Add a Comment   Listen to Podcast   Up to OJB's Blog List

Some More Quotes

Entry 1879, on 2017-10-02 at 21:18:26 (Rating 4, Religion)

Occasionally I like to discuss some of my favourite quotes, usually from figures from science, history, philosophy, etc whom I admire to some extent. It has been a while since I did one of these, so let's have a look at a few good quotes I have seen recently...

Here's the first one. Quote 1: "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." - Arthur C. Clarke.

I don't think that religion should be totally rejected as a potential source of ideas around morality, in the same way as I would not reject fiction as a source. But the idea that religion is *the* source is absurd, insulting, and dangerous.

It's absurd because all the main religions of the world have been found to be hopelessly inadequate in their truth claims. it is insulting because very moral people can be shut-down just because they don't follow a particular religion. And it's dangerous because people stop thinking about what is really true when they surrender their critical thought processes to a religion.

Additionally, different religions, and even different sects within large religions like Christianity, have quite different ideas on what is moral and what isn't. The fact that many of these groups feel justified in killing each other over these, sometimes quite trivial, differences indicates that their overall claim to be the guardians of moral standards is questionable.

And religions have given support to many ideas in the past that we would now consider immoral, such as slavery, lack of equality for women, rejection of contraception and abortion, and many others. In fact, even today religions have far too much influence and hold back moral progress when they try to impose their doubtful moral standards on both their own members and others.

Just one last point on this before I move on. The tired old strategy the believers use when they say "how can we have morals without a god to impose them" is totally ridiculous. First, morality could easily be seen as an emergent property of the behaviour of a highly social species. Second, if a god created moral standards we would expect them to be more consistent amongst religions and not to change over time. And third, even if a god was required (one isn't) how does this relate to the childish fairy stories which are human religions?

On a related subject, I present quote 2: "So it's not God's fault for all the evil and bad things? Oh really? I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I the Lord, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)" - Anonymous

This one relates quite well to a recent debate I had on my blog with a religious believer. He thought his god was justified in torturing good people (like me) with eternal torment in Heil just because we couldn't believe in the god's existence. He is a good person, and he didn't like this "fact", but he still insisted on worshipping a god who is clearly immoral and evil.

How anyone could think that any religion which included this disgusting belief has any relevance whatsoever to morality is beyond me. And the fact that it is all fantasy and Hell doesn't exist is irrelevant, because these people would clearly be OK with any real torture for unbelievers as well.

Remember that all of this comes from the New Testament, the alleged teachings of Jesus, who supposedly espoused peace and forgiveness. It might sound very moral on the surface, but dig a bit and it's the same old crap as every other religion.

So having demonstrated how grossly immoral religion is, let's move on to how stupidly fictitious it is as well. Here's quote 3: "Science: Many different people study many different sources and arrive at the same conclusions. Religion: Many different people study the same source and arrive at many different conclusions." - Anonymous.

Of course, this cannot be taken too literally because there are disagreements in science, even over the same data, and there is some degree of agreement amongst religions, but the general principle is sound.

Science tends to converge on an agreed conclusion, but religion tends to split into more divergent ideas. For example, several theories on the origin of our universe have been tested and found lacking until the Big Bang was developed and is now fairly universally accepted. But at the same time religion has split into a number of mutually exclusive, irrational ideas. Even within Christianity there is a range from Biblical literalism to complete acceptance of science, and everything in between. And none of these are really based on any religious evidence, apart from Creationism of course, which is the one most obviously wrong!

Note that the agreed science, such as the Big Bang, is not always the complete truth, but because it is based on real observations it is always a good approximation to reality. Religion on the other hand rarely has any relevance to anything in the real world at all. It is just completely irrelevant as a source of knowledge.

I have a cartoon in my collection showing a man watching TV news with the following caption (AKA quote 4): "Atheists rioted in the streets worldwide today, reacting to a Danish cartoon depicting nobody with a bomb on top of his head."

