I must be slipping
-
so whats it called when i just flat out do not believe in god or the possibility of a god? Is that still atheism, or is there another non religion affiliated term? Or, are you just saying that all atheists, since they have similar beliefs qualify as a religion?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
VonHagNDaz wrote:
so whats it called when i just flat out do not believe in god or the possibility of a god?
Believing that something does not exist is no different (conceptually) than believing that it does exist. That is, you are still believing something with little evidence pointing either way.
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Is that still atheism, or is there another non religion affiliated term?
There is another term for those that don't know what to believe: Agnostic.
VonHagNDaz wrote:
since they have similar beliefs qualify as a religion?
When you have a formalized (or semi-formalized in this case) belief/value system, you have a religion.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Zac Howland wrote:
Marriage shouldn't be regulated by the government.
Do you have any particular reason support this belief? Civil marriage is important for the sake of the product of marriage...children. The church has basically lost moral influence and can no longer persuade two people to continue mutual dedication for each other. This therefore requires a legal bond between husband and wife such that if one party is irresponsible and breaks his/her vows, the marriage can be dissolved in such a manner that promises are upheld (similar to a legally-binding contract). The abandonment of spouse and child would simply be too easy (not that it already isn't) if the bond between a husband and wife was not defined.
Red Stateler wrote:
Do you have any particular reason support this belief?
Regulating what is primarily a religious-based institution is beyond the mandate of government (at least our governmental system).
Red Stateler wrote:
Civil marriage is important for the sake of the product of marriage...children
I have no problem with the state keeping a record of civil contracts between 2 people. They do that all the time. Marriage (legally) is really nothing more than that, and should be treated as such (from a governmental point of view).
Red Stateler wrote:
This therefore requires a legal bond between husband and wife such that if one party is irresponsible and breaks his/her vows, the marriage can be dissolved in such a manner that promises are upheld (similar to a legally-binding contract).
Which is exactly my point. It shouldn't be treated any different than a contract, and therefore should not have any special legal standing (as it does now).
Red Stateler wrote:
The abandonment of spouse and child would simply be too easy (not that it already isn't) if the bond between a husband and wife was not defined.
Which is why you would have to make sure that when you wrote your contract, you specified the penalties for breaking it (which, currently, is not part of a marriage license).
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
so whats it called when i just flat out do not believe in god or the possibility of a god?
Believing that something does not exist is no different (conceptually) than believing that it does exist. That is, you are still believing something with little evidence pointing either way.
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Is that still atheism, or is there another non religion affiliated term?
There is another term for those that don't know what to believe: Agnostic.
VonHagNDaz wrote:
since they have similar beliefs qualify as a religion?
When you have a formalized (or semi-formalized in this case) belief/value system, you have a religion.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
So, the IEEE is a religion because they have a formalized belief/value system in electricity? If I do not believe in god because there is no evidence that god exists, how does that constitute a formalized belief/value system? Does that mean that if I don't believe in unicorns because there is not evidence that they exist that I belong to a religion of unicorn disbelievers?
-
Zac Howland wrote:
In a sense (if the supporters have their way) the state will be telling the church what is and isn't marriage (remember, they flat out said they want it called "marriage" in the article).
This has nothing to do with the state telling the church what is or is not marriage. Also, it is not a goal of supporters for this to happen.
Zac Howland wrote:
That is, there really is no need for any marriage laws (gay or straight).
Obviously, untrue. Child custody, insurance coverage, SS benefits are all impacted by who and who is not considered married.
oilFactotum wrote:
This has nothing to do with the state telling the church what is or is not marriage. Also, it is not a goal of supporters for this to happen.
From the article: Gay rights activists said they were pleased with the progress but would continue to push for same sex unions to be recognised as marriage. "I'm glad for the progress but not very satisfied," said Stephen Goldstein of gay rights group Garden State Equality.
oilFactotum wrote:
Obviously, untrue. Child custody, insurance coverage, SS benefits are all impacted by who and who is not considered married.
:sigh: You missed the point. I'm not saying that the state shouldn't allow 2 people to be bond legally; what I'm saying is that the state should not tell people what is and is not a legal bond between 2 consenting adults. In other words, if you write a contract that states that you will share your assests with [insert other person's name here], any children will be raised jointly, insurace will be shared, etc ... as well as specify what should happen should the contract be broken by either party, you effectively have a legal bond (that actually is stronger than a marriage license) that leaves the varying religious conotations out of the equation.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Civil marriage is important for the sake of the product of marriage...children.
