(January 30, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Why must everything be a fallacy to you guys?

It's only everything when you talk.

Quote:I don't believe you guys actually know what the word means, especially after someone called the concept of "justice" a fallacy.

We're also not one monolithic bloc, so I'm not required to answer for the incorrect positions of others. As it stands, and as has been pointed out to you now, the appeal to tradition is a recognized fallacy.

Quote:Since everything must be spelled out for you "critical thinkers", this is the point I was making.

Don't mistake disagreement with what you're saying for misunderstanding what you're saying. If you find yourself constantly having to explain things in further detail to us, consider the fact that the sole common denominator in those interactions is that it's you making the initial point.

Quote:So why the surprise if a document invented in order discriminate, is still used to discriminate? And why would you want such a document?

I don't really care what they were used for in the past, nor is that relevant to the issue at hand; if we recognize that discrimination is bad, then the fact that something used to have a discriminatory purpose is no reason to allow it to keep that purpose. Why is it that so many of your positions seem to boil down to "two wrongs make a right."?

Quote:My point in bringing up common law marriages was to show that at one point in (America) time, marriage licenses weren't required, and even now, like 9 states still recognize common law marriage. So the question is, why is something that is a basic human right (you know, the whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thing), being made into a privilege by the government?

If anyone can reasonably obtain the license, then it's hardly a privilege one has to strive for. It's only the discriminatory practices exemplified in my link that makes this difficult; it took me all of twenty minutes to obtain my own marriage license.

Quote:To be clear, this isn't an issue I care about, there are more pressing issues than gay marriage.

You complain about constantly having to explain things to us, but you've apparently missed that this is about secular marriage in general, not gay marriage in particular.

(January 31, 2015 at 3:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: So why the surprise if a document invented in order discriminate, is still used to discriminate? And why would you want such a document?

I don't really care what they were used for in the past, nor is that relevant to the issue at hand; if we recognize that discrimination is bad, then the fact that something used to have a discriminatory purpose is no reason to allow it to keep that purpose. Why is it that so many of your positions seem to boil down to "two wrongs make a right."?

You still don't get it, my point was the marriage license should be abolished, especially because of it's history of discrimination.

(January 31, 2015 at 3:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: My point in bringing up common law marriages was to show that at one point in (America) time, marriage licenses weren't required, and even now, like 9 states still recognize common law marriage. So the question is, why is something that is a basic human right (you know, the whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness thing), being made into a privilege by the government?

If anyone can reasonably obtain the license, then it's hardly a privilege one has to strive for. It's only the discriminatory practices exemplified in my link that makes this difficult; it took me all of twenty minutes to obtain my own marriage license.

there's a difference.
First of all you're Australian, second, there is already a precedent set here proving that the marriage license in not needed. Giving up freedoms "just because" doesn't sit well with me.

Not only that, if you acknowledge that marriage is a privilege then you agree that it is

priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/
noun
noun: privilege; plural noun: privileges

1. a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people

(January 31, 2015 at 3:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You complain about constantly having to explain things to us, but you've apparently missed that this is about secular marriage in general, not gay marriage in particular.

So you made no mention of gays?

(January 31, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 1:00 pm)Chas Wrote: You just cherry-picked your own post. Here's what you actually said.

And your point is?

---

(January 31, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: The discriminatory history of marriage licensure is, in the United States, yet another Christian crime against humanity. Huggy is only trying to raise awareness of the hateful and spiteful nature of his religion. We should thank him.

You do realize I would of been the target of the discrimination right?

Yea and? You are posting on a website that has tons of American atheists who will read this knowing we are the most mistrusted minority in America, more mistrusted than Muslims and gays, currently.

I really hate it when people hide behind the past. No one is saying forget the past, we are saying you don't get a pass because of the past.

I don't even advise atheists to go around saying "When we become the majority we will treat you better". Nope, the atheists living now will not be alive in 100 years or 500 years, so even know we understand being a minority now, that does not mean if power shifts in the future that we are immune from what has always been part of or evolution, both good and bad.

Our labels as a species are not moral codes. Our morality is in our evolution.

(January 31, 2015 at 3:57 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You still don't get it, my point was the marriage license should be abolished, especially because of it's history of discrimination.

