Before never is never?
Before? You say that as if I ever will. *sobs*
@SterIing Archer, ditto :P
People didn't nearly make this much fuss when the UK got same-sex marriage. Even the church and the opposition basically put their hands up and said "Well, OK, things have changed and its what the majority of people want and we need to get with the times,"
USA, calm your small blue songbirds, it's not the end of the world! If the UK can take a bit of gay lovin', surely you as our (slightly removed) children can suck it up and take it like man!
@LowGravitasWarning, thank you, grandfatherly British man. I swear, our country turns things into controversy on purpose.
@LowGravitasWarning, most of the birds in the group you are referring to in that phrase are grey and brown in the U.S.
@wallweasel, how frightfully boring! No wonder you're all so uptight if your songbirds are all such drab colours!
@LowGravitasWarning, you've obviously never seen our Painted Bunting
@LowGravitasWarning, I am a part of the opposition and had it been voted on by the people and the majority won, I'd have accepted it. May not have liked it but accepted it. But it wasn't voted on by the people. It was decided on by a group of 9 appointed people. So the people didn't really have a say in it.
@PrestonRX, same sort of thing happened here, the vote was cast by MP's (elected) then confirmed by the House of Lords (not-elected) and granted Royal Assent by the Queen (not-elected). So there are elements of non-elective as well as elective, which I'm fine with. At the end of the day, if we don't trust a system of government to operate in the interests of its people and make a decision that it believes represents a majority of its people, we are all two meals away from waving the flag of bloody revolution.
In short: government is government and unless you want to start putting people against a wall in the name of revolution, you have to accept that not every law will come direct from the mouth of the public. If it did, everyone would legalise free backrubs and make every day a national holiday
@LowGravitasWarning, well actually it is supposed to come from the mouths of the people. That is what our house and congress is. People appointed mouths for us. Granted most either talk to much or not enough but that's besides the point. The supreme court is not supposed to make laws. They act like self appointed life tenured super legislatures. It has always been the states right to decide about gay marriage. It may have taken longer bit eventually it would have happened and been less of a shock to the system. I don't know any of the rights in england but here we have freedom of religion which means the government can't tell a church what to do. And yet so many a are trying to force churches to marry gay couples and truly that is what the fuss is about.
@Sah3369, I understand and I accept your point, at the end of the day, I live half a world away so I can't comment on every little thing in your country but just re my own;
The government here put in place a lock (meaning the ceremony cannot be deemed lawful) on religious institutions performing gay marriages UNLESS they specifically opt-in. The Quakers I know are one group who have opted in off the top of my head. So in effect, the government is protecting religious bodies here by saying "It is your right to religious freedom, we are therefore making it illegal for you to perform a same-sex marriage, unless you agree internally this is something you want to do,". That way, religious people cannot be forced to do anything they don't want to and their followers (or anyone else) cannot threaten them with action if they refuse to perform a same sex marriage because the government has actually told them its illegal to do. Meanwhile those that do, can go to the gov and say, yes, we'll do it
@LowGravitasWarning, right and that is what has happened here. People are just afraid that one day it won't be like that, I think, which is really the biggest reason people argue
As long as it can stay separate I don't see anything wrong with it. So tip of the hat to your government good sir or madam
@PrestonRX, normally I'd agree with you but the Courts job is to protect the rights of minority groups from the will of the majority. In my humble opinion, gays right to marry is not a decision for the majority to make, but a fundamental right that should be protected regardless of what people think. I like to use the example of: if 51% of Americans thought we should legalize the murder of black Americans, should we allow it because the majority rules? Of course not. Of course that's a hyperbolic example but I feel the principle stands. Again purely my opinion and I respect your differing one
Yea...this is true...I literally came back from a lesbian wedding... and yes that is actually a true story
Will the political posts ever end?
@Amatory Poutsa , Sorry for accidentally downvoting you earlier.
@Amatory Poutsa , no, there will always be politics in the funny served here
@Amatory Poutsa , equal rights isn't political.
@Usmovers, They had equal rights, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Now they have special rights.
@Usmovers, You misspelled "absolutely correct"
@ archiethesailor, incorrect
@Usmovers, if you have an argument to make then make it.
@Usmovers, I already did.
@ archiethesailor, do you think about what words mean before you put them out there or are you just rolling the dice on every statement?
@ archiethesailor, It's the law, so yes, marriage.
@Pigwidgeon, Abortion is legal too, but that doesn't make it right
@Your Grandmas Tits, Sounds good to me
@ archiethesailor, Abortion is legal because it's a right. Just like same-sex marriage. Denying people that is oppression.
