U.S. Supreme court overturns anti gay marriage laws.

[mr moose]

Well,  I have read the bible, I have studied the bible, I have spoken to too many people about the contents of the bible.  I am mad about science, I need to see evidence before I will state something is a fact.  I believe in  a creator god because I want to, no other reason. The concept of life after death and a basic meaning in life gives me a warm feeling (I don't often have emotions that can be associated with concepts/people/thoughts).  I would not say God is a fact, because god is a faith, a choice, a philosophy.  I don't mind atheism or any other form of religious belief system, so long as people remember that it is their choice. A choice they make for themselves, not a choice they make for others.  I get personally offend when people make snide remarks about any religion just the same as I get annoyed when religious people say stupid things and try to supress other people from living their life and making their choices.

 

No one has to like anything in this world, but it doesn't take much effort to respect someone's freedom to choose/live the way they want. 

[beebskadoo]

Well,  I have read the bible, I have studied the bible, I have spoken to too many people about the contents of the bible.  I am mad about science, I need to see evidence before I will state something is a fact.  I believe in  a creator god because I want to, no other reason. The concept of life after death and a basic meaning in life gives me a warm feeling (I don't often have emotions that can be associated with concepts/people/thoughts).  I would not say God is a fact, because god is a faith, a choice, a philosophy.  I don't mind atheism or any other form of religious belief system, so long as people remember that it is their choice. A choice they make for themselves, not a choice they make for others.  I get personally offend when people make snide remarks about any religion just the same as I get annoyed when religious people say stupid things and try to supress other people from living their life and making their choices.

 

No one has to like anything in this world, but it doesn't take much effort to respect someone's freedom to choose/live the way they want. 

That is one of the most honest answers I have ever heard regarding why someone believes. Because it is dishonest to claim as fact something that is not evidently true. I don't mind what people believe or why i just mind when it infringes with my rights as a human being. This was about gay marriage. Something that is deemed evil by many religions simply because those people didn't know any better. They didn't understand that it is commonplace in the animal kingdom and is a real thing. Not something to be harsh against. So why deprive me of the advantages that marriage present? It doesn't make sense to me i guess.

[beebskadoo]

Not at all, I just wanted to specify which interpretation of god I was referring to and made it too specific. If you're referring to the statement that followed that, I did not mean that to imply you were incorrect, as I'm sure you were. I am aware, though, that religions have a tendency to move their goal posts from time to time, but having been ostracized from many churches in my lifetime (Christian, Catholic, and excommunicated from the Mormon church), I've had little inclination to study their books and keep up to date, so I'm not sure how relevant some of my statements regarding those institutions may be.

I interned for a Christian-church-based publishing company and they published children's books that depicted Jesus riding dinosaurs to revisit the Garden of Eden. This is just one example that I can confidently put forth in regards to religious institutions changing their facts/mysticism based on facts uncovered throughout the ages.

They try to stay current with certain issues. We know that there isn't any difference between different races yet interracial marriage was spoken against by churches for quite some time. but why?

[mr moose]

That is one of the most honest answers I have ever heard regarding why someone believes. Because it is dishonest to claim as fact something that is not evidently true. I don't mind what people believe or why i just mind when it infringes with my rights as a human being. This was about gay marriage. Something that is deemed evil by many religions simply because those people didn't know any better. They didn't understand that it is commonplace in the animal kingdom and is a real thing. Not something to be harsh against. So why deprive me of the advantages that marriage present? It doesn't make sense to me i guess.

 

It's very easy to be honest when you aren't hell bent on telling others how they should live their life, or having a dig at someone because they choose to follow a different philosophy.

[bluepoodleguy]

Regarding faith as a basis for morality. All moral systems whether religious or secular are based on faith. Do you have a position well prove it. An appeal to history-both sides appeal to history. Natural law both sides quote natural law. But you say we must not be hidebound by out of date mores. Well the condemnation of murder is historically documented so it must be legalized  because it is ethically obsolete? Spirituality(among other aspects of human existence) while self evident is intangible not subject to proof in a materialistic procedure in, other words go to lab and measure it. To those who are disheartened by the distortions of current mores consider the conventional approaches to change-political action and social participation.

