BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 05:05 PM

Ed. What route would that be? Appeasement?

pete. If you have reservations about equality you are a wicked shit.

See Ed? Fucking simple
😎

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 04:24 PM

when bill said he was closing the evolution/religion thread, I predicted that such was the evolutionist and atheist crusading fervour that someone would bring it up again anyway. with a few it has been incidental, rather than aimed at me. however don firth seems to be that tortured soul that has to raise it specifically in connection to me
if it were not that rejection of God and his book , imo, were not so serious, it would be hilarious. here are all these highly educated skeptics that feel they just have to try and goad the only Christian here who takes the plain reading of scripture ,as held by most of the Christian church since the apostles. and many, if not most of them regard me as an idiot.   not only that but they view my biblical faith as some kind of a threat.....despite the fact, that it is they who give me the opportunity to share that faith and challenge their own faith position of, all from nout , and goo to you via the zoo belief.

I shall have to concede that it does seem that public opinion on homosexual/lesbian "marriage" has changed. the political and media campaigning has achieved this acceptance, and if you base your morality and socially accepted practise legislature on most votes, I guess that's it.

part of the campaign seems to be the foisting of the idea that anyone with "old fashioned" ideals, or religious reservations about redefining marriage is homophobic, haters and bigoted.
seems , it has to be all or nothing for some people here.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 03:38 PM

""I appear to inadvertently debating with a philosopher.""

Since you are debating with yourself, I suspect few would say it was "with a philosopher":)

Don't confuse yourself (aka, place yourself on too high of a perch) that you are the only Mudcat member who has issues with bigoted statements-others just have a more reasoned, less boring, and less repetitive route to deal with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 01:56 PM

Wow.. I appear to inadvertently debating with a philosopher.

Whats a true bigot when he's at home then?

📕📗📘📙 I shall have to read up in case I look foolish and out of my depth eh?

💤

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 01:43 PM

You seem to be arguing with yourself Musket, as I see no contrary opinion on the preferred plight of true bigots.

That gives you points to enter the "Mudcat looney-poster" catagory. (I suspect you have a few stored up points to add 'em to).

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 01:41 PM

Thanks, Monique, for the correction. I should stick to words, such as "million" and "billion" rather than chance miscounting zeroes. Less confusing....

The universe and the solar system have been around a bit longer than the Biblical 6,000 years!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 12:46 PM

The safety and acceptance in society for gay people still has a far way to go. However, we have reached the stage where bigoted opinions of a section of society with no reason whatsoever is wrong, and needs shutting up.

Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 09:41 AM

"When someone else's safety and acceptance in society is on the line, your personal discomfort comes in a very distant second." 
― Courtney Milan

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 09:08 AM

It is indeed "odd" that seemingly intelligent folks are not open-minded and observant enough to see the lack in logic of their own perspectives/approaches, while pointing out the holes in the perspectives of others

I really do try and see others points of view, if only to trry and understand how or why their opinion should vary so much to mine. If it is a learning environment I am happy to learn from others. But now here is the crux, accepting my opinions of what is bigotry is my opinion, I simply can never or accept bigotry in the face of evidence that show the high likelihood it is totally wrong.

Someone wanting to believe, for instance, that homosexuality is a choice I find a little obtuse based on all the evidence otherwise, though I would defend the right of that person to believe as they wish.

Only when they wish to turn that belief into a weapon of hate or harm can I never agree with it. This also goes for activists on all sides who would want to use insult and hurt (or worse) to further an argument or bring about change. I think aggression breeds aggression... but that too is only my opinion.

If we are to survive as a species we certainly need to move toward the middle ground from all sides

The difference being that I think bigotry does lead to or involve hatred. Arguing against it does not, at least against the protaganist, but may do against the subject. I hate hate!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 08:49 AM

If Ed T is the Ed referred to in recent posts (there are more than one):

It is hardly "nieve" to observe and reflect that some folks, at times, criticise others for rigidly seeing things from one perspective, when these same folks often exhibit similar characteristics in many of their posts. That has nothing to do with reinforcing bigotry, which we likely all feel we do not do-but likely define it, and where it exists, differently.

It is indeed "odd" that seemingly intelligent folks are not open-minded and observant enough to see the lack in logic of their own perspectives/approaches, while pointing out the holes in the perspectives of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,responding to stupid...
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 08:29 AM

Does the puppy consent?
You are an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 08:02 AM

I suppose my last post came over as meaning altruism leads to religion... In that altruism can mean caring for the plight of others, leading to "saving them from themselves" leading to "alpha male" without killing others to keep the title, then yes, I have a personal opinion that if any species developed awareness and sufficient communication, the sense of caring for / interfering with others could lead to something suspiciously like religion.

It is, however, just my lay opinion. I have no religious leanings, no superstition angle to my character and am wary of anybody wishing to inflict their take on life on others.