@ archiethesailor, heyyyy lets not start some silly agressive jibber jabber in ye 'ol comment section ay
@Pigwidgeon, They are not right, Abortion if murder, denying something wrong is not oppression. I'm done with you now, listen to your grandma's Tits and don't start an argument.
@ archiethesailor, I said they are *a* right, as in I have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not based on my beliefs. And marriage is a right to marry the person you love regardless of their gender. If you don't want an argument maybe don't post offensive comments you know will rile people up.
@ archiethesailor, Don't you have anything better to do than complain about things that have no effect on you whatsoever? And by "having an effect" I don't mean all the times you cried yourself to sleep because you can't believe you live in a world where people are free to marry people of the same sex. What's that? Other people being happy who aren't me? Perish the thought. People used the exact same argument you're using right now before slavery was abolished and during the Holocaust. "Oh but it's not oppression because we're above them blah blah blah entitled BS etc etc". Happy Freedom Day by the way.
@Archmage Araketh, This is why I tell you you're an idiot. You don't seem to know what hated is
@ archiethesailor, I feel sorry for you, you have so much hatred for so many different people. It must be tiring.
@Pigwidgeon, The truth is offensive? Then some people need to be offended. And abortion is legal and considered a right, but it's not actually one. Abortionists will be punished
@ archiethesailor, I'm sorry you're getting a lot of hate - you're definitely entitled to your own beliefs and opinions but something to keep in mind is that it's impossible to legislate morality .. True Freedom is the ability to choose: to wave a flag or burn it, to believe a specific doctrine or deny it. Freedom without choice is not really freedom at all.
@Banana Waffle, Thank you, whether you agree with my views or not.
to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward.
This describes how you've spoken against those you believed to have 'sinned'. You've shown this by constantly using ad homonyms and doing things like down-voting my comments that aren't even related to controversial topics. I would call that 'extreme aversion for or extreme hostility towards'.
@Archmage Araketh, You claim that I hate a bunch of people though, I don't. I have hate for you and one other person(even though I try not to). What I try to follow is the hate the sin, love the sinner ideology
@ archiethesailor, so you love me? Sorry, I don't role that way.
@Archmage Araketh, There's a difference between not hating and loving
@ archiethesailor, it's cool if you do, though.
@ archiethesailor, you said that you love sinners, right? Well, you believe that I'm a sinner, don't you? So you love me. But I'm straight, so you're going to have to move on from me and find another man.
@Archmage Araketh, You know what I meant. Love the sinner doesn't mean in a romantic way, you know that. I also said that I hated you even though I shouldn't.
@ archiethesailor, don't disobey Jesus, make love all those sinful men, I'm sure he did.
@Archmage Araketh, And now you're just taunting me, because you know you have no facts to back up your indefensible position. I'll leave you with this link that you'll probably ignore again. It's more than you deserve.
@ archiethesailor, it's the same website as before. Are you taunting me? The fact is, that Jesus told you to love sinners (including me), yet you actively disobey him by hating me. Not a very good Christian now, are you?
@Archmage Araketh, https://carm.org/atheism
@ archiethesailor, why would I go to a Christian website to learn about atheism? At least now I realise why your information is messed up, you're going to the wrong sources.
@Archmage Araketh, Because you don't understand how wrong you are, only a Christian can understand that.
@ archiethesailor, that's rather convenient, isn't it? Seeing how you are a Christian. I'm sure Muslims believe the same about Islam and Hindus about Hinduism. I used to be a Christian, when I was a gullible child. Then I realised that there's no reason to believe in any of the thousands of gods that have been made up over the years. A Christian website with an agenda isn't going to convince me that the god of the bible exists, just as much as Norse myth is going to convince me that Odin exists.
@Archmage Araketh, I'm a Christian because I understand the facts. Apparently, you were smarter as a kid. That's unfortunate. And sure, others think what they do, but they're wrong, only one religion can be right, and that's Christianity. Not Hinduism, not Islam, and definitely not atheism.
@ archiethesailor, you're Christian because you were born into a Christian country, with a Christian family. Religion is almost always geographical, you can see this by looking at different countries and there theistic beliefs.
@Archmage Araketh, I'm a Christian because I learned the facts after going into my period of doubt that always comes to people who follow faith blindly.
@Archmage Araketh, Oh, and I forgot to end my sentence with the link.
@ archiethesailor, do you believe that there is material evidence for god's existence?
