the best way to assess whether something is valuable or not. Logic takes the decision away from our unreliable emotions and towards our reliable reason. And the idea that a lack of understanding should be accepted is equally insane; where would we be as a human race if Newton never wondered why the apple fell on his head, or if Franklin never wondered about those bright lights in the sky, or if Ignaz Semmelweiss never wondered why the mortality rates at one maternity clinic were so much lower than another? Questioning the unknown leads to discovery, which generally leads in good directions, and the fact that you're not worried about starving or dying of smallpox can be attributed to the people who followed through on their curiosity. And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like going back to the hunter-gatherer state.

The morality issue, which you glossed over a little too quickly, is rather important because you consider homosexuality immoral. Well, who are you to say what's immoral? You're not God, and the only evidence you have to support the idea that homosexuality is immoral is a vague interpretation of a centuries-old text (when they certainly weren't tolerant of blacks or Jews or pagans, so why would they be tolerant of gays, especially when gays don't have tons of kids to spread their faith, and that's basically the game they're in?) and the feeling that it's wrong. Well, emotions are notoriously unreliable, and as you pointed out, not everyone believes in the same moral code, which would seem to indicate that there isn't an objective morality. You can say that the people who believe in different moral codes are "broken" somehow, and that's why they are that way, but again who are you to decide that your code is right and theirs is wrong? That's essentially the problem I have with declaring homosexuality "immoral"; nothing is moral or immoral because of a system of objective morality that we're all born with, things are moral or immoral because of a system of subjective (and therefore irrelevant) morality that has evolved over time to suit the needs of the social species human. We don't steal or kill or cheat not because it's "wrong", but because we are told it's wrong, and we are told it's wrong because social animals (which we are) need to have a foundation of trust to be able to function, and those actions break that foundation, so the idea that they are okay has been slowly weeded out. This subjectivity means that the moral code can be, and is, broken at any time for any reason, or no reason, and religion is a great example of this: how many heathens have been murdered in the name of religion, when religion says murdering is wrong? How many warriors of God killed and stolen and raped and been downright evil both in the name of religion and because doing whatever evil thing happened to suit the particular purpose they had at that time? Morality is negotiable, it all depends on who is doing what. So there's no reason why other people should be denied rights because you believe what they're doing is immoral, especially if they're not hurting anyone.

You clearly also want to delve deep into the analysis of my choice of titles, and I don't think it's going to end well for you. Let's start with "bigot". You ARE "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices". You've already said that you believe what you believe, and you would be hard pressed to change. That's obstinate. And you've pointed out that you would change your belief if God came down and said you were wrong, but there's a pretty low chance of that happening, and if nothing short of divine intervention will change your mind, I'd say that's obstinate. Perhaps there's a difference of opinion there, but requiring personal guidance from God to change your mind seems stubborn. There are few things more irrational than religion, so cross that off. And you certainly harbor animosity; maybe not as much as some, but enough to believe that these people ARE immoral (they don't choose to be) and that they should not enjoy the same rights as others, through no fault of their own. That seems to me like animosity. Also, you say that you aren't comparing homosexuality to murder, just after you do precisely that. Saying that because you don't have to accept murder as an appropriate action to love your neighbor, therefore you're not violating the commandment when you don't accept murder, and then saying that you don't have to accept homosexuality as an appropriate action to love your neighbor, therefore you're not violating the commandment is comparing homosexuality to murder. And being gay isn't a choice, it's not something you decide, just like being straight isn't a choice. Murder is a choice. They're not the same. And that's hypocrisy.

And how is religion not like slavery or racism or eugenics in the "just because people believe in it doesn't make it right" sense? You say that just because 92% of the world is religious, religion is credible. You ignore that there are a wide variety of religions, a wide variety of denominations within religions, and a wide variety of personal beliefs within denominations, but that doesn't even matter. I'm not saying that religion has no credibility, I'm saying exactly what I said: just because a bunch of people believe it doesn't make it right. I'm not saying it ISN'T right, I don't know whether it's right or not (and neither do you). And I'm not saying that every religious person is an idiotic hypocritical bigot (though in my experience, many are). I just said that YOU are. And there's considerable evidence to support that theory. Please, please stop arguing against what you think I'm saying and argue against what I am saying. I'm not using any euphemisms or employing any subtext or implying anything; I'm saying exactly what I mean and nothing else.