This is a reference to the Danish Muslim cartoons which caused riots and at least 200 deaths worldwide in 2005. The point is that it takes a strong belief system for people to become so irrationally violent over something so trivial. As an atheist I just have a bit of a laugh at any cartoon mocking atheism, although I might feel compelled to point out why it's wrong.

I know that today most religions might protest any perceived insult, but would not generally indulge in violence. It's usually Islam which uses violence in these situations today, but Christianity was at least as bad in the past. But the point is that if you don't believe in fairy tales you won't feel so inclined towards violence to defend them.

Here's quote 5: "The difference between a cult and a religion: In a cult there is a person at the top who knows it's a scam. In a religion, that person is dead." - Anon

All religions are scams because that is a requirement for a religion to survive. Unless a belief system has a mechanism to ensure its proliferation it will die out. That's why many people compare religion to a virus of the mind. It's like a living organism feeding off a host to ensure its own survival.

Then there's quote 6, which is another cartoon which shows a sign outside of a church with the following text: "Gather together to shout down your doubts. Sunday 10-11."

I really think this is true. Most belief systems require some sort of reinforcement over time to ensure their followers remain loyal. Regular meetings with like-minded people must be a significant element in keeping people trapped.

Finally, here's quote 7. I saw this on Twitter, and it's a tweet from God, who says: "Stop praying. I'm clearly not listening." - God

Now I do have to admit that this probably isn't really God, but he makes a good point I think. I have another quote which says "nothing fails like prayer" and it's true. Imagine all the people in poor countries who have signed up to the religions (especially Christianity) introduced by European invaders over the past few hundred years. These people are often afflicted by natural and man-made disasters and they must offer a lot of prayers for help. And what do they get? Nothing. Or at least nothing beyond what the normal laws of chance would dictate. No, apparently God really isn't listening.

So those are my quotes for this post. They prove nothing in themselves, but I think they are effective ways to communicate the bigger truth behind the simple facades. That truth is that religion is just immoral, irrational BS.

Comment 1 (4807) by richard on 2017-10-03 at 16:51:50:

Firstly - Come on people - I really wish I wasn't the only one to engage Owen to defend logic in these blog posts.

This reply ignores any reference about the previous morality of Hell debate mentioned above - readers can review that themselves to see that wasn't an accurate description of it. Rather this about the claims that the idea that God is the only logical source of morality is absurd, insulting, and dangerous. All three of these are not logical.

You state: "It's absurd because all the main religions of the world have been found to be hopelessly inadequate in their truth claims".
Response: So? Even if that incredibly expansive claim were to be true - it doesn't follow that they are false about this one. Every claim must be tested. In the same way that scientists can be wrong (and they were) at some point about truth claims, but it doesn't mean any specific claim must be rejected on that basis alone. So that reasoning is logically flawed, sorry.

You state: "It is insulting because very moral people can be shut-down just because they don't follow a particular religion".
2 Responses: First - Huh? How exactly can they be shut down because they don't follow a particular religion? What does this even mean? You can't have it both ways mate. How are 'very moral people shut down' in any sense whatsoever, assuming you mean in a way that is somehow different to how 'very moral theists are shut down' in exactly the same way when you have an opposing opinion about the source of the morality they adhere to.
Secondly - even if very moral people WERE 'shut down' (whatever that means) by not following a particular religion - what in the slightest does that have to do with whether God (or some external 'law-maker') is still in fact the most rational source of morality there is - at least in the absolute sense, which is the only sense we can be reasonably discussing - discussing subjective morality is obviously meaningless. So that reasoning too is flawed, sorry.