@Archmage Araketh, The material evidence is only to prove the Bible's worth. We use that and logic to provide evidence that God is real. Other than that, there is no material evidence proving an immaterial being. It's explained in the website.
@ archiethesailor, 'First of all, the scientific method is a system of learning that consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, and theory. It is based on logic and observations of the material universe and its properties.
Second, the scientific method, along with a materialistic worldview, necessarily excludes transcendence - that which exists independent of the universe. Therefore, it can't detect what is outside of the material realm since it is based on observing things inside the material realm.
Third, the Christian worldview proclaims a transcendent God who exists outside of, and independent of, the material universe. In other words, the Christian God is not dependent upon the material universe or its properties for his existence.
Therefore, to ask for scienfically testable, material, non-transcendent based evidence for an immaterial, transcendent God is the wrong approach because it is a category mistake.'
@ archiethesailor, it says that you can't scientifically test for god. If that's the case, then there is no evidence that meets the scientific standard of proof that I require before believing anything.
@Archmage Araketh, So then, logic means nothing to you
@ archiethesailor, if god is immaterial and can't be tested for, then what's the difference between him and something that doesn't exist? You say that there is 'transcendent evidence' for him, but what does that even mean? If you can't test scientifically, then you can't test objectively. If you can't test objectively, then you can't get an objective view of reality. Saying 'you can't test for god' is a cop out. You could replace the word 'god' with the word 'Santa' and the argument would make as much sense.
@Archmage Araketh, The difference between God and Santa is that Santa was supposedly in the north pole. We've explored the north pole. Keep reading the link I gave you. Maybe you'll learn something. I'd be surprised though.
@ archiethesailor, you could also argue that Santa is 'immaterial', so you can't test for his workshop in the North Pole. It follows the same 'logic' the transcendence argument makes.
@Archmage Araketh, I could, and then I'd have to accept that there's a chance, which I'm willing to do. But it wouldn't be the Santa from the stories. He'd have nothing supporting his existence, unlike God of course
@ archiethesailor, I do accept there's a chance for god, but not because of the transcendence argument. But as I've explained before, there's a chance for werewolves, pixies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However because the chance is so low for all of them existing, I put it down as being false.
@Archmage Araketh, You can't say something is false if there's a chance. The spaghetti monster was created by an atheist to protest a rule about drivers licenses, so we can absolutely say that it's not real. But God has evidence supporting him, even if you believe the evidence isn't absolute proof, you can't deny that it's there,which puts Him above all other religions.
@ archiethesailor, what evidence is there for you're Christian god?
@ archiethesailor, by that logic, there's no point in having the word 'false', because there's a chance that everything exists.
@Archmage Araketh, Keep reading. It's on that site, a little father down. The evidence as well as answers to objections a few atheists have brought up. And no, you're wrong about that. We know for a fact that a few things are false.
@ archiethesailor, name something you know to be absolutely true. I've looked at this 'evidence' on the page and it makes no sense. They say that, because some things follow a pattern and that we recognise that pattern, which we call 'logic', then the Christian god must exist.
@Archmage Araketh, *absolutely false
@Archmage Araketh, It doesn't make sense to you? Might be because it goes against your worldview. Maybe your brain just can't understand evidence that goes against what you think to be true. I'm sorry you can't understand something like that, but that doesn't make it wrong.
@ archiethesailor, I understand what he's trying to say. He believes that, because our definition of logic doesn't match his own 'laws of logic', then his personal god must be responsible for logic. This is flawed, as logic is simply a man made concept of something following a set of rules. He suggests that logic can't be man made because humans can be subjective in their reasoning. However, there are some things that are logical that can't be interpreted with a 'different logic' that are man made, math for example. He also states that logic reflects the 'mind of god', because logic is a reflection of thought. However he never explains why that is the case or why it's his personal god that it reflects.
@ archiethesailor, If you don't like an abortion, don't get one. Don't like same-sex marriage, don't get one. Not everyone is a Christian. You can just sleep soundly at night knowing your God will punish everyone who thinks differently from you.
@Archmage Araketh, It's no use arguing with him, he won't listen. I'm convinced he's a troll, just looking for trouble. I agree with everything you said. You're probably my favorite commenter right now, I appreciate people with logic.
@Pigwidgeon, thanks, I've argued with him before. However, he's resorted to insults and I'm not sure that it's worth my time anymore. I'm just glad that my reasoning is getting through to somebody.
