Same-Sex Marriage

[Romy]

It doesn't matter. Bottom line is - the cons exist because religion exists. Period.

But the same can be said for the pros.

Or is it just human nature? Similar things can be said for any cause; look at animal rights for example. You have supporters, you have more zealous supporters, and you have the supporters who will literally stop at nothing to see the cause through. Does the problem exist in the cause? No, it exists in the people in it. Do the few that take it too far reflect on the entire cause? No, but people are going to say that anyway, as the Muhammad cartoon (thread, article, etc.) shows.

But then, I'm a strong believer in the idea that if religion (or race, or class, hell, any difference) never existed we'd all be equally divided over something else.

 

This would have fit much better in the religious extremism thread, I think...

 

I don't believe that matters. As I had already stated- the bottom line is that if religion didn't exist, same would (obviously) go to the religion's cons.

 

 

What you seem to have missed, is that I specificly stated that my opinion on religion is that it's cons overcome it's pros.

 

 

 

 

Also-

1. You can't ever know if your theory is correct.

2. If it is correct, it's possible that it would exist to a lesser extent (for instance, it's like the difference between religion and ideology. Both are built on certain rules and guidelines, but religion's rules cannot be streched, and the religious perspective is always more extreme (because if God exists, his decisions are to be taken and embraced whole-heartly, while your idelogoy can be changed based on logic, etc)).

3. You guys are basing your points on a cartoon? All it can reflect is the cartoonist's opinions, nothing else.

[RexMilotic]

Gay people care not for gay marrige but for equal rights.

 

There is no need to actually get married, if they are living together that is fine.

 

Edit: Religion only causes trouble, without religon the world would be a better place.

 

Coming from a gay person, I have to disagree, and somewhat agree. I do care for gay marriage, but only because of the fact that is part of equal rights right now.

[RexMilotic]

It doesn't matter. Bottom line is - the cons exist because religion exists. Period.

But the same can be said for the pros.

Or is it just human nature? Similar things can be said for any cause; look at animal rights for example. You have supporters, you have more zealous supporters, and you have the supporters who will literally stop at nothing to see the cause through. Does the problem exist in the cause? No, it exists in the people in it. Do the few that take it too far reflect on the entire cause? No, but people are going to say that anyway, as the Muhammad cartoon (thread, article, etc.) shows.

But then, I'm a strong believer in the idea that if religion (or race, or class, hell, any difference) never existed we'd all be equally divided over something else.

 

This would have fit much better in the religious extremism thread, I think...

 

What pros are you looking at?

[Saru Inc]

It doesn't matter. Bottom line is - the cons exist because religion exists. Period.

But the same can be said for the pros.

Or is it just human nature? Similar things can be said for any cause; look at animal rights for example. You have supporters, you have more zealous supporters, and you have the supporters who will literally stop at nothing to see the cause through. Does the problem exist in the cause? No, it exists in the people in it. Do the few that take it too far reflect on the entire cause? No, but people are going to say that anyway, as the Muhammad cartoon (thread, article, etc.) shows.

But then, I'm a strong believer in the idea that if religion (or race, or class, hell, any difference) never existed we'd all be equally divided over something else.

 

This would have fit much better in the religious extremism thread, I think...

 

What pros are you looking at?

 

 

 

TO use Christianity for an example:

 

If you followw the teachings:

 

Pros:

-Philanthropy\Altruism

-Charity

-Humility

-Support for the current Government

-Promotion of honesty, and good morals*

 

Theres probably a lot more but I'm exhausted so cbf.

 

*Now please, before anyone says "my morals might not be the same as yours, I like killing babies, cussing and lying" (obviously an exaggeration) I mean good morals include: following the law, being honest, being a good person in general.

[The Dark Lord]

I don't see any problem with it, to be honest.

 

The only bad thing would be if the gay community demanded a form of Affirmative Action or something ridiculous along that line. No matter who you are, equality shouldn't demand special treatment. You just treat everyone the same, even if you treat them terribly.

[Saru Inc]

I don't see any problem with it, to be honest.

 

The only bad thing would be if the gay community demanded a form of Affirmative Action or something ridiculous along that line. No matter who you are, equality shouldn't demand special treatment. You just treat everyone the same, even if you treat them terribly.

 

 

preach.

[The Dark Lord]

I don't see any problem with it, to be honest.