Gays must adhere to your values because you are limited their actions through your belief system. You believe that homosexuality is immoral. Fine. Believe that, whatever, I don't care. But when you say that gays can't get married because you believe that homosexuality is immoral, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE, you are forcing your value system on them. Gay marriage isn't hurting anyone. It's not devaluing heterosexual marriage. No one is going to force you to marry anyone. You can be as against gay marriage as you want UNTIL IT STARTS TO INTERFERE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. That's the way every opinion works; white supremacists can hate everyone as much as they want until they start going out and doing things. Sure, you didn't explicitly say that gays have to adhere to your values, but by saying what you did say, and holding the beliefs you do, you are forcing them to. They can't do what they want because of what you believe. If they were doing something that could hurt you, then you'd have a point, and that's exactly why they have a point (if you can show me how gay marriage hurts you more than banning gay marriage hurts gays, then I'll amend my system). As for the attack part, you're absolutely right, it is an attack. It's an attack for reasons I've made clear: I think the banning of gay marriage is the worst civil rights violation in our time. It's bad. Very, very bad. And so I'm going to support my beliefs by attacking the beliefs of others; after all, if you have two options, you should go with the one that's less stupid, right? Besides, the post on how gay marriage is right is rather short and simple: the Constitution says you can't discriminate. And that wouldn't have met the 500 word minimum. Also, you should consider the fact that you've done a pretty good job of denigrating me and my writing before you call me an ass who does nothing but attack other people.

Okay, you've got gay friends. Congratulations. And apparently you're really offended when other people insult you or your religion. There's a saying I've heard: cry me a river, build me a bridge, and GET OVER IT. Yeah, it's not particularly tolerant for someone to say your religion is stupid, but I practice tolerance of opinion above all, and thinking that religion is stupid is an opinion. As I've said, I don't care what you believe until it starts to affect me, and when you're casting your vote to ban gay marriage in New York, that's affecting a lot of gay people in New York who want to get married. Expressing your opinion is fine, until it starts to affect people. Voting against gay marriage is asking people to adhere to your values by not allowing them to marry people of the same sex, a value you believe in. Voting for gay marriage, and therefore asking people to adhere to the value that says you should accept gays as equal members of society is also forcing a value on someone, but I'm okay with forcing people to accept others. Having an opinion is amoral, voicing it is an action, which can be considered moral or immoral. I think you should be perfectly free to voice your opinion, except voting is going farther than that, it's putting restrictions on the actions of others depending on your opinion, which is immoral. Does that mean voting is immoral? Yes (in my opinion, of course). It's a necessary immorality, one that holds the fabric of society together, but that doesn't make it moral. I seem to have digressed a bit (and come to a rather startling conclusion), so let's get back on track.

We are guaranteed freedom from religion because it is a necessary bylaw of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means that you can be free to practice whatever religion you choose. When the state makes a law or a decision based on a religion, and then punishes you if you violate it, it is forcing you to adhere to a religious value (or be punished, which is a false choice). If it is forcing you to adhere to a religious value, then it is not permitting you to practice your religion freely, irrespective of whether your religion holds the value anyway. If it is not permitting you to practice your religion freely, it is violating the First Amendment, and therefore its own governing documents. Therefore whenever the government endorses a value FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS it is breaking its own laws, therefore the government can never endorse a religious value, therefore the government must be free of religion. Since this idea is based on the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause, this clause therefore necessarily includes freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion, QED. The ACLU's suit was correct because whether the students were forced to participate or not, a public school (therefore government-run) teacher leading prayer is an endorsement of religion, which the government is not supposed to do. I'm not saying that it should be illegal to pray in a public park, I'm saying that it is illegal to erect religious icons (including the Ten Commandments) on public property, or have government officials publicly endorse religion. It's not about what people do on public land, it's about what the government and its employees do, and they cannot endorse religion. I absolutely believe that all public places should be free of religion; how would you feel if all of a sudden exclusively Jewish icons were erected everywhere, your kids heard a Hindu prayer in school every day, you swore an oath to Muhammed before testifying in a trial. The only reason you feel that the government should be full of religious expression is because you happen to be of a popular religious denomination. As an atheist, I would feel my rights were violated if all of a sudden my government started endorsing a religion. Of course, the government can't regulate private industries' endorsements of religion, or religious institutions' practices (and therefore it can't make Catholic churches marry gays), but when it prevents the legal union of gays in a state marriage for religious reasons it's violating not only the 14th Amendment but the 1st as well.

The black swan was what it was, a plea to not take science as gospel (IRONY!), which I feel people do way too often. They read some study and they think that's the way things are, just because it sounded sciencey, without stopping to realize that the scientific community is never and should never be completely sold on any idea because we're constantly learning new things. The reason I included that last paragraph, which you took completely out of context to try and connect to religion, was because the whole article had a fairly anti-science bias (which it was in some ways supposed to) and I felt it was necessary to point out that people following religious dogma are committing the same error as people who follow scientific dogma. The point of the last paragraph was to balance the article, not to skew it against religion. If you got the wrong impression, sorry, but that was the intent. As for the idea that I made no attempt to account for the gay marriage black swan, let me point out the following things I said in the editorial: "typically fall into one of three categories"; "That's not to say that it doesn't have holes, but I feel these three groupings encompass nearly every person who is against gay marriage and systematically refutes each of them."; "I'd like to hear what you guys can come up with to try and poke holes in it". I was quite careful to never say that these categories encompass every person who's against gay marriage, for precisely the reason that you said: there could be a gay marriage black swan out there, and I shouldn't/can't presuppose its nonexistence.

