One comment about love ...

Handy that you know right from wrong, no? Must be in your genes.

So your views are inherently superior because you believe in this god person .... I for one say that anyone who believes this sort of nonsense is incapable of being resoned with. Sorry Jon, in my mind, you just struck out.

Or, like I say, just ask yourself if you would want it done to you or not.

If you dont want it done to you, you probably shouldnt do it to someone else.

You have to follow the context or you won't get it. Cris was being sarcastic against my stance that the State has no right to say who should marry but people should look in the Bible to get permission from God. Cris denies a God. Therefore he disqualifies himself from discussing ethics with me, more specifically regarding the specific matter in question. Obviously I say this with the risk of being outcast by all of you. Anyone else care to express your atheistic predisposition before discussing ethics concerning something God created?

I mean really, who invented marriage? Arguing for gay marriage is like arguing for football players to play their games in the gym while a basketball game is going on.... it just plain doesn't make sense because marriage is itself something God (or, to you athiets, something God's believers) created: one man and one woman, permanently bound as one flesh.

This only goes so far. People are destroyed by a lack of knowledge that what they are doing to themselves is killing them off, so when others come in and try to exhort and admonish they are seen as bigots.

The golden rule is golden, but in-born knowledge of ethics goes further. Why, for example, do you naturally feel ashamed being naked in public? In the real world, I mean. And don't tell me it's because society has forced it on you, I've seen little children cover themselves up in shame and I seriously doubt Tarzan would not cover himself up in the presence of strange humans.

And the reasons why I say that the shame is good for you are extensive.

- Your private parts are made less vulnerable to injury
- Your marriage bed can be fully enjoyed (savored, because you are not desensitized by seeing other nude bodies all the time)
- You are not turned on to others, becoming unfaithful toward your loved one
- etc.

My Theory of Knowledge instructor instructed us all that ethics is indeed relative, and that the golden rule is the only real standard of ethics. But then the next day the students came up with "boxer shorts" day where you show up in short boxer shorts, and even though hardly any students participated, I told the instructor (a female) that I (a male) thought about doing it, and she was like, "Ooohhh...", an ashamed, disgusted moan. I was very tempted to question, "If it turns you and other females on, why do you feel ashamed?" (By the way, I was in good shape at the time, so don't think it to be a matter of disgust.

How convenient for you. That must make life a lot simpler knowing that everything outside your indoctrinated sphere is inherantly invalid. Is belief in God the only thing that keeps you from going off on a murderous rampage? If not for God you'd rape and pillage? That's frightening. Ethics and morals are derived from common sense and rationalism. You don't need god for morals. You need common sense and a desire for self preservation. Cooperation is an evolutionary advantage. The golden rule existed long before religion claimed to have invented it.

(edited for typo)

Wow, where to begin ... I do follow the context, I just don't agree with you, like it or not. And you did just confirm what I said, he can't discuss ethics with you because he has different beliefs. His beleifs are not as good as yours.

As far as the marriage thing, you imply only christians are married, no one else. What about the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Wiccans, Shintoists and can't forget the Satanists? Are they truly married?

Your version of truth is just too tainted and smug for my tastes. Any god I worship wouldn't be so chickensh*t.

The reason homosexuals want marrage is because it will grant them all the LEGAL privelages heterosexual married couples get. Our government has decided that both the legal and spiritual/religious properties of marrage be totally and completely bonded together. That's whats wrong with the system.

I guess national geographic wasn't allowed at your house eh? This is hogwash. Shame and guilt over our bodies is learned. There are plenty of other cultures where nudity is not taboo and creates no shame to anyone.

Jon, what do you think about common law marriage or marriage by a Justice of the Peace? These are legal and binding marriages which predate homosexual marriage. Are the people who are married in these manners disqualified from discussing the ethics of marriage too? Simply because they didn't form these unions within religious parameters?

Disqualifying people because they have a differing opinion is arrogant to say the least. I don't always agree with Chip, but I will be damned if I tell him he is disqualified from a discussion based upon his belief set. Quite the contrary, I would encourage him to respond. (He doesnt need said encouragement, and I for one am glad of that fact.) This is part of what helps us advance as a race; listening to other's viewpoints, discussing and forming tolerances and perhaps even changing our own beliefs somewhat.

Getting mired down in theological rhetoric to the point where one wishes to preclude a segment of the population from debate is unreasonable. Unless one is striving to be a large unmovable stone gathering lots of moss. Or a dictator.

You're not responding to my posts, but I'll keep posting.