[Vitalius]

mr moose, on 10 Jul 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

Well, I have read the bible, I have studied the bible, I have spoken to too many people about the contents of the bible. I am mad about science, I need to see evidence before I will state something is a fact. I believe in a creator god because I want to, no other reason. The concept of life after death and a basic meaning in life gives me a warm feeling (I don't often have emotions that can be associated with concepts/people/thoughts). I would not say God is a fact, because god is a faith, a choice, a philosophy. I don't mind atheism or any other form of religious belief system, so long as people remember that it is their choice. A choice they make for themselves, not a choice they make for others. I get personally offend when people make snide remarks about any religion just the same as I get annoyed when religious people say stupid things and try to supress other people from living their life and making their choices.

No one has to like anything in this world, but it doesn't take much effort to respect someone's freedom to choose/live the way they want.

I love that answer. Awesome post. Most of that, I would say, applies to me, though I'm sure many may disagree.

But I feel you described me as well with that. I have more reason than just "I want to." But that's a big part of the reason. What compelled me to say this though was "I don't often have emotions that can be associated with concepts/people/thoughts" which is ... very true of me. In fact that has everything to do with my testimony.

bluepoodleguy, on 11 Jul 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

Regarding faith as a basis for morality. All moral systems whether religious or secular are based on faith. Do you have a position well prove it. An appeal to history-both sides appeal to history. Natural law both sides quote natural law. But you say we must not be hidebound by out of date mores. Well the condemnation of murder is historically documented so it must be legalized because it is ethically obsolete? Spirituality(among other aspects of human existence) while self evident is intangible not subject to proof in a materialistic procedure in, other words go to lab and measure it. To those who are disheartened by the distortions of current mores consider the conventional approaches to change-political action and social participation.

This post... confused me. It was very hard to read. I'm not just being a grammar nazi, it actually made this post a mystery to me as I can't understand what you are saying in absolutely any of the sentences.

Mores? Did you mean Morales?

Run on sentences, please use punctuation.

I suggest you go back and edit this post to fix them. Take more time to write it. Not trying to be offensive, just have no idea what happened here.

[Lyons]

snip

 

Watch my videos yet?

 

[Vitalius]

Watch my videos yet?

 

Changed nothing. He seems like a deluded old man who has tricked himself into believing that he is free when I would say he is not.

Then again, freedom, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (along with just about any other intangible concept humanity has). However, whatever "true" freedom is, the kind of freedom that isn't connected to human perception of it, I would guess his view is not it. Simply because it doesn't coincide with my view of it.

All it really seems like he does is bash religion with things he deems to be facts (which aren't necessarily facts). Not particularly interested in watching more of them after the couple that I have.

Thanks for letting me see them though. Even if it's, in my mind, a toxic view like his, more viewpoints are generally better for discerning what the truth really is.

[Lyons]

Changed nothing. He seems like a deluded old man who has tricked himself into believing that he is free when I would say he is not.

Then again, freedom, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (along with just about any other intangible concept humanity has). However, whatever "true" freedom is, the kind of freedom that isn't connected to human perception of it, I would guess his view is not it. Simply because it doesn't coincide with my view of it.

All it really seems like he does is bash religion with things he deems to be facts (which aren't necessarily facts). Not particularly interested in watching more of them after the couple that I have.

Thanks for letting me see them though. Even if it's, in my mind, a toxic view like his, more viewpoints are generally better for discerning what the truth really is.

 

'Deluded' - How ironic.

[obsidian1200]

Then again, freedom, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (along with just about any other intangible concept humanity has). However, whatever "true" freedom is, the kind of freedom that isn't connected to human perception of it, I would guess his view is not it. Simply because it doesn't coincide with my view of it.

Not to play devil's advocate here (well, maybe a little), does the bolded part of your statement call into the validity of the various perceptions of a "God" and which one is the "true" God? If true freedom is an idea that transcends human perception, then how is the "true" God, an idea/entity much more vast than freedom, any different?

 

Basically, what's to stop someone else's perception of spirituality from invalidating another? It's a viscous circle that never ceases in invalidating the views of others, imo.

[canadianultra]

I know my views may be unpopular, but  humans of worshiped various gods throughout history (Egyptian, roman, greek, nomad) Today we think of these gods as a "joke" or "stories". What might people think of the gods or "god" we have today? They  will probably find him as much of a "joke" or a "story" as the past gods humans worshiped or believed in.

 

Just a thought, not trying to prove anything 

[Bleedman0xx]

I know my views may be unpopular, but  humans of worshiped various gods throughout history (Egyptian, roman, greek, nomad) Today we think of these gods as a "joke" or "stories". What might people think of the gods or "god" we have today? They  will probably find him as much of a "joke" or a "story" as the past gods humans worshiped or believed in.