Finally you state: "And it's dangerous because people stop thinking about what is really true when they surrender their critical thought processes to a religion".
Responses: 1-The notion that certain people 'stop thinking about what is really true' is of course also highly subjective and could equally be applied to any and all world views. 2- OK - it is indeed true that some religions CAN make people abandon what is really true (as do some non-theistic views btw) AND it IS TRUE that some expressions of that non-reality ARE indeed dangerous like ISIS (as are some non theistic views e.g. look at Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc who as athiests together account for hundreds of times more deaths that Christianity can be labelled with in old Crusades etc. BUT - this claim also doesn't have the slightest impact on the specific question being discussed - the most rational source of morality. We assume btw that morality is the ONLY thing we can base the term 'dangerous' on in the first place - being a departure from being moral. So again - that reasoning too is flawed, sorry.

It is important to use relevant and appropriate justifications that do actually answer the 'why does this conclusion have to follow' question, in order to make rational assertions.

Comment 2 (4808) by richard on 2017-10-03 at 17:00:27:

Two other things - 1 - you'll note I am not engaging in the 'source of morality' question itself, only the flawed logic in this post. 2 - Christians have never argued that they are the 'guardians' of morality' as is claimed above, and it would be foolish of any religion to make that claim. Rather they argue something different - that 'their' God is the guardian. That is an important logical distinction, which adequately deals with the other argument you raised that because morality views are different across religions that somehow invalidates God (if one happens to be the true God that actually exists) as the source - no it doesn't at all.

Comment 3 (4809) by OJB on 2017-10-03 at 19:51:56:

Re comment 1. Yeah, I do know some other people read this stuff because I hear comments from people about it, and the view counter registers about 20 hits on the first day and 5 to 10 per day after that. Maybe people just agree so much with me there is no need to comment... apart from you, Richard! :) BTW, I do appreciate your comments. Thanks!

1. Sure, religions could be wrong about everything (or most things) except for morality. But don't you think the factual errors at least call their overall credibility into question?

2. We live in a country where religion doesn't have much influence, but there are many parts of the world where an atheist could never hold high office because the people have been fooled into believing that atheist have no morals. And it's not just countries like those under Islamic rule in the Middle East, because I would also include the US.

3. So you admit that some religious belief is dangerous but you conveniently exclude your own from this list. The only difference an independent viewer sees between Christianity and Islam is that the political power of Christianity has been reduced through the social revolutions of the western world, such as the Enlightenment. Islam hasn't gone through that phase yet.

And yes, I agree that not all atrocities are caused by religious fanaticism, because people can also respond in negative ways to other causes. I just happen to be talking about religion in this case because that's what the quote was about.

You demand I make rational assertions yet you don't seem to have answered the points I did make. For example, do you agree your god is the source of evil in this world when looking at the Bible passage I provided?

Re comment 2. I sort of pre-empted any commentary on the source of morality question by covering it already. You say Christians never claim to be the guardians of morality. Really? Should I find some examples for you?

The comments above were necessarily about religion in general and it is true that one could be right and all the rest wrong, but given the distinct lack of support for any, and the fact that they all rely on pretty much the same type of sources, the logical interim conclusion is that they are all wrong.

Comment 4 (4810) by richard on 2017-10-05 at 11:02:23:

Thanks! Reminder - in all three I am not trying to debate the actual topic - but only trying to ensure we stick to a sound logical foundation for the premise / conclusion link.

1 - Obviously I am not suggesting that ALL religions are wrong about most things at all, but again - sticking to logic - if ANY of them are in fact true, then as it was nicely put in Highlander - 'there can be only one' when their truth claims contradict each other in ways that logically cannot be compatible. So it goes without saying to anyone who seriously thinks about it that this means that most of them must be wrong in their view. But it is also true that any correct view is NOT affected in the slightest simply because there are multiple other incorrect views present in the 'marketplace of ideas' whether that's in the religious world or the scientific one.

2 - Missed the point - again which is linking your premise and conclusion. Your conclusion was not regarding whether people are shut down because they cannot hold high office because of the religious environment in various countries, but that because people are being shut down (in the way you have now clarified thanks) it means that God cannot therefore be a source of morality, remember? Again I ask - how is that so?