 

The only bad thing would be if the gay community demanded a form of Affirmative Action or something ridiculous along that line. No matter who you are, equality shouldn't demand special treatment. You just treat everyone the same, even if you treat them terribly.

 

 

preach.

 

....Which was the greatest fallacy that arose from the Civil Rights Movement. You simply cannot try to bring an oppressed group on "equal" terms by tossing money at them or adopting a double-standard in which a member of the previously oppressed group gains priority over a member of another group.

 

Happy? :lol:

[Romy]

I don't see any problem with it, to be honest.

 

The only bad thing would be if the gay community demanded a form of Affirmative Action or something ridiculous along that line. No matter who you are, equality shouldn't demand special treatment. You just treat everyone the same, even if you treat them terribly.

 

So if someone is handicapped they should be treated same as everyone else?

 

 

 

Equality does NOT mean everyone is treated the same way, it means that those who are not equal receive certain benefits to make them as equal as possible (for an extreme example, a student without hands should be given a sort of help with his homework or with exams and such, a sort of help that other students do not receive).

[warri0r45]

I don't see any problem with it, to be honest.

 

The only bad thing would be if the gay community demanded a form of Affirmative Action or something ridiculous along that line. No matter who you are, equality shouldn't demand special treatment. You just treat everyone the same, even if you treat them terribly.

 

So if someone is handicapped they should be treated same as everyone else?

 

 

 

Equality does NOT mean everyone is treated the same way, it means that those who are not equal receive certain benefits to make them as equal as possible (for an extreme example, a student without hands should be given a sort of help with his homework or with exams and such, a sort of help that other students do not receive).

 

The thing is though, this can be taken to far. Take African Americans for example - they're now equal under the eyes of the law and have equal opportunities for healthcare, security, work, education, literally everything. Sure, it's OK if you want to help disadvantaged black people get a place in a univeristy or whatever, but the same should apply to any disadvantaged person, no matter what skin colour they are. That's the point I think Serephurus was really trying to get at.

[Romy]

I don't see any problem with it, to be honest.

 

The only bad thing would be if the gay community demanded a form of Affirmative Action or something ridiculous along that line. No matter who you are, equality shouldn't demand special treatment. You just treat everyone the same, even if you treat them terribly.

 

So if someone is handicapped they should be treated same as everyone else?

 

 

 

Equality does NOT mean everyone is treated the same way, it means that those who are not equal receive certain benefits to make them as equal as possible (for an extreme example, a student without hands should be given a sort of help with his homework or with exams and such, a sort of help that other students do not receive).

 

The thing is though, this can be taken to far. Take African Americans for example - they're now equal under the eyes of the law and have equal opportunities for healthcare, security, work, education, literally everything. Sure, it's OK if you want to help disadvantaged black people get a place in a univeristy or whatever, but the same should apply to any disadvantaged person, no matter what skin colour they are. That's the point I think Serephurus was really trying to get at.

 

That's not taking it too far, that's taking it the wrong way...

[magekillr]

have equal opportunities for healthcare, security, work, education, literally everything.

 

Uh, yeah, no, they don't have equal opportunity for these things. Neither do women, white or otherwise.

[Alg]

What you seem to have missed, is that I specificly stated that my opinion on religion is that it's cons overcome it's pros.

I was stating my opinion too. I thought that was the point. I just think that the cons come from people who take it far too seriously.

 

1. You can't ever know if your theory is correct.

We also can't know what path life ould have taken if there was no religion :grin: It did exist before the Judeo-Christian faiths, and we got some interesting landmarks out of them (Pyramids, for example)

But in this case I'm basing it off history, mostly. Many organizations, classes, groups and so on are divided because one group feels that it's right. Even the fanbase of a book, movie, or game can go through this, modern day example would be that one Twilight thing. Twelve year old girls divided between a dead guy and a dog... :ohnoes:

2. If it is correct, it's possible that it would exist to a lesser extent (for instance, it's like the difference between religion and ideology. Both are built on certain rules and guidelines, but religion's rules cannot be streched, and the religious perspective is always more extreme (because if God exists, his decisions are to be taken and embraced whole-heartly, while your idelogoy can be changed based on logic, etc)).

Religion starts as ideology. I'd personally define it as an ideology with followers. You can have religions without gods, but then they end up being defined as philosophies. They all start logically, it's when people try to solidify it in a context greatly different than the one it was created in and use it against their enemies that the problem comes up (Such as looking at Christianity nearly 2,000 years later and expecting it to fit modern life perfectly - by both sides).