I'd go one step further, and add that civil marriage is also to protect the legal rights of the two people entering into the civial marriage. Even in the absense of children, you can not walk away from your legal responsibilities that you agreed to when you entered into the civil marriage. In my mind the whole same-sex marriage issue should only be about ensuring these same legal responsibilities between the two individuals.
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler] Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp] The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson] I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
Chris Meech wrote:
I'd go one step further, and add that civil marriage is also to protect the legal rights of the two people entering into the civial marriage. Even in the absense of children, you can not walk away from your legal responsibilities that you agreed to when you entered into the civil marriage. In my mind the whole same-sex marriage issue should only be about ensuring these same legal responsibilities between the two individuals.
The practical purpose of marriage is the development of a stable and reliable home in which children can be decently raised with proper moral influence and a couple can provide mutual support to facilitate these ends. Same-sex marriage is absolutely pointless because it completely abandons the possibility of children and the necessity of the stable environment. Fiduciary responsibility is not unique to marriage, so government defined roles are not necessary to enforce financial responsibility. Marital responsibilities, however, go far beyond mere fiduciary duty.
-
So, the IEEE is a religion because they have a formalized belief/value system in electricity? If I do not believe in god because there is no evidence that god exists, how does that constitute a formalized belief/value system? Does that mean that if I don't believe in unicorns because there is not evidence that they exist that I belong to a religion of unicorn disbelievers?
oilFactotum wrote:
So, the IEEE is a religion because they have a formalized belief/value system in electricity?
Having a standardized system to keep things organized and having a belief system are 2 very different things.
oilFactotum wrote:
If I do not believe in god because there is no evidence that god exists
You have a belief that God does not exist. That is a belief, just like the one saying that He does exist.
oilFactotum wrote:
Does that mean that if I don't believe in unicorns because there is not evidence that they exist that I belong to a religion of unicorn disbelievers?
While you are being silly here, yes. You can start it up if you like ... just like the religion of the Fonz ... ;P
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Do you have any particular reason support this belief?
Regulating what is primarily a religious-based institution is beyond the mandate of government (at least our governmental system).
Red Stateler wrote:
Civil marriage is important for the sake of the product of marriage...children
I have no problem with the state keeping a record of civil contracts between 2 people. They do that all the time. Marriage (legally) is really nothing more than that, and should be treated as such (from a governmental point of view).
Red Stateler wrote:
This therefore requires a legal bond between husband and wife such that if one party is irresponsible and breaks his/her vows, the marriage can be dissolved in such a manner that promises are upheld (similar to a legally-binding contract).
Which is exactly my point. It shouldn't be treated any different than a contract, and therefore should not have any special legal standing (as it does now).
Red Stateler wrote:
The abandonment of spouse and child would simply be too easy (not that it already isn't) if the bond between a husband and wife was not defined.
Which is why you would have to make sure that when you wrote your contract, you specified the penalties for breaking it (which, currently, is not part of a marriage license).
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
Regulating what is primarily a religious-based institution is beyond the mandate of government (at least our governmental system).
If two atheists have ever married, it is not a religious-based institution. Civil marriage has been around for some time and simply naming it as religious-based (when most of our culture is), doesn't really give a reason.
Zac Howland wrote:
I have no problem with the state keeping a record of civil contracts between 2 people. They do that all the time. Marriage (legally) is really nothing more than that, and should be treated as such (from a governmental point of view).
Ummmm...That's basically what marriage is. You get a marriage license and the government holds it on file. Beyond that, breaking the marital bond doesn't really have any "legal" implications. It's completely a civil matter. Prenuptual agreements outline the fiduciary aspects when necessary. I still fail to see what, exactly, you're arguing. Are you saying that marriage should be a "contract" that is filed with the state? Because that's exactly what it is. There are some tertiary laws related to marriage (like those related tax-filing), but unless you're saying that you actively condemn the concept of marriage (whether civil or by contract) and marriage should be penalized by that state (as it once was), I don't get where you're going with this.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
So you're saying atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Despite what some claim, atheism is a religion ;P Ironically, many of them derive their concept of marriage from the Judeo-Christian concept of it.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
Despite what some claim, atheism is a religion
Ignorance is bliss...