Ed's rather naive post above sets that very scene. I get rather angry, or at least as angry as a rational person can get on something as irrelevant as internet debate, when I see people go from expressing a view (fair comment) to saying people are wrong to do x (sod all to do with them what others do.) Confronting bigotry doesn't always look pretty, but any other approach gives their denouncement of others an air of respectability and that would never do....

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 07:25 AM

"Though I do think bigotry has a certain mindset, I do not believe people are born with it. They are taught it."

Yes!!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 07:18 AM

We seem to be hard wired to have some form of faith. I assume it comes from the Darwinian notion of altruism, as exhibited by any species in one form or another. Our somewhat advanced notion of awareness and ease of communication inevitably leads to group agreement of such matters, or religion as we call it.

I am not too sure about faith being connected to altruism, Musket, but I see where you are with that.

Humans, being mainly social animals, use reciprocal altruism that almost certainly evolved (as in other animals) as a survival strategy. True altruism is rare, but it is exhibited by humans for sure.

I have thought about your comment a great deal and cannot think of a mechanism where faith would evolve in such way BUT that does not mean I do not think it has not happened. I simply cannot think what the primer would be. We certainly seem to have a deeper need to believe in something (even if that something is nothing as in atheists) and much good science and religion may have stemmed from that need. But science does indeed seek answers and religion poses many questions.

Once we started socialising and having language I well imagine it would not take long before the 'supernatural' events that were happening in nature would need some explanation. I guess our minds were hard wired back then with more empty space than they now are and within that space all sorts of theories were conjoured up in explanation of natural events. Back then, as now, the better orators would have been able to convince those around them of what was happening. Memes spread very fast so it is not surprising that civilisation now has these artefacts that can often haunt some. I do believe some minds are more open to suggestion than others and that some folk are better at placing ideas in those minds than others. If it's fopr good then I am all for it. What we are concerned about in this topic is perhaps when it is for the bad. Though I do think bigotry has a certain mindset, I do not believe people are born with it. They are taught it.

Now I say that from my stance as an agnostic. That is not to say I do not respect those decent religious scholars and followers who also seek truth and answers. It has nothing to do with me what they believe as long as it is not against me. And there are many religious folk who are just as decent as atheists, agnostics, etc. Takes all kinds to make a society. I believe that most people are actually good and want good for others. We see it all the time on mudcat as an example.

I am curious. Do you have a mechanism in mind that will show me how altruism and spirituality are/can be connected, or is it, like mine, a personal opinion?

Many thanks

mp

I will add, from other comments in the thread, that if homosexuality is a choice, and we accept that, then being straight must also be a choice and therein lies all sorts of things concerning fluidity within sexuality.

Personally I do not believe it is a choice. No person would choose to live a life of villification and insult if they had another option. I do not believe that one gene is responsible either. I think it is a group of genes that may also be affectred environmentally, pre and post birth. But then we look to epigenetics for answers. They will come!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 07:10 AM

"if I am right, others must be wrong, so I must impress my ideas on them."

My observation is this type of attitude comes from many keyboards on many mudcat thread issues. It is interesting that folks mostly bring up the behavior when they wish to chastise those who they see as being on the "wrong side" (aka not their side) of a perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 02:43 AM

Don's church's outlook on life seems to be to look at the world as it is and say God did it. Far different to saying the world must be wrong because it doesn't fit into biblical theories.

We seem to be hard wired to have some form of faith. I assume it comes from the Darwinian notion of altruism, as exhibited by any species in one form or another. Our somewhat advanced notion of awareness and ease of communication inevitably leads to group agreement of such matters, or religion as we call it.

The problems stem from the notion that "if I am right, others must be wrong, so I must impress my ideas on them." Don describes a creed comfortable in its own skin.

Fair play to you.

😇

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Monique
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 02:27 AM

Don, there are 3 zeros missing to your figures, the "heavens" are 13,000,000,000 years old and the earth, 4,500,000,000 years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Oct 14 - 12:03 AM

Yep, that's them. I LOVE the hair!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: sciencegeek
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 11:55 PM

Portsmouth or Mystic?

We were at Portsmouth... though we all also make it to Mystic. Since 1985 for me.

If the boys get teased at all, it might just be that they are quite the pair of red heads. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 10:05 PM

Right, Jeri.

The evidence is right there for anyone to peruse. Look it up yourself, Guest. I'm not responsible for your education. Your ignorance is your problem, not mine.

I don't have a puppy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 09:59 PM

Don, please don't be the troll's bitch again. He's not making much sense at all, and I wish we'd save our arguments for something less stupid. (I know: resistance is futile.)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 09:47 PM

Show me the genetic evidence.