 

Just a thought, not trying to prove anything 

In my view. ^ This is the ultimate truth.

[beebskadoo]

I love that answer. Awesome post. Most of that, I would say, applies to me, though I'm sure many may disagree.

But I feel you described me as well with that. I have more reason than just "I want to." But that's a big part of the reason. What compelled me to say this though was "I don't often have emotions that can be associated with concepts/people/thoughts" which is ... very true of me. In fact that has everything to do with my testimony.

This post... confused me. It was very hard to read. I'm not just being a grammar nazi, it actually made this post a mystery to me as I can't understand what you are saying in absolutely any of the sentences.

Mores? Did you mean Morales?

Run on sentences, please use punctuation.

I suggest you go back and edit this post to fix them. Take more time to write it. Not trying to be offensive, just have no idea what happened here.

Typing on a phone, that's what happened. Not enough time for punctuation and such sometimes. and you kind of do sound like a jerk.

[Bleedman0xx]

and you kind of do sound like a jerk.

You all sound like jerks, really. This thread may have started out nice and civil but now it's just a jerk-fest. Everybody is trying to prove their view is correct, absolute and completely un-refutable when it can only ever be subjective...

This thread just doesn't seem to have the capability to advance beyond the tired argument of "respect me." It just gets tiring to read at this point.

[obsidian1200]

You all sound like jerks, really. This thread may have started out nice and civil but now it's just a jerk-fest. Everybody is trying to prove their view is correct, absolute and completely un-refutable when it can only ever be subjective...

This thread just doesn't seem to have the capability to advance beyond the tired argument of "respect me." It just gets tiring to read at this point.

Gee, thanks. I was just asking questions out of curiosity, so I'm sorry if it looks like it's anything other than that.

[Bleedman0xx]

Gee, thanks. I was just asking questions out of curiosity, so I'm sorry if it looks like it's anything other than that.

I use "all" pretty loosely in this instance. You're rather new to the thread. =P

[obsidian1200]

I use "all" pretty loosely in this instance. You're rather new to the thread. =P

Oh okay :P sorry for my overreaction. I'm not actually 'new' to the thread (activity-wise, yes, but I've been reading it ever since it was posted), so I've seen how much people have been feuding over the validity of their viewpoints. I wasn't sure if my recent questions could be taken as being rude, as people are very touchy about the recent subjects.

[beebskadoo]

You all sound like jerks, really. This thread may have started out nice and civil but now it's just a jerk-fest. Everybody is trying to prove their view is correct, absolute and completely un-refutable when it can only ever be subjective...

This thread just doesn't seem to have the capability to advance beyond the tired argument of "respect me." It just gets tiring to read at this point.

I have tried to steer it back to the issue but i don't think that is going to happen. People are in general opinionated and feel they need to be correct but when The facts state one thing but people choose to believe another based on faith I find that ridiculous. If this was the 1920's and it was about women having the rite to vote I bet the women would be dumbfounded at people's fact less counter arguments. Same here, LGBT people take enough shit in this world as it is and we want to change it by educating people that there is no reason for people to be so against our rights as humans. I guess it's so frustrating that on a forum like this there is still that kind of mentality. It's 2013 not 1950...

[Bleedman0xx]

Oh okay :P sorry for my overreaction. I'm not actually 'new' to the thread (activity-wise, yes, but I've been reading it ever since it was posted), so I've seen how much people have been feuding over the validity of their viewpoints. I wasn't sure if my recent questions could be taken as being rude, as people are very touchy about the recent subjects.

I probably shouldn't have said "You all." But that was kinda the only way to not name names and to get the reader's attention to ask him/herself "Hmm... Am I really being a jerk?" And so the futile debate continues.

[Flynn]

What's sad is that it's being voted on.  Marriage (from a legal standpoint) is a state issue.  It is a State document, covered by State specific laws, and shouldn't be a Federal issue at all.  Things like healthcare, marriage of any sort, abortion, ANYTHING dealing with individual freedoms or action; are Constitutionally reserved for governance under the State's rights in the Republic.

 

It's not a federal issue, that's where the country is going wrong.  It has nothing to do with equality or moral reservations, it has everything to do with what is the Federal Republic allowed to do, which is govern States, not people.