-- Simulcast on Crazy People's Fillings
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
so whats it called when i just flat out do not believe in god or the possibility of a god?
Believing that something does not exist is no different (conceptually) than believing that it does exist. That is, you are still believing something with little evidence pointing either way.
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Is that still atheism, or is there another non religion affiliated term?
There is another term for those that don't know what to believe: Agnostic.
VonHagNDaz wrote:
since they have similar beliefs qualify as a religion?
When you have a formalized (or semi-formalized in this case) belief/value system, you have a religion.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
There is another term for those that don't know what to believe: Agnostic.
Agnosticism specifically deals with asserting no personal belief that God does or does not exist, which is different than the atheism he described.
-
Zac Howland wrote:
Despite what some claim, atheism is a religion
Ignorance is bliss...
-- Simulcast on Crazy People's Fillings
So what's that like?
-
_alank wrote:
Mostly it has been meaningless anyway but our archaic legal systems approach to it is still anchored in the 50's.
Yes, it has been meaningless to the left which basically seeks to destroy marriage such that the individual is bonded above all else to the state. They have worked hard to destroy the social institutions that bring us together on a personal level (like church and marriage) while promoting an expansive and cold state (with indisputable power) as its replacement. The concept of the "commune" is still alive and well among leftists.
Red Stateler wrote:
Yes, it has been meaningless to the left which basically seeks to destroy marriage such that the individual is bonded above all else to the state. They have worked hard to destroy the social institutions that bring us together on a personal level (like church and marriage) while promoting an expansive and cold state (with indisputable power) as its replacement. The concept of the "commune" is still alive and well among leftists.
Not exactly my point but it gets close, my point is that the majority of this issue revolves around money...
-
So what's that like?
Normally, I would take a minute or two to write a reply. But today I'm too tired. You're just not worth it.
-- As Foretold by Nostradamus
-
Normally, I would take a minute or two to write a reply. But today I'm too tired. You're just not worth it.
-- As Foretold by Nostradamus
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Normally, I would take a minute or two to write a reply
Takes you that long, huh?
-
Chris Meech wrote:
I'd go one step further, and add that civil marriage is also to protect the legal rights of the two people entering into the civial marriage. Even in the absense of children, you can not walk away from your legal responsibilities that you agreed to when you entered into the civil marriage. In my mind the whole same-sex marriage issue should only be about ensuring these same legal responsibilities between the two individuals.
The practical purpose of marriage is the development of a stable and reliable home in which children can be decently raised with proper moral influence and a couple can provide mutual support to facilitate these ends. Same-sex marriage is absolutely pointless because it completely abandons the possibility of children and the necessity of the stable environment. Fiduciary responsibility is not unique to marriage, so government defined roles are not necessary to enforce financial responsibility. Marital responsibilities, however, go far beyond mere fiduciary duty.
Same-sex marriage is absolutely pointless because it completely abandons the possibility of children and the necessity of the stable environment I don't quite understand where you are going with this statement. I can assure you that same-sex marriage is not pointless whatsoever. Case in point benefits after a spouse is decease, without a "marriage" the living spouse has no rights what so ever. Also same sex marriage doesn't abandon the possibility of children if fact more same sex relationships are either having children themself via sperm bank etc. or adopting so that is also to consider in regards to a "marriage" contract. Without this contract if something would happen one person in the relationship the children could become ward of the state. This in my mind is absolutely terrible.
-
Chris Meech wrote:
I'd go one step further, and add that civil marriage is also to protect the legal rights of the two people entering into the civial marriage. Even in the absense of children, you can not walk away from your legal responsibilities that you agreed to when you entered into the civil marriage. In my mind the whole same-sex marriage issue should only be about ensuring these same legal responsibilities between the two individuals.
The practical purpose of marriage is the development of a stable and reliable home in which children can be decently raised with proper moral influence and a couple can provide mutual support to facilitate these ends. Same-sex marriage is absolutely pointless because it completely abandons the possibility of children and the necessity of the stable environment. Fiduciary responsibility is not unique to marriage, so government defined roles are not necessary to enforce financial responsibility. Marital responsibilities, however, go far beyond mere fiduciary duty.
Red Stateler wrote:
The practical purpose of marriage is the development of a stable and reliable home in which children can be decently ...