3 - See above for a partial response regarding the non-link by association between true and untrue world views. Secondly, in order to justify linking Christianity with Islam in all but political power, you must then provide sounds reasons how you can maintain that following Christianity, with it's well known morality of 'love thy neighbour / enemies' , 'Do to others what you'd like them to do to you' and 'help the poor & afflicted' etc. (Why most of the world Aid charities were started by Christians) is seen to be just as dangerous as following Islam with its clear doctrine of violent Jihad? This position is simply not sustainable imo.

Happy to answer the Isaiah qn in the next comment for you soon.

Guardians? Ok - I think a clarification of the way you used the phrase 'guardians of morality' was in order. Given your discussion was specifically about the source of morality - I took (perhaps mistook) your use of the phrase to mean Christians were suggesting they were in fact the true source of morals, and I wanted to clarify that of course this wasn't what Christians (are supposed to at least) mean. It is true that Christians want to 'guard' the broad moral view given by God (as per above - Love all / Do unto others... etc), but the right to 'guard' morality is given to everyone, and Christians have as much right as anyone else in society to have a say in what they believe are the sorts of morals that provide all people with the best conditions for communal living. Cheers.

Comment 5 (4811) by OJB on 2017-10-06 at 08:35:59:

1. Sure, one religion could be true, but since all religions are based on the same types of truth claims and general methodology (revelation verus experiment, credulity versus skepticism) there's no obvious reason why one stands out as being any better than others. As an interim position, it's best to assume they're all wrong.

2. No, what I meant was that when a particular religion has too much power it tends to shut down all forms of opposition, especially rejection of religion itself (atheism). This itself is an immoral position.

3. The debate on which religions promote peace and which violence can go on forever. I think there is no doubt that Christianity is more peaceful than Islam, but there are more peaceful religions than Christianity too (Jainism?), and there are many ways Christianity can be seen as condoning violence, evidenced by the many times it has happened in the past.

The fact that the golden rule is often associated with Christianity is partly fair because that is a significant theme in the New Testament. But the idea pre-dates Christianity and is common amongst all moral communities. Also, you cannot claim all the positive aspects of a religion without accepting the bad parts as well.

I agree that all groups have the right (in fact the obligation) to promote their own moral views. I'm just saying that I think the bad aspects of the particular morality often supported by various Christian groups includes a lot of stuff which isn't actually very moral in a modern context.

Comment 6 (4812) by richard on 2017-10-07 at 10:45:20:

1 - Topic has changed. Never mind.
2 - Fine - But topic has again changed without dealing with the original challenge to your post. Never mind.
3 - Fair comments to make. Depends on the precise definition of Chrisitianity doesn't it - Given that 'Christianity' of course involves the 'Jewish OT that goes back 'quite some time', to (for example) the 10 commandments, then one could say that the golden rule idea goes back before Christ. Happy to examine any 'bad parts' you like.

Impressed by your use of the word obligation - very insightful, and that's not at all meant to be sarcastic or patronising Owen. I totally agree. Can I just observe that saying 'the bad aspects' of the particular morality...includes alot of stuff which isn't actually very moral in a modern context', is kinda begging the question when trying to debate what IS moral in the first place. One can't really start a debate about what is moral or not, by saying that it's bad (immoral) that Christians try to have the debate about things a modern context has apparently already decided are moral. What's the point of the obligation then?

Oh - but again - this has what to do with the original claim around God as a source of morality? :)

Comment 7 (4813) by richard on 2017-10-07 at 12:37:39:

Sorry the delay too - I promised to respond on that Isaiah 45.7 quote you used didn't I. It states: "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I the Lord, do all these things". (KJV) Happy to do so now - and again sorry it is fairly long - all needed to clarify your issue with it.