You disagree with me, fine. If you can't take a little belittling (teehee), I think you should never write on the Internet, because you'd spend the rest of your life crying in a corner. In fact, you probably shouldn't go out of the house, in case someone tells you you're not perfect. If you don't like the way I argue, that's fine too. But in my experience (and when it comes to debate, my experience is pretty damned good), the best way to refute someone else's argument is to belittle it. If you can make their point seem silly, stupid, or insane, then you've pretty much won (unless they can do the same or better). The idea that I write polarizing diatribes which don't further discussion is something of a paradox unless the community is entirely inactive, which it isn't. And it's pretty clear that you generally don't like what I write, which is fine by me, because I don't write it for you to like it, I write it for you to think about it. I want to present an idea which may or may not agree with what you believe, to force you to do some thinking about why you believe it. I've clearly accomplished my goal here. And I could launch into a paragraph about how you're an awful writer who should be kept away from any means of literary expression, but I don't believe that, and I don't believe in lying about my beliefs (or do I?).

I would really encourage you to write an editorial of your own, about anything, if only to go through the process of it. DMP's given you ed powers, so the only thing stopping you is you. Find an issue, figure out what you believe, write it down, and post it. I'm confident that you'll be surprised at what comes out, and how you deal with dissenters.

This also signals the last of my comments here unless someone finds a way to break my system (which you certainly didn't, joeblow). Gotta work on new stuff for you to hate.

| Comment Score: Trash | Edit Comment

joeblow521, on 12/6/2009 9:51:51 PM
Total Posts: 7, Joined: 4/11/2009

I'm only going to address a few points cause that's all I feel like, and since you've stated you won't be commenting here any more I guess I can rebut your last post at my leisure.

You say that morality is subjective, how it has been changed to fit the shifting views of society. While the latter part may be true I don't think it proves the first to be true. Morality is for the most part fixed. Just because society chooses to change it to suit their needs doesn't mean it actually changes. It's because of this "subjectivity" you see that you think the moral code can be and is broken at anytime for any reason, but the case is the same with objective morality because morality is based on free will, the choice to follow a moral code or ignore it. This also applies to your point about warriors of God murdering heathens in the name of a religion that says murder is wrong. Yes that's hypocrisy, but it doesn't change the fact that murder is immoral. A terrorist act by an Islamic fundamentalist is a distortion of the Islamic faith, and there fore cannot be used as evidence against it. The same with the crusades and the inquisition. If the followers correctly practiced the values of their faith acts like that would not be committed, but not following the values of a religion or distorting it's meaning is a choice, and that's the defining characteristic of morality, without free will, without choice there can't be right or wrong, moral or immoral. Which segues nicely to the next point I wish to talk about.

I blame myself for not being clear when I said I believe homosexuality is immoral, so let me be clear now. I do not think being gay is a immoral. A gay person is not committing a sin just by being gay, and this is not what the Church teaches either. Where morality comes into play is when your talking about sexual acts between two people of the same gender, and THAT is a choice.

You've tried to say that my stance on gay marriage is an infringement on the rights of gays. However I stated in my first post I believe that gay should be afforded all the legal rights of marriage, so no infringement there. It is the term marriage that I am against. For Catholics marriage is a sacrament, a rite in which God is active, and it is for that reason we are against gay marriage. So at this point we are talking about a purely intellectual distinction, a debate based on a term. No matter how much that term means to those on both side of the argument it's all subjective, it's the meaning they applied to it. I will state again, I believe gays should be afforded all the legal rights of marriage, calling it a marriage is what I'm against, and when the debate moves out of the legal realm and into one of intellectual distinctions and opinion things change, and those supporting gay marriage are "infringing" just as much as those that against it are being accused of. I think there's more to say here but I'm done for now, I'll edit when/if I decide I feel like it.

One last point, I like how in your first paragraph you claim that you're a reasonable and open minded person because your opinion could be changed by an act of God ( a supernatural act in your words ), but when I said the same thing you called me obstinate and closed minded.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

digitalantichrist, on 12/9/2009 7:06:15 PM
Total Posts: 686, Joined: 6/24/2006

^ joe, I'm not going to go into this in any great depth, but maybe you should do a bit more research on moral relativism and cultural relativism before writing about subjective morality. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the concept.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

Comments per page: 10