It's not in our genes, it's in our learned behavior. Our society has learned through trial and error that hey, maybe mass killings every other year isn't conducive to the survival of the kingdom/state/country. Maybe marrying your sister every generation might have a detrimental effect on your family. Maybe wantonly killing your neighbors isn't a good way to keep the barbarians from smashing in the gates.

Of course, OTHER societies have evolved different conclusions, and have acted accordingly. Their "right" is our "wrong".

Did you know it's perfectly acceptable in Saudi Arabia to chop off someone's hand if they were convicted of a thief? In fact, it is "right", because it prevents the thief from being tempted to walk off God's path or whatever.

However, if someone in Puritan America were to do that, we'd be howling like monkeys demanding something be done to fix this "wrongdoing".

Right and wrong are TOTALLY subjective. period. Jesus does not change that.

LF

personally i dont think the government should be involved in any types of marrage since it is a religious ceremony. and there is a thing caleld seperation of church and state or am i wrong?

Thanks, Nolan. This is a fitting juncture to swing the thread back around to where it started... talking about invalid definitions of words. Jon just provided another good example of a word being used in a religious context in a way compltely contrary to its actual definition... "debate." You can't have a debate about ethics when one of the premises is that everything you don't already believe is invalid. I think Jon is getting debate and proselytize mixed up. This is definitely more in the "espousing doctrine" than "discuss and deliberate" area. Obviously I've been being a bit of a troll in this thread, but as I suspected Jon didn't need a lot of rope. Interesting how a thread about love turned into a thread about intolerance and bigotry. All these words and their meanings are so confusing

Actually in point of fact you ARE wrong.

Despite this, I agree with one part of it. I agree that the government should not be involved. But not for the reasons you think.

The seperation of church and state is a much mis-understood issue. What it means it that the government cannot establish a state religion, or become a one-nation religion or anything. That is not an issue with marrige for the most part... Anyone can get married, be they athiest, buddhist, whatever. And many religions have the concept of marrige, not just christianity. Even religions that are very heathenistic by christian standards.

Now, disallowing gay marrige on relgious bases IS in violation of its precepts. But as I said, I have other reasons for wanting the two things seperated.

[/B]
To discuss the ethics of marriage is to discuss the intent of God in bringing it about. Outside of that, do what you want, wish I could help, but I cannot call it marriage, and I cannot help outside of the context of marriage's intent.

Guys, the whole reason why I brought the marriage thing up is because since God defines marriage, we are at liberty to marry, period. Without regard to religion, race, or otherwise. But I am disturbed that there are "tax breaks" and similar such benefits for married people, because such STUPID laws tend to bring about such political issues as these.

I think I might just tell a tiny story. One day there was a boy who, in 8th grade, had two major conflicts in life. The first was the conflict caused by the realization that he might be gay, the next was the conflict between he and the God that smited him for being gay. That boy was a whole lot like Jon in all his preachiness. Pissed off plenty of people who were close to him because he was certain his God was the right one. And you know what? Losing people is part of the sacrifice. That boy became a martyr for his religion, living in the realm of mental self-abuse and denying closeness with others who didn't share the same views as him. One day, that boy was turning the knob to the shower, when he said to himself, reluctantly, "What would happen if I was wrong, that God doesn't exist?" and, in mortal terror, "Let me think for a second." And all the sudden a rush of fresh air poured in; windows upon windows and doors upon doors opened up in his mind. Letting go was the greatest feeling in the world, and I know that any -good- entity who might have watched over that boy would have smiled at him that day for doing what he did. And I'll tell you what, he's all the better for it, and I'm convinced no other God could make a person suffer more badly than the one that boy had during that one year of religious zeal.

Enough of talking in the second person. I was once just like Jon. The only difference was I had that whole "gay" thing I had to DEAL with (DEAL WITH, do you hear that? people do NOT DECIDE TO BE GAY, do NOT think that otherwise you're a practicing ignorant. I'm NOT an activist and I -rarely- mention my homosexuality, but fucking dammit it's people like you that RUIN people's lives by thinking you know how others' hearts work. NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU!!! WAKE UP!)

Pretend Jon is made of fire, like the fires of Hell that he's scared of--in fact, he may believe in God solely for the avoidance of the flames. He's untouchable in his self-righteousness and he believes himself to be a martyr for his God any time you respond to him. You play with him, you'll get burned. It's pathetic. It depresses me to watch because it reminds me of how stupid I was, and how certain I was that the world was perfect because -I- was going to Heaven. It's the absolute worst phase anyone can go through and, particularly if he never gets out of it, he's the worst type of person you can associate with. You (additional readers, responders) aren't people to him. You're some sort of strange religious competition elements: he will fight to make you believe in his God and he will fight you off if you don't. Because he is right, no matter what. Because his book is right, no matter what. Let's face it, he came in this game with a mission: to convert.