No offense to any Christians here, of course.

 

Damn, the thread is very derailed...

[Romy]

Religion starts as ideology. I'd personally define it as an ideology with followers. You can have religions without gods, but then they end up being defined as philosophies. They all start logically, it's when people try to solidify it in a context greatly different than the one it was created in and use it against their enemies that the problem comes up (Such as looking at Christianity nearly 2,000 years later and expecting it to fit modern life perfectly - by both sides).

 

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion.

 

 

Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it?

Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again.

Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from.

 

 

 

As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons-

A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc).

B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell.

C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.

[Saru Inc]

Religion starts as ideology. I'd personally define it as an ideology with followers. You can have religions without gods, but then they end up being defined as philosophies. They all start logically, it's when people try to solidify it in a context greatly different than the one it was created in and use it against their enemies that the problem comes up (Such as looking at Christianity nearly 2,000 years later and expecting it to fit modern life perfectly - by both sides).

 

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion.

 

 

Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it?

Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again.

Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from.

 

 

 

As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons-

A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc).

B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell.

C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.

 

Who says religion can't be proven?

[Romy]

Religion starts as ideology. I'd personally define it as an ideology with followers. You can have religions without gods, but then they end up being defined as philosophies. They all start logically, it's when people try to solidify it in a context greatly different than the one it was created in and use it against their enemies that the problem comes up (Such as looking at Christianity nearly 2,000 years later and expecting it to fit modern life perfectly - by both sides).

 

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion.

 

 

Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it?

Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again.

Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from.

 

 

 

As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons-

A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc).

B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell.

C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.

 

Who says religion can't be proven?

 

Prove it then.

 

(Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists).

[Saru Inc]

Religion starts as ideology. I'd personally define it as an ideology with followers. You can have religions without gods, but then they end up being defined as philosophies. They all start logically, it's when people try to solidify it in a context greatly different than the one it was created in and use it against their enemies that the problem comes up (Such as looking at Christianity nearly 2,000 years later and expecting it to fit modern life perfectly - by both sides).

 

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion.

 

 

Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it?

Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again.

Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from.

 

 

 

As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons-

A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc).

B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell.

C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.

 

Who says religion can't be proven?

 

Prove it then.

 

(Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists).

 

 

Well I certainly can't, but what I mean to say is (and I may have just misunderstood your post) maybe one day someone will find evidence that will PROVE God exists. If that day ever comes, would you believe in him? And do you mean can't prove right now, or can't prove ever?

[Giordano]

Religion starts as ideology. I'd personally define it as an ideology with followers. You can have religions without gods, but then they end up being defined as philosophies. They all start logically, it's when people try to solidify it in a context greatly different than the one it was created in and use it against their enemies that the problem comes up (Such as looking at Christianity nearly 2,000 years later and expecting it to fit modern life perfectly - by both sides).

 

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion.

 

 

Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it?

Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again.

Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from.

 

 

 

As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons-

A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc).

B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell.

C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.

 

Who says religion can't be proven?

You can, but until one does, you can't go around saying it's fact. Cuz it's not...yet.

[Saru Inc]

Well yea thats what I'm saying, I mean surely many things in his world exist that can;t be proven yet... I just dislike people who say it can never be proven.

 

 

And this off-topic thread has gone pretty off-topic.

[Romy]

Religion starts as ideology. I'd personally define it as an ideology with followers. You can have religions without gods, but then they end up being defined as philosophies. They all start logically, it's when people try to solidify it in a context greatly different than the one it was created in and use it against their enemies that the problem comes up (Such as looking at Christianity nearly 2,000 years later and expecting it to fit modern life perfectly - by both sides).

 

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion.

 

 

Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it?

Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again.

Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from.

 

 

 

As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons-

A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc).

B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell.

C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.

 

Who says religion can't be proven?

 

Prove it then.

 

(Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists).

 

 

Well I certainly can't, but what I mean to say is (and I may have just misunderstood your post) maybe one day someone will find evidence that will PROVE God exists. If that day ever comes, would you believe in him? And do you mean can't prove right now, or can't prove ever?

 

What if one day someone will prove God doesn't exist? Will you stop believing?

 

 

 

 

Sorry for anyone taking that as an insult, but- If God isn't proven to exist, isn't it just like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? As in, in something made up?

 

 

P.S.

