Men in dresses against men marrying each other
-
On 10 O'Clock Live last week they had a debate about gay marriage. I think the relevant bit may be available here[^] 27:29 in, not sure if available everywhere (or anywhere as is blocked at work). They had Boy George and a young gay Catholic called Milo Yiannopoulos who pretty much just descended into saying how much he hates himself because his religion says he is wrong. Boy George just said marriage is absurd, gay or otherwise, then spent the rest of the time trying to pursuade this kid he should be happy with what he is. It became more of a therapy session than a debate. I found the whole thing very depressing, and the idea that someone should be so miserable with what they are because of some archaic institution tells them they are fundamentally wrong is incredibly sad.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
ChrisElston wrote:
some archaic institution
When I was still at school (only 50 odd years ago), homosexuality between men was still punishable by a prison term, as was attempted suicide. Attitudes change over time but not everyone will agree that the 'new' attitude is the right one. At the end of the day it is better that we have an open reasoned debate, than we just accept some new ruling by the political elite: like making all Jews wear yellow stars.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
-
ChrisElston wrote:
some archaic institution
When I was still at school (only 50 odd years ago), homosexuality between men was still punishable by a prison term, as was attempted suicide. Attitudes change over time but not everyone will agree that the 'new' attitude is the right one. At the end of the day it is better that we have an open reasoned debate, than we just accept some new ruling by the political elite: like making all Jews wear yellow stars.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
I agree entirely. My point wasnt really about the right to gay marriage. Unless you're saying it is a good thing to oppose homosexuals in which case I disagree entirely.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Ryan's probably.. seems like something he'd do While that makes sense, it somewhat conflicts with my understanding of the definition of "fundamentally", which in this context amounts (in my understanding) to something like a "basic truth". IE from the viewpoint of pure logic, the laws of physics, or perhaps the universe itself.
-
The catholic church is a failed institution. They are one of the main reasons why I don't believe in organized religion or religious institutions. I can only hope the entire world, especially practicing catholics, come to realize that the church has failed them and the inhabitants of this world. BTW, if I pissed off any catholics here, then I think you really need to analyze your religion and religious views. Are they your views or the views that have been shoved down your throat your entire life. Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention. Remember, the church is man made and man run. God did not start the Catholic church.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)Quote:
Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention
It sounds like you are saying the church (I don't care which) is not allowed to share its beliefs. Your own beliefs come from many different sources: news, friends, experiences, personal pondering moments, church, school, books, movies, media, etc, etc. So, why are you trying to take the church out of that list? Why are they not allowed to try and influence people?
-
Quote:
Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention
It sounds like you are saying the church (I don't care which) is not allowed to share its beliefs. Your own beliefs come from many different sources: news, friends, experiences, personal pondering moments, church, school, books, movies, media, etc, etc. So, why are you trying to take the church out of that list? Why are they not allowed to try and influence people?
You again. ;)
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
You again. ;)
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
Not sure what you are referring to, but seriously, why doesn't a church have that right? Everyone else is allowed to share their opinions but a church can't?
The point might be that the church's influence is somewhat one-sided in that it is not teaching people anything other than that they should follow the teachings of said church without question and that not to do so will cause some form of extreme and rather unpleasant harm to befall them. Further, the church bases its doctrines on a belief in an omnipotent being which not everyone does (most religions can't even agree that it is the same god) and whose teachings, usually, are based on how people lived in the desert hundreds or thousands of years ago. Other than as a historical curiosity not much that they have to say is meaningful - for instance, how are you supposed to take marriage advice seriously from someone who will never marry or have a relationship?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
I agree entirely. My point wasnt really about the right to gay marriage. Unless you're saying it is a good thing to oppose homosexuals in which case I disagree entirely.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
No, my point was that what was illegal a few years ago is now considered 'normal'; however not everyone has reached the point where they accept that. More importantly is, as I said before, that we have a reasoned and open debate and listen to everyone's point of view, even those diametrically opposed to ours. As to my personal views ... well, they're personal.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
-
The point might be that the church's influence is somewhat one-sided in that it is not teaching people anything other than that they should follow the teachings of said church without question and that not to do so will cause some form of extreme and rather unpleasant harm to befall them. Further, the church bases its doctrines on a belief in an omnipotent being which not everyone does (most religions can't even agree that it is the same god) and whose teachings, usually, are based on how people lived in the desert hundreds or thousands of years ago. Other than as a historical curiosity not much that they have to say is meaningful - for instance, how are you supposed to take marriage advice seriously from someone who will never marry or have a relationship?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
I don't disagree with what you say. However, I defend the right that everyone has to their opinion, whether I disagree with it or not. That is all. Even if the church preaches damnation if you disagree with them, they still have that right. I don't see the media, beer companies, tobacco companies, etc, as being very different. To be "cool" you have to do what they say. And even though I disagree with their message, I do defend their right to have that message.