Let's play s'more with some metaphors because people like him like them a lot. Again, I only know this because I was there.

He's stuck in a big vat of tar and he absolutely can't be pulled out by anyone else but himself and there's no reason for you to try to save him because the tar's a sticky mess and you don't want to get any of it on you. It's a waste of time and emotion dealing with people like Jon, who believes himself to be as powerful as his own God for denying people the peace he believes he has coming for him. You aren't people to him, you're just pawns to play with, pawns to try to push across that damn stupid fucking fake "path" towards Heaven or Hell, and he's even reading this right now and thinking, "Sinner, sinner, he'll never make it to Heaven."

So thoughtful of you to consider our place in your God's eyes, the only eyes you can see through; what a fun game it must be for you to sit back and believe you're right and that everyone will burn in flames except for you. And I'm so proud that the very academic I absorb myself in--literature--is the one that causes this. Your pretty little book will answer all your questions the same way Confucian scripts did all Chinese followers' questions. Seriously, I won't waste my time listening to you, because again, I've been there, I've escaped the Hell on Earth caused by that miserable, vicious religion, and quite frankly if anyone deserves to have marriage lisence abilities revoked it'd be you, who would probably expect his wife to be in the kitchen and cook brownies and play pretty dress up because God told you that's how things work. (Key word there is "expect," because anyone who -wants- to do this has the right.)

MY definition of love comes from my HEART. Yours comes from a 2000 year old set of papers that have been translated ten times over. How brilliant you are, how brilliant. How intelligent and thoughtful. Hide behind your faith and your God and distance yourself from happiness in this one, one, one chance you get on this planet before you end up in an afterlife -none- of us no about. And know nothing but yourself and your pretty book the whole way through. And miss out on a lifetime of knowledge that comes from embracing that which is NOT you.

I know that other posts here have been far more debate-oriented and far more casual, but reading through this literally made me sick to my stomach and I don't want anyone to think they can change Jon's mind because his persona right now is so familiar to me that it hurts and I know what it takes to break down the walls he has up right now. I genuinely hurt for him, and it's a sympathy he'll never understand because, hey, I'm a fag for the fire.


(initial post was hastily done; edited for grammar and word choice)

I find it interesting you keep talking about God 'creating' marriage. when the concept of marriage is older than the Bible. It outdates both the Christian and Hebrew religions, and has evolved independently in many different societies and religions.

Dae, that is quite possibly the best post I've read all year, if not the best post ever on this forum.

Kudos, mad props, and good job.

LF

You forgot the best ones!

Freedom is Slavery
War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength

They might as well plaster those over the White House these days...

If you are looking for god, try Beethoven's 9th.

Let me know what it does for you.

WOW


Thanks Dae for sharing that personal story, I am truly moved. As LF said that is probably the most poignant thing I have ever read here.

I *lost* my best friend to a reborn organization about 15 yrs. ago. We have been friends since I was 7 and he 6. He became involved in a born again christian organization here in MN and he was completely consumed by it. I watched it happen. Everything about him changed He is now with the *church* in Florida and none of us really knows where exactly.

I am NOT saying all of these organizations are bad. Maybe he was just the right type of person for it, I don't know. What I do know is it scares the heck out of his family and all of our mutual friends. NN

The WHOLE THING, too, not just the last movement.

There's nothing like hearing the chorus in the final variations of the last movement after the extensive amount of music that precedes it.

I'm not sure you'll find this "god" guy there, but it will give you goosebumps. If you want "god", try Brahms' German Requiem.

And I believe if you listen to the Brandenburg Concerti by Bach back-to-back, you'll find this guy named "Charlie," but no one knows why he's there.

And if you play Mozart's Jupiter Symphony backwards, you'll hear a Satanic chant. But that's just what I heard.

no. it's not.

you're making an a priori assumption about reality.

you may believe that is how reality is structured. but it is a belief.

in particular, a belief that is not shared by everyone.

discussion with you is impossible since you cannot allow that your belief might be wrong. so you declare everyone who disagrees with you as being automatically wrong.

it must be nice being right all the time.

* * *

people like you give christians a bad name.

you should have taken a course in logic, not knowledge.

i have to agree there. when i first started listening to it i would go straight to the 4th or 5th movement. but then i started listening to the entire thing and it challenged my agnosticism.

thanks for the tip. i'll have to pick it up. if i'm mistaking goosebumps for god, i can't wait to try the real thing.

who's this charlie guy anyway?