[Bleedman0xx]

I have tried to steer it back to the issue but i don't think that is going to happen. People are in general opinionated and feel they need to be correct but when The facts state one thing but people choose to believe another based on faith I find that ridiculous. If this was the 1920's and it was about women having the rite to vote I bet the women would be dumbfounded at people's fact less counter arguments. Same here, LGBT people take enough shit in this world as it is and we want to change it by educating people that there is no reason for people to be so against our rights as humans. I guess it's so frustrating that on a forum like this there is still that kind of mentality. It's 2013 not 1950...

Yeah, I remember you were the only one trying to keep the thread on topic a few pages back. Just like you, I'm a man of rational free thought. But apparently, "free thought" could be seen as subjective. I have said before many pages back that I believe (just like the progression of women's rights) that our country is in a state of transition and in time, gays will have the same rights as heterosexuals.

[beebskadoo]

What's sad is that it's being voted on.  Marriage (from a legal standpoint) is a state issue.  It is a State document, covered by State specific laws, and shouldn't be a Federal issue at all.  Things like healthcare, marriage of any sort, abortion, ANYTHING dealing with individual freedoms or action; are Constitutionally reserved for governance under the State's rights in the Republic.

 

It's not a federal issue, that's where the country is going wrong.  It has nothing to do with equality or moral reservations, it has everything to do with what is the Federal Republic allowed to do, which is govern States, not people.

See I agree that marriage shouldn't be a national issue in some respects. But the government is so big and bloated that less power belongs to the state now then it ever has. The state of marriage now is a secular contract in order to attain certain privileges. So why deny the right to two consenting adults of the same gender? Scenario : My boyfriend is in the hospital and he is in dire condition, The doctor asks his mother what to do with him in regards to life support. She answers pull the plug and it is done. Well where was my decision in that? It held no ground because it is illegal in my state for 2 Consenting adults to marry if they are same sex. Had it been legal and i were married I would have been able to make decisions rather than his mother. 

See even though we feel it is a state issue, it's not. It's a federal issue and I am being denied rights that i should have for many reasons. 

[beebskadoo]

Yeah, I remember you were the only one trying to keep the thread on topic a few pages back. Just like you, I'm a man of rational free thought. But apparently, "free thought" could be seen as subjective. I have said before many pages back that I believe (just like the progression of women's rights) that our country is in a state of transition and in time, gays will have the same rights as heterosexuals.

The people now that try to fight change and try to further oppress Homosexuals (in the legal sense) will be looked at in the same light as the same religious bigots that thought segregation was the way and Black people were cursed by god therefore should be denied rights. This we know is certainly wrong and backward thinking but look at it this way. Do you think the Christians in this thread would have been the ones fighting for racial freedoms? Or the ones fighting against it?

I can't say for sure but go through their arguments and replace the word Gay with the word Black people.

[Bleedman0xx]

The people now that try to fight change and try to further oppress Homosexuals (in the legal sense) will be looked at in the same light as the same religious bigots that thought segregation was the way and Black people were cursed by god therefore should be denied rights. This we know is certainly wrong and backward thinking but look at it this way. Do you think the Christians in this thread would have been the ones fighting for racial freedoms? Or the ones fighting against it?

I can't say for sure but go through their arguments and replace the word Gay with the word Black people.

You can ask @Vitalius that very question and I'd be willing to bet that he'd want black people, women and gays to have equal rights in America just as much as you do. It's more or less the afterlife he's more concerned with for homosexuals, I believe. His past posts have even reflected this many times but it keeps getting ignored and instead he gets called on his belief system and faith of God. Yes, his belief system doesn't favor gay people but surely he'd fight for your right given the chance. I just don't see him as one of those "God hates fags" kind of Christian. Instead, he seems like more of an American than a Christian to me.

 

I myself feel the same way as you do. Equality all around. When it comes to religion though, well that's up to you as an individual.

[Vitalius]

You can ask @Vitalius that very question and I'd be willing to bet that he'd want black people, women and gays to have equal rights in America just as much as you do. It's more or less the afterlife he's more concerned with for homosexuals, I believe. His past posts have even reflected this many times but it keeps getting ignored and instead he gets called on his belief system and faith of God. Yes, his belief system doesn't favor gay people but surely he'd fight for your right given the chance. I just don't see him as one of those "God hates fags" kind of Christian. Instead, he seems like more of an American than a Christian to me.

 

I myself feel the same way as you do. Equality all around. When it comes to religion though, well that's up to you as an individual.

Thank you Bleedman. I'm glad someone noticed.