Which is fine, though it's still an irrelevant point to what's actually being discussed. I don't even really disagree with that point, though if an argument could be made for the utility of the license system- I can think of a few, though they aren't perfect- then I don't think it should be abolished merely because it was historically used to aid in discrimination. We don't necessarily need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, if there's actually a baby in there.

Quote:there's a difference.
First of all you're Australian,

... Who obtained his marriage license in his new home in Colorado, less than a month ago.

Quote:So you made no mention of gays?

Well, the reason the proposal was made was to skirt marriage equality laws, but I didn't post the article to make light of that, but rather the troublesome lengths that religious lawmakers will go to for their agendas, and the lack of regard they hold for secular institutions in the bargain. That proposal is about far more than just gay marriage.

(January 31, 2015 at 4:02 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: And your point is?

---

You do realize I would of been the target of the discrimination right?

Yea and? You are posting on a website that has tons of American atheists who will read this knowing we are the most mistrusted minority in America, more mistrusted than Muslims and gays, currently.

I really hate it when people hide behind the past. No one is saying forget the past, we are saying you don't get a pass because of the past.

To be clear, who is the most mistrusted minority?
My point was, to correlate racism with Christianity is nonsense, Black Christians are discriminated against by white Christians, that's just plain old racism,

---

(January 31, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ... Who obtained his marriage license in his new home in Colorado, less than a month ago.

Congratulations!

(January 31, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 4:02 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Yea and? You are posting on a website that has tons of American atheists who will read this knowing we are the most mistrusted minority in America, more mistrusted than Muslims and gays, currently.

I really hate it when people hide behind the past. No one is saying forget the past, we are saying you don't get a pass because of the past.

To be clear, who is the most mistrusted minority?
My point was, to correlate racism with Christianity is nonsense, Black Christians are discriminated against by white Christians, that's just plain old racism,

---

(January 31, 2015 at 4:16 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ... Who obtained his marriage license in his new home in Colorado, less than a month ago.

Congratulations!

No shit. So if I point out to you black atheists other blacks discriminate against would that change your POV?

Yes the bible WAS used by white Christians to justify very horrible things. and? The Koran is also used to justify horrible things. And the OT as well.

You know how many blacks in the south flip out if you point out that two of Martin Luther King Jr's biggest supporters were atheists? And blacks down here while voting for Obama, also voted against gay marriage for the same reason whites did. RELIGION.

Your facial features and skin tone are a product of evolution. Labels like race and religion are artificial constructs humans have invented to create social pecking orders. Religion fosters racism and gives it cover.

So when you point to the past rightfully so, and say "look at what they did" fine, but that still does not mean you yourself and your own claims should be given a pass.

I hate that when Jews do it, I hate it when Muslims do it, I hate it when anyone does it. In evolution we are ALL both majorities and minorities depending on location and period of time.

Yes racism is DIRECTLY built into the big three religions. The worst idea that humanity inflicted on itself, even though it did not know any better at the time was the very bad idea of "chosen people".

FYI the west became civil in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

(January 31, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No shit. So if I point out to you black atheists other blacks discriminate against would that change your POV?

Please, by all means, point it out. I can count black atheists I've heard of on like three fingers.

(January 31, 2015 at 4:57 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Please, by all means, point it out. I can count black atheists I've heard of on like three fingers.

The oppressed minority decided to buy into the massa's ideals so he wouldn't get beaten or killed. Even today there's still plenty of white on black racism to be had. You can't change the color of your skin, but you can tell them what they want to hear.

(January 31, 2015 at 4:57 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No shit. So if I point out to you black atheists other blacks discriminate against would that change your POV?

Please, by all means, point it out. I can count black atheists I've heard of on like three fingers.

The two guys pictured have their own podcast Dion is the host.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Intellect...7096446095

This guy is a huge reason atheism has exploded on the internet and was one of the first to attempt putting together an online 24 feed of atheist based radio.

https://www.facebook.com/theinfidelguy (was the first black atheist to be on prime time tv for an entire hour on the show Wife Swap, although he didn't like the experience)

Then there are these guys.

https://www.facebook.com/BlackAtheistsofAmerica

Then there is this lady.

https://www.facebook.com/jamilabey?fref=ts

Then there is this story.

https://blackatheists.wordpress.com/

And I mentioned before the black atheists who supported King.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/reli...53211196/1


And there is this group.

https://www.facebook.com/africanamericansforhumanism