Agreed, but it is not the only one. There are utilitarian efficiencies to consider as well. :) :EDIT: While I agree with the statment, I don't agree with your implied assumption that the children produced in that marriage are to come from just the two people involved. :/EDIT:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler] Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp] The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson] I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
-
liona wrote:
Good for them, for me living in Canada we already have the right to marry. It seems that the US is just catching on although I think it will take a lot longer to spread to other states. Sometimes I don't understand people. oh well.
In all honesty, the government shouldn't be regulating marriage to begin with. Interestingly enough, if the group that is silently supporting the gay-marriage push has their way, marriage will become rather meaningless anyway ...
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Yes, it has been meaningless to the left which basically seeks to destroy marriage such that the individual is bonded above all else to the state. They have worked hard to destroy the social institutions that bring us together on a personal level (like church and marriage) while promoting an expansive and cold state (with indisputable power) as its replacement. The concept of the "commune" is still alive and well among leftists.
Not exactly my point but it gets close, my point is that the majority of this issue revolves around money...
_alank wrote:
my point is that the majority of this issue revolves around money...
For some, I'm sure. But marriage is intended to transcend money and ensure a mutual in indissolvable bond. However, just like church, marriage is a threat to the left's intended primary bond between the individual and the state and is therefore looked down upon. That's why inner-city welfare actually subsidized dissolved relationships. Same-sex marriage is less about expanding rights (or more specifically permissiveness). It's about lessening the significance of the true role of marriage in our society and its consequences on the individual.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The practical purpose of marriage is the development of a stable and reliable home in which children can be decently ...
Agreed, but it is not the only one. There are utilitarian efficiencies to consider as well. :) :EDIT: While I agree with the statment, I don't agree with your implied assumption that the children produced in that marriage are to come from just the two people involved. :/EDIT:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler] Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp] The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson] I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
Chris Meech wrote:
Agreed, but it is not the only one. There are utilitarian efficiencies to consider as well.
Like the lower cost of per capita expenses due to shared finances? Marriage as a means to this end has already been rejected as a majority of households in this country are now headed by unmarried people.
Chris Meech wrote:
While I agree with the statment, I don't agree with your implied assumption that the children produced in that marriage are to come from just the two people involved.
I didn't mean to imply that. Rather that the practical societal goal of civil marriage is the assurance of stable homes within which children can be conceived and raised with a reasonable level of stability and balance. The purpose of adoption is to bring a child who otherwise does not have that stability into a stable home. I view same-sex marriage as a dilution of this purpose as it eliminates the possibility of reproduction and relegates marriage to basically a fiduciary contract rather than the intended personal and extensive human bond.
-
_alank wrote:
my point is that the majority of this issue revolves around money...
For some, I'm sure. But marriage is intended to transcend money and ensure a mutual in indissolvable bond. However, just like church, marriage is a threat to the left's intended primary bond between the individual and the state and is therefore looked down upon. That's why inner-city welfare actually subsidized dissolved relationships. Same-sex marriage is less about expanding rights (or more specifically permissiveness). It's about lessening the significance of the true role of marriage in our society and its consequences on the individual.
It's about lessening the significance of the true role of marriage in our society and its consequences on the individual. So what do you define as the true role of marriage? By the underlying comments in your responses it seems that you have a problem with gays that I can't and won't understand. Its sad.
-
Chris Meech wrote:
Agreed, but it is not the only one. There are utilitarian efficiencies to consider as well.
Like the lower cost of per capita expenses due to shared finances? Marriage as a means to this end has already been rejected as a majority of households in this country are now headed by unmarried people.
Chris Meech wrote:
While I agree with the statment, I don't agree with your implied assumption that the children produced in that marriage are to come from just the two people involved.
I didn't mean to imply that. Rather that the practical societal goal of civil marriage is the assurance of stable homes within which children can be conceived and raised with a reasonable level of stability and balance. The purpose of adoption is to bring a child who otherwise does not have that stability into a stable home. I view same-sex marriage as a dilution of this purpose as it eliminates the possibility of reproduction and relegates marriage to basically a fiduciary contract rather than the intended personal and extensive human bond.
Who is to say that it eliminates the possibility of children. I think that is a very narrow minded comment on your behalf. If you hadn't realised in my experience where I live more and more same sex couples have children, either by adoption or via vetro etc. So how can you account for these couples in your statement. Marriage is alot more than children it is also the welfare of the two spouses.