(July 13, 2014 at 12:13 am)Lek Wrote: Okay. That means you can't separate Stalin from his atheism. That also means that if a democrat goes out and kills a bunch of republicans because he hates them, it was because he was a democrat, and it would be better if the democrat party was abolished.

Neither can you separate him from his mustache or his a-leprechaunism either. So? What? I'm not exactly sure what you think logically follows from atheism, or for that matter, being a democrat, that is so deplorable. If you don't think irrational bigotry is reflected in Christian philosophy, I don't think you've been reading your Bible close enough.

(July 13, 2014 at 8:22 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(July 13, 2014 at 12:13 am)Lek Wrote: Okay. That means you can't separate Stalin from his atheism. That also means that if a democrat goes out and kills a bunch of republicans because he hates them, it was because he was a democrat, and it would be better if the democrat party was abolished.

Neither can you separate him from his mustache or his a-leprechaunism either. So? What? I'm not exactly sure what you think logically follows from atheism, or for that matter, being a democrat, that is so deplorable. If you don't think irrational bigotry is reflected in Christian philosophy, I don't think you've been reading your Bible close enough.

I'm saying that if you can't separate a christian from his christianity, then you can't separate Stalin from his atheism. I'm just carrying on what you said in your last post.

---

(July 13, 2014 at 12:16 am)Stimbo Wrote: Except atheism isn't a faith or a philosophy.

Okay. Whatever it is, it still applies.

---

(July 13, 2014 at 5:00 am)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: You want civil unions? Fine. I've got a great idea. Lets replace the legal marriage as a religious institution and replace it with civil unions. We can then relegate "marriage" to a religious ceremony that is not in any way legal or binding. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, asshole.

Marriage would stay the same. This policy would apply only to civil unions. The government has no business defining what marriage is. Marriage is not a government institution.

(July 13, 2014 at 12:31 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm saying that if you can't separate a christian from his christianity, then you can't separate Stalin from his atheism. I'm just carrying on what you said in your last post.

Except Christianity offers what is tantamount to a Kingdom of Fairies with an elaborate system of moral values infallibly transmitted from the Creator of the Universe through a book to faithful adherents.

Atheism offers _______(fill in with your own rationality)

(July 13, 2014 at 12:31 pm)Lek Wrote: The government has no business defining what marriage is. Marriage is not a government institution.

No? Do married couples get taxed in the same way as non-married couples in your country?

(July 13, 2014 at 5:00 am)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: [
You fucking christers are soooooo threatened by the idea of two people who love each other committing to their partners that the rest of us can only stand in stupefied amazement of your ignorance and stupidity.

Please, tell me, how, exactly, would it affect your marriage to your wife if my daughter marries another woman?

Or, better yet, go fuck yourself with a cactus.

I'm talking about government controlling the definition of marriage. When did I say I'm against two people committing themselves to each other? I don't believe homosexual relations are moral, but at the same time, I have no right to control other people's lives and to not love them. I think a lot of things people do are immoral. The reason I'm okay with civil unions is because I think it's an issue of equality under the law. Civil unions would give gays access to the same rights and privileges under the law as anyone else without redefining an institution that is sacred to many people. I think government should stay out of marriage. We should all have just civil unions as far as the law is concerned. I don't need the government to tell me I'm married.

---

(July 13, 2014 at 12:51 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote:

(July 13, 2014 at 12:31 pm)Lek Wrote: The government has no business defining what marriage is. Marriage is not a government institution.

No? Do married couples get taxed in the same way as non-married couples in your country?

No.

(July 13, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Lek Wrote:

(July 13, 2014 at 12:51 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote: No? Do married couples get taxed in the same way as non-married couples in your country?

No.

Then how can it not be the governments business defining what marriage is?
Do you propose that decisions about taxes should be made elsewhere? And if so where??

(July 13, 2014 at 1:00 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote:

(July 13, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Lek Wrote: No.

Then how can it not be the governments business defining what marriage is?
Do you propose that decisions about taxes should be made elsewhere? And if so where??

Well, the whole idea of giving a married person a tax advantage over a single person seems unfair to me. Why because you're married should you have a tax advantage? When the government started doing this people had to start getting a legal document issued by the government, stating that they married. Before that people didn't need to have the government sanction their marriage. My wife and I are not married because the government says so, but because we committed ourselves and our lives to each other. I envision replacing the government's version of marriage with a civil union. If two individuals want to share their lives and resources and have children they can establish a legal contract which formalizes the agreement and protects the children and each other. This contract would be recognized by the government and, if they want to apply certain tax advantages, they would be based on that contract. If the individuals don't want to be married, they don't have to. If two people want to be married and, for some reason, don't care about the tax benefits they can make a personal verbal marriage agreement to each other. It's not the role of the government to determine whether or not they are married. As a witness to my faith, I want to clarify that I don't believe in homosexual sexual relations, in any case, or heterosexual sexual relations outside of marriage. I do acknowledge that I live in a world where everybody doesn't share my beliefs and we all should be treated equally and fairly under the law and by each other..

(July 13, 2014 at 12:31 pm)Lek Wrote: Marriage would stay the same. This policy would apply only to civil unions. The government has no business defining what marriage is. Marriage is not a government institution.

Marriage is a legally binding agreement and is governed by laws. That is clearly within the governments purview. It is not however, something any church should be involved in.

So, the only fair thing to do is civil unions for all and relegate "marriage" to the anachronism it is along with all the other religious bullshit. This will protect your "institution" and make our laws more secular. Win-win for everybody, except assholes and bigots.

You still haven't explained how a gay couple getting married affects your marriage to your wife.

Did Lek actually say gay marriage affects his own marriage? Or just that he thinks it's immoral?

I don't see anything immoral about a commitment between two people of whatever sex myself. And I'm very happy gay marriage is finally legal here in Oregon.

How could this couple be considered immoral?

(July 13, 2014 at 5:45 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Did Lek actually say gay marriage affects his own marriage? Or just that he thinks it's immoral?

Not specifically. But he does seem to hold the bigoted belief that gays getting married would somehow "change the institution" so called him on his bullshit. So far he's refused to clarify his position.