May I kill your puppy, if it's something I choose to do? You have to support my choice. To deny it would be discrimination. Maybe I have a gene that makes me kill puppies. Do you have the right to say no to me?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 09:16 PM

First of all, Nameless Guest, sexual orientation has been established as genetic and hormonal in nature (and in Nature). Read up on the latest on the subject and educate yourself.

And the rest of your post is pure blather!

Greg, a discussion I overheard one morning during coffee hour after the church service was a fellow challenging the pastor on the matter of Jesus' virgin birth. The pastor responded by saying, "Well, first you have to understand that in the various myths about religious figures of all faiths, the story is that they all entered the world in some miraculous fashion and left it in a miraculous fashion. The idea that Mary was a virgin probably came from the early church's efforts to attract the various 'virgin cults' into the church. What matters is what Jesus said, not the gynecological details of his conception and birth."

Also, the folks in this church have no problem with the "heavens" being 13,000,000 years old and the earth, 4,500,000 years old. Evolution? That's how God did it.

Like I say, pete wouldn't be too happy in the church I go to….

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 08:50 PM

Homosexuality is a matter of choice. Strong compulsion, which some give in to. Genetics has nothing to do iwth it.

Why must I be supportive of someone's behavior? Must I support politicians who kill with drones? Must I support rapists?

If I want to kill puppies, I could use the 'homosexual tolerance' precedent to demand you support me. After all, homosexual behavior and killing puppies are both behaviors. And killing puppies rids the world of greenhouse gas offenders.

So if I want to kill puppies, is that protected behavior?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 08:11 PM

One of the pastors once held up a copy of the Bible and said, "This is not the Boy Scout Manual. It is not full of answers, it's full of questions."

Don, nest time you run into that pastor, please tell him I wish I could shake his hand & buy him a drink and dinner.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 08:02 PM

Poor Ake. As the world moves on, he and those of his persuasion are destined to go the way of the dinosaur and the dodo.

It may cause him to weep, wail, gnash his teeth, and rend his garments, but the church my wife and I belong to is a quite liberal branch of the Lutheran church. It does not evangelize by ringing your doorbell, or backing you against a wall and stuffing tracts down your shirt front, it evangelizes with deeds. Free lunch programs for the poor and finding homes for the homeless, among other things.

One of the pastors once held up a copy of the Bible and said, "This is not the Boy Scout Manual. It is not full of answers, it's full of questions."

Within the thirty-some years my wife and I have been going to this church, there have been three woman pastors. The current pastor is a woman.

And during that time, at least three gay couples and two lesbian couples have been married in the church. Of the gay couples, there are several attorneys and one State Legislator.

pete 7*s would definitely not be happy there….

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 06:10 PM

"In the country and area where I live, my views are the views of a rather large majority."

The majority of people of Scotland recently voted to remain with in the UK. Laws related to marriage are part of this system of governing. Below are the view of citizens towards gay marriage within the UK community of citizens.


Majority in Uk support Gay Marriage 

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:58 PM

Best of all Don, a lie.

Scotland has a thriving set of gay communties, and many non communities as being gay isnt seen as a divide in many many communities. Three gay couples live within 100 yards of Akenaton for instance. I am a joint best man at the wedding of one such couple early next year.

His sort are dying out. Not too soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:51 PM

Graphic, and quite effective as well, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:46 PM

Ake: "In the country and area where I live, my views are the views of a rather large majority."

Graphic example of majority rule:

A lynch mob.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:42 PM

Laws are less likely to interfere Jeri. Lets all celebrate.

Bigots can for now carry on interfering by putting the seed of doubt.

If Mudcat was moderated, perhaps people wouldn't have to feel the distress of reading it eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 04:45 PM

Portsmouth or Mystic? If so, I know the family of whom you speak, and yes, they're all quite happy, and the sort of folks one would love living next door to.

At some point, I just give up. Haters gonna hate, stupid people are dedicated to stupidity, and life happens no matter what they want. I'm just glad laws are becoming less likely to interfere with people's happiness.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 02:46 PM

"When I was married, male homosexual practice was a criminal offence.
I opposed this legislation."

I aplaud your sense of fairness/justice in opposing legalized persecution. But ask if you really consider the removal of criminalization the same as fair and equal treatment?

I had tried to post something a few days back & it vanished into the ether... but I'll try again.

A few weeks back at a music festival, I could not find my way to a concert site... a young couple heard me asking for directions and kindly ame over and invited me to tag along with them, as they were heading the same way. We had a pleasant chat along the way and foound we had much in common.

The next day I saw them again and they had they two sons with them. It was wonderful to see such a warm, loving family with two perfectly happy kids. It didn't bother the boys that they had two "moms". What would bother those kids the most would be to hear hateful things said about the two people who love and care for them. Or to be deprived of one or other because the law only grants legal rights to one or the other parent.

To be legally treated as a family, current laws require marriage of some kind... civil or religious still requires some kind of paperwork from "the state".

