(June 27, 2015 at 10:48 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 10:25 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: So do you agree that polygamy should be permissible? That was a definition of marriage two thousand years ago.

You Christians have changed the definition of marriage already. Why are you complaining about that now, if not to defend your bigotry?

No.  The United States never recognized polygamy.  When our country was founded and the constitution was put into law,marriage was accepted as a union between and man and a woman.  If another country was founded accepting polygamy, that's their business.  They should apply whatever legal status is warranted.

So what, the founders owned slaves too.

A lot of talk seems to centre around the idea that Christians don't want to call the legal union of two gay people 'marriage', and that they don't like the idea of 'redefining' that word.  Fair enough, and in the interest of making them happy, I offer the following alternate definition:

marriage (n):  The union of one man and one woman who are both so mind-bendingly insecure that they deeply and sincerely believe that any other sort of union of the same name is somehow a threat to theirs.

Boru

(June 28, 2015 at 1:01 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: A lot of talk seems to centre around the idea that Christians don't want to call the legal union of two gay people 'marriage', and that they don't like the idea of 'redefining' that word.  Fair enough, and in the interest of making them happy, I offer the following alternate definition:

marriage (n):  The union of one man and one woman who are both so mind-bendingly insecure that they deeply and sincerely believe that any other sort of union of the same name is somehow a threat to theirs.

Boru

That sums it up right there. Gays getting married is not threat to them. They have been sold religious bullshit.

Change Approved.

Lek: This doesn't affect your religion one single bit. No one can force churches to host same sex marriage. This is about not forcing the rest of the population to live by religious values.

I'm very sad to see that you think the upset of a group over the definition and history of a word should be considered above removing the blatant, pointless discrimination which stigmatises a whole section of society.

Marriage has nothing to do with religion anymore. Nothing. If you choose to make it about religion, that is your problem.

Your argument seems to be we shouldn't change laws when they are found to be harmful in case people get bent out of shape about it. Under that mindset, we'd still be stuck with slavery, no rape in marriage, no women voting, and so on.

This is the problem with the concept of religion in our species history. Our species evolved to seek patterns, when humans think they work, no matter how bigoted, or how much they lack any pragmatism, or facts, the tribe will blindly protect those social norms.

This is good news even to some theist.

Let all hate end

FWIW, of my Facebook friends who are theists, only one has had anything negative to say, and that's just some guy I know from work.

A few others have said positive things, and they're all right in my book.

(June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote: on the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral.  

Please make a case for why same sex relationships are immoral without referring to god/bible.

I agree, that statement is baffling.

Remember, "moral" means "in the interests of wellbeing and minimising harm, or simply causing no harm." It doesn't mean "makes an invisible creature unhappy".

I hope you'll really think about this Lek. You are better than this. That statement betrays years of religious programming, and I hope you can reason your way through it enough to see that. You are one of my favourite theists on here, and one of the few with the potential to actually change their views, in my opinion.