-
I don't disagree with what you say. However, I defend the right that everyone has to their opinion, whether I disagree with it or not. That is all. Even if the church preaches damnation if you disagree with them, they still have that right. I don't see the media, beer companies, tobacco companies, etc, as being very different. To be "cool" you have to do what they say. And even though I disagree with their message, I do defend their right to have that message.
And I with you: my point was not about the right of the church to have an opinion, rather what that opinion might be based upon and whether or not it has any merit. I suppsoe one could further extrapolate that given that the opinion is worthless and, possibly, dangerous (based, as it is, on an outmoded set of morlas and values) that they should not, in fact, promulgate those beliefs through opinions given in a political context. And that's my opinion. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
The catholic church is a failed institution. They are one of the main reasons why I don't believe in organized religion or religious institutions. I can only hope the entire world, especially practicing catholics, come to realize that the church has failed them and the inhabitants of this world. BTW, if I pissed off any catholics here, then I think you really need to analyze your religion and religious views. Are they your views or the views that have been shoved down your throat your entire life. Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention. Remember, the church is man made and man run. God did not start the Catholic church.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
Quote:
Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention
It sounds like you are saying the church (I don't care which) is not allowed to share its beliefs. Your own beliefs come from many different sources: news, friends, experiences, personal pondering moments, church, school, books, movies, media, etc, etc. So, why are you trying to take the church out of that list? Why are they not allowed to try and influence people?
In America you'd be hard pressed to spot a school where a church wasn't within two blocks, usually within line of site. You see billboards, hear commercials, deal with people knocking at the door to give pamphlets,etc. I think they do quite enough to share their beliefs.
If it moves, compile it
-
And I with you: my point was not about the right of the church to have an opinion, rather what that opinion might be based upon and whether or not it has any merit. I suppsoe one could further extrapolate that given that the opinion is worthless and, possibly, dangerous (based, as it is, on an outmoded set of morlas and values) that they should not, in fact, promulgate those beliefs through opinions given in a political context. And that's my opinion. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Quote:
rather what that opinion might be based upon and whether or not it has any merit.
But, I think we will argue all day long on who defines what has merit. :) I do believe homosexuality is wrong because I believe God has said so. So I do believe any Christian church has enough merit to preach that message. I also respect anyone who disagrees and respect their right to voice their opinion.
-
In America you'd be hard pressed to spot a school where a church wasn't within two blocks, usually within line of site. You see billboards, hear commercials, deal with people knocking at the door to give pamphlets,etc. I think they do quite enough to share their beliefs.
If it moves, compile it
-
Quote:
rather what that opinion might be based upon and whether or not it has any merit.
But, I think we will argue all day long on who defines what has merit. :) I do believe homosexuality is wrong because I believe God has said so. So I do believe any Christian church has enough merit to preach that message. I also respect anyone who disagrees and respect their right to voice their opinion.
-
So, argumentum ad verecundiam. I can do that too, here: god does not exist, because Richard Dawkins said so. Not very compelling, is it?
-
Quote:
argumentum ad verecundiam.
You are incorrect. You do not know me and cannot make that assumption. Remember what assume does to you.
-
No... first I categorized your argument as argumentum ad verecundiam because your argument is basically: God said so, so it's true. And you put it as an opinion so it's not a very serious offense, but you're still walking around with an unjustified opinion. Also, since you're not god (probably), how do you know God even said that? Presumably from the bible, which (if god is assumed to exist) is an other argumentum ad verecundiam, with the bible as authority. On the other hand if god is assumed not to exist then there is no logical fallacy, just fiction, so the first argumentum ad verecundiam comes into effect (fictional characters aren't an authority). Then you said something about assumptions and I addressed that - after all if you are god then you are an authority on what you said. Then your argument is reduced to "I believe this because I believe this, and I believe I am right in believing that so I am", which is 1) nicely circular and 2) still argumentum ad verecundiam, with yourself as the authority.
-
No... first I categorized your argument as argumentum ad verecundiam because your argument is basically: God said so, so it's true. And you put it as an opinion so it's not a very serious offense, but you're still walking around with an unjustified opinion. Also, since you're not god (probably), how do you know God even said that? Presumably from the bible, which (if god is assumed to exist) is an other argumentum ad verecundiam, with the bible as authority. On the other hand if god is assumed not to exist then there is no logical fallacy, just fiction, so the first argumentum ad verecundiam comes into effect (fictional characters aren't an authority). Then you said something about assumptions and I addressed that - after all if you are god then you are an authority on what you said. Then your argument is reduced to "I believe this because I believe this, and I believe I am right in believing that so I am", which is 1) nicely circular and 2) still argumentum ad verecundiam, with yourself as the authority.
Wait a second. That was a lot of big words and I am not sure you ended up saying anything. :) But what is that about an "unjustified opinion?" How can an opinion be unjustified? Opinion is just a personal belief, you can't tell me my opinion is unjustified. Your opinion is unjustified.