@ archiethesailor, I went to the webpage out of curiosity, to see if there was anything worth reading. In the very first paragraph the person takes the time to refer to atheists as aggressive and intolerant of all other beliefs. Now, to his or her credit, he or she does go on to say later on that the real issue is with militant atheists, and I agree with this to an extent as the militant and intolerant people (who exist on both sides, a point that was conveniently ignored in the parts I read but whatever) give everyone a bad name. But then I look at you, and I notice that all of your posts have been extremely intolerant towards other beliefs. You know, just like the militant atheists this person talks about. So congratulations, you just repeatedly posted a link that confirms the point everyone was trying to make: that you are a complete jerk and a disgrace to the majority of Christians who are actually decent, respectable, and love everyone as they are. You? You're just hateful.
@Archmage Araketh, Dang, what happened to peace on earth and love thy neighbor? I've argued with this brick wall before, it's exhausting and frustrating. Your reasoning is sound and logical, and definitely getting through.
@B1azernmn, And how am I hateful? For wanting everyone to do the right thing? For wanting them to get into heaven?
@Pigwidgeon, If you don't like murder, don't cause one
@ archiethesailor, I appreciate that you want everyone to get into heaven. However, the fact that you have been excessively rude, and intolerant, your point can't get across. "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
@Quantum Physicist , I try to only be rude to Araketh, and that's only because I've argued with him so many times and he never listens and tries to twist words around. I know I'm not the best example of how a Christian should be, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
@Quantum Physicist , But it is everyone's job to point out when someone is doing something wrong. And like I said, I'm not the best example of a Christian
@ archiethesailor, So what? You are supposed to be nice to everyone, including sinners. It's not your job to judge him.
@Quantum Physicist , You think I don't? It's not people that I need to repent to.
@ archiethesailor, If you realize you "aren't the best Christian," why do you refuse to apologize or repent?
@Quantum Physicist , Oh,and we were having such a nice conversation too. I explained it already, I'm intolerant if things that shouldn't be tolerated
@ archiethesailor, I feel like it would be respectful to apologize to some, but whatever. Especially when you are so intolerant it doesn't make me think you would.
@Quantum Physicist , And it's suddenly not nice to tell them what they're doing is wrong? I'd consider that to be really nice, as long as you're right about it
@ archiethesailor, Once again, love thy neighbor as thyself. It doesn't matter if you don't agree; be respectful. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all.
@Quantum Physicist , Actually, Morality is based on fact. It's objective and absolute. What's wrong is always wrong, even if people don't believe it
@ archiethesailor, Wrong is a relative term, friend. It is a matter of opinion, not fact. If you share your opinion politely, sure, but don't shove your opinions down my throat.
@ archiethesailor, I disagree. God may have an absolute sense of morality, but all humans may not. The world is not black and white.
@Quantum Physicist , Humans are subjective in their sense of morality, but if they differ from what God says is moral, then they're wrong. And no, it's not really black and white, what's wrong (like killing) is not always wrong (like when killing to protect someone innocent), but what's wrong in one situation (like killing an innocent for no reason) is always wrong in that situation.
@Quantum Physicist , no, it's not. I never expect it to, but I always need to defend my religion. Do you want to just forget about this? Maybe eventually we can just have a friendly chat.
@ archiethesailor, I believe it's more complicated than that, but you do have a point. This isn't really going anywhere, though.
@ archiethesailor, Perhaps. I define as Christian too, ya know, just in a less traditional way.
@ archiethesailor, the definition of marriage is the union of consenting adults of whom are romantically attracted to each other. Whether you like it or not, it's a marriage. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but sometimes certain opinions should never see the light of day. You could say, "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman," but no, instead you perceive this as not being marriage because it's not with straight people. With that mentality, a polygamist marriage is not a marriage.
You mean getting AIDS and dying earlier? Ohh boy.
@The Gatorade Bitch, AIDS and HIV are not dependent on your sexual preference
@wallweasel, But they do spread faster amongst the gays
@ archiethesailor, they spread faster among people who use anal play during intercourse, because the tissue is much thinner there than other parts of the body. I know plenty of straight people who love butt stuff, and plenty of gay people who do not.
@CaitiieBuggs, But analysis sex is the main type of sex amongst the gays
@ archiethesailor, are you a guy man having anal sex with other gay men? If not, you don't know that. Each couple (or group) engaging in sex have different sexual encounters and preferences. Studies actually show that the perception of anal sex amongst homosexual men is higher than the actual number of homosexual men engaging in anal sex. Some do, some do, but people incorrectly assume more people are doing it than not.
@ archiethesailor, there has never been any scientific proof of that.