I meant can't prove right now. Not that it matters...

[Giordano]

Well yea thats what I'm saying, I mean surely many things in his world exist that can;t be proven yet... I just dislike people who say it can never be proven.

 

 

And this off-topic thread has gone pretty off-topic.

But that still means an idea can be so stupid that no way it can be true. At this point God and Darth Vader have the same weight in argument.

[The Dark Lord]

Religion starts as ideology. I'd personally define it as an ideology with followers. You can have religions without gods, but then they end up being defined as philosophies. They all start logically, it's when people try to solidify it in a context greatly different than the one it was created in and use it against their enemies that the problem comes up (Such as looking at Christianity nearly 2,000 years later and expecting it to fit modern life perfectly - by both sides).

 

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion.

 

 

Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it?

Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again.

Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from.

 

 

 

As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons-

A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc).

B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell.

C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.

 

Who says religion can't be proven?

 

Prove it then.

 

(Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists).

 

I take it that you would be a fan of Blaise Pascal.

[Saru Inc]

Religion starts as ideology. I'd personally define it as an ideology with followers. You can have religions without gods, but then they end up being defined as philosophies. They all start logically, it's when people try to solidify it in a context greatly different than the one it was created in and use it against their enemies that the problem comes up (Such as looking at Christianity nearly 2,000 years later and expecting it to fit modern life perfectly - by both sides).

 

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion.

 

 

Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it?

Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again.

Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from.

 

 

 

As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons-

A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc).

B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell.

C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.

 

Who says religion can't be proven?

 

Prove it then.

 

(Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists).

 

 

Well I certainly can't, but what I mean to say is (and I may have just misunderstood your post) maybe one day someone will find evidence that will PROVE God exists. If that day ever comes, would you believe in him? And do you mean can't prove right now, or can't prove ever?

 

What if one day someone will prove God doesn't exist? Will you stop believing?

 

 

 

 

Sorry for anyone taking that as an insult, but- If God isn't proven to exist, isn't it just like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? As in, in something made up?

 

 

P.S.

I meant can't prove right now. Not that it matters...

 

 

Well I could answer your question, or you could answer mine. ;)

 

 

If someone proved there is no way ever in any way that God could exist, then I guess I would stop believing. But as of right now, God is as real to me as the laptop I'm typing on

[fakeitormakeit2]

I would only stop believing if they proved it 100% that there is absolutely no chance of God's existence ever.

 

And I keep seeing a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Alone it stands as a valid comparison to those who do not believe. However I doubt most or any who use said character have actually read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have the belief that one must read everything pertaining to their beliefs, even the opposing arguments to their beliefs. I read said book with an open mind. The first 7 pages or so was funny, as it was a comical satire of Christianity. But when I got to page 166 [the end] I realized that the majority of it developed into senseless religion bashing, based simply on mockery and had no logicality to it, its only mission to mock. That is the type of atheist I discredit, those who imitate religious extremists in a reflection of their own atheist beliefs, they're two sides of the same coin.

[Alg]

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion.

And this is why I don't follow an organized religion. Because once you claim your ideology to be absolute truth as given directly by a higher power, you become the higher power. It stops being what is right and starts to become what benefits you.

 

Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it?

A label's just a label, that's what I meant by the philosophy comment. What you call it doesn't matter, what it is does.

Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again.

Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from.

Actually neither can philosophy. Behaviors, morals, and beliefs don't follow the scientific way of thinking; that is, they can't and shouldn't be proven or disproven. Because once they are proven you get discrimination against those it does not suit.

 

As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons-

A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc).

It takes followers to act on them though. A holy book with no followers is just a book. I don't blame the religion, I blame the people who put it before the lives of others.

B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell.

It is. A religion is just an abstract concept. Abstract concepts can't do anything unless someone acts on it.

C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.

This applies to everything though.

This is much more interesting than the actual topic...

[meol]

In the end, it all comes down to the "guns don't kill people" argument. Truly, extremists are to blame for what they do, but you can't ignore the fact that religion is an important ideal for them to rally under and gather support, and an important tool for the ultimate argument. After all, who cares what other people might say or whom you may kill if you are doing nothing less than the will of a perfect, all-knowing God, almighty creator of your very souls?

 

The same argument is used against equality. God wants this or that, therefore my position is irrevocable. So, the religion too, is to blame, as well as the arrogant who claims to have transcendental and infallible knowledge.