Fair and equal treatment should never be denied to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 02:39 PM

Lets pick on an area of The UK, let's say Scotland for instance. There, a voted in government led by SNP, a party of social justice said in their manifesto they would legalise gay marriage to "remove the stain" as they put it. The Scottish people voted the government in and with cross party support, just like two other regions of The UK, England and Wales, equality in marriage was passed into law, the will of the people.

There are health and welfare considerations for gay people, like the mental anguish whilstever bigots are still alive and getting away with printing lies to persuade people to hate them. Time will cure those barriers though, the police and courts are doing their bit and decent honest people treat bigots with contempt anyway.

Just out of interest for anybody is confused, there is no such thing as homosexual "marriage" but we have marriage for all, equal to and in every way as valid and wonderful as any other marriage, gay or straight.

Perhaps the young man Bruce who I knew in London and suffered with his mental health because of a father who sexually abused him whilst hypocritically opposing rights for gay people will become a story of the past rather than the present once bigots realise their cause is not supported, and their time draws to a sorry close. People like his father rely on hatred of gays.

😰

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 02:12 PM

Final exception for Bill.
When I was married, male homosexual practice was a criminal offence.
I opposed this legislation.
Marriage was clearly defined by Church and State as between 1 man and 1 woman.
As the years passed, the State came under pressure from the homosexual lobby, chiefly in the media, to allow civil union then "marriage" between two people of the same gender.
Legislation to allow this redefinition has been adopted in a minority of countries and in a minority of States in some countries.
This is clearly a redefinition of formal marriage.

The established Church in the UK (Church of England) has not accepted this redefinition, nor has the Church of Scotland, or the Catholic Church.

I was not married in Church and as an atheist I oppose the legislation on the obvious health and societal grounds.

In the country and area where I live, my views are the views of a lather large majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 12:58 PM

Hopefully, an anomaly?


Pastor admits sex with church members with knowledge of AIDS 

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 10:42 AM

"...Christian marriage involving two people of the same gender, before the redefinition?

There was no redefinition--- some progressive churches just began marrying people.... but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#Modern_times_2
(you can scroll UP to see historical instances)
No one 'redefined' anything... some countries & churches just began formally legalizing it after many years of Christian denominations refusing to recognize it. I don't see that being stubborn and bigoted constitutes a 'definition'.
In any case.... imagine someone you know and like explaining that they have just been legally married to someone of the same sex. What has changed in YOUR life since yesterday?

There's a small financial change for the government as benefits are granted, but I doubt that is your concern Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 10:21 AM

Keith. For what it is worth to you, I thank you in all humility for that post.

Ian.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 10:17 AM

Thanks Jacqui.
Sorry Ed and Musket.
I never have and never would defend any homophobic attack by anyone Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 10:07 AM

Its alright Jacqui. Keith defends Akenaton when it comes to homophobic attacks on innocent people. They have form..

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 08:42 AM

Ake: "I will have nothing further to say on this matter, insults or trolling will not be responded to ....Ake. "

This is rich. After one of his periodical, hate-filled, anti- homosexual diatribes he refuses to discuss his ill-founded, bigoted assertions. He's not just an ignorant troll he's a cowardly, ignorant troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: jacqui.c
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 08:21 AM

Keith - see akenaton - October 10 4.42am

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 07:06 AM

I am keeping up Musket.
I do not know who you think my "Jesus freak mates" or my "pet" is, but I have seen no one make that claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 06:30 AM

Your Jesus freak mates for starters. Oh, and your pet.

Do keep up..

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 06:20 AM

Who claims that?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 06:10 AM

A large number of todays marriages have no religious involvement. All marrages must involve a government issued licence to be considered valid. Many result in divorce, under the rules of the government, not a church. Few divorced seek a church annulment, but are considered divorced, regardless. Thus, the claim that marriage is today a church institution, not a government one,holds little logical water.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:49 AM

Drive something underground then say it only affects a few people.

Mmmm...

By the way, my marriage wasn't in a church, nor am I a Christian, but my marriage is as legitimate as anybody else's. Ditto anybody and everybody who is married, regardless. Marriage is a legal contract, nothing more, nothing less as it affects others. Anything deeper is between those within the marriage. Churches have a licence from the government to conduct marriage, not the other way round. (UK, but I'm sure it applies elsewhere?)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 05:40 AM

Sorry Bill... my maths was well out :(

Thanks for the correction

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 04:54 AM

PS - US rates may be higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Oct 14 - 04:50 AM

1. It's not "1%". It's 1.5%. And that is very likely to be skewed by high denial rates amongst older people.
2. That is based on self-reporting. 5% did not answer - probably because they are in fact gay or bisexual but are repressed.
3. That would fit with earlier Treasury and Stonewall estimates.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/03/gay-britain-what-do-statistics-say