A general rule is that it is often 'dangerous' (he he) to take a single verse of the Bible and quote it, unless you are absolutely sure that the meaning is sure when it stands alone. Many verses are quoted both by atheists and also by foolish Christians that 'out of context' produce the wrong impression, usually the personal preference of the quoter. The full (shall we say fairer) meaning of such verses become clearer when you examine the whole passage, and take into account it's full and historical context. This verse is no exception.

You claimed this was 'anonymous', but there is actually no good reason to seriously doubt that this wasn't actually the text of a prophecy by Isaiah (an OT prophet). Chapter 45 begins by specifically naming Cyrus as someone God has stated will deliver his people (OT Israel) from captivity. Note particularly that God (via Isaiah) names Cyrus like this and provides other specific details over 200 years before Cyrus (who was the King of Persia - a non Jew and with a 'pagan' worldview ) was even born!

Verse 1 starts with: "Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus" (KJV) which means that chapter 45 is a message specifically meant for Cyrus for a particular time and purpose and must be treated that way. To summarise that message:

v1-3 - Describe what Cyrus will do - deliver Israel from captivity, (breaking the gates of bronze and cutting the bars or iron) and Cyrus will be well rewarded with riches etc.
v4 - Cyrus has been elected for this task not for Cyrus's own sake (the rewards) but for the sake of Israel, even though you Cyrus 'do not acknowledge or know me'.
v5-7 - God then (via Isaiah) goes onto to explain who He is. As a Persian, Cyrus had a dual theist world view. A good god (Ahura-mazda) and an 'evil' god (Angra-mainya). The point to Cyrus was the true God was not dualistic. v5-6: "I am the Lord and there is no other, apart from me there is no God". I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun, to the place of its setting, people will know there is none besides me I am the Lord and there is no other.

v7 (your only selected one) follows on with: "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I the Lord, do all these things".

This again is a specific refutation of Cyrus's particular dualistic view.
The word 'evil' in other versions has been replaced with 'disaster' (NIV) or 'calamity'.

It was a point Cyrus specifically needed to hear, that one God alone is at work. These other words for 'evil' more accurately describe precisely what God is actually referring to, which is the disaster or calamity coming for the enemies who hold His people captive, specifically via Cyrus. The evil is therefore not all moral evil, but the 'evil' of punishment in a specific time and place, to those that deserve punishment. So is this punishment still morally 'evil'? The next verses of Isaiah have alot to say to Cyrus about that too.

v9: Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds (clay pots) among the potsherds on the Ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say 'The potter has no hands?' (or I have no Creator).

The obvious point is that as His creation, we have no ability to complain to God about morality (what He has decided he will do), and it's equally as foolish to try and suggest 'we have no maker'.

Again - I am just saying that this was a specific message that Cyrus needed to hear, and that message was delivered by Isaiah to him over 200 years before Cyrus was born - as he said - SO that people would know that I am the Lord God.

History (via Herodotus) records Cyrus conquered Bablyon by diverting the waters of the Euphrates into a nearby swamp, thus lowering the level of the river so his troops could march through the water and under the river gates. However they still would not have been able to enter the city, had not the bronze gates of the inner walls been left inexplicably unlocked! So this account regarding Bronze gates was extremely well documented over 200 years before it actually occurred.

Pliny stated that "When Cyrus conquered Asia, he found thirty four thousand pounds weight of gold, besides golden vessels and articles in gold." So that part was proved true as well.

"These things Cyrus knew from reading the book of prophecy that Isaiah had left behind two hundred and ten years earlier" (Josephus, Antiquities XI, 5)

So all in all - the use of this passage to suggest God 'creates' all moral evil, is fairly obviously inaccurate, and pressing it into service as above is not appropriate.

Comment 8 (4814) by OJB on 2017-10-07 at 19:45:13:

Response to comment 6...

Re, the topic has changed. Yes, I think that tends to happen. I'm not saying it's your fault, but I do have problems understanding what your point is sometimes, and how it relates to the original subject. It would help if we discussed one point at a time and kept the text down to a few sentences for each comment.

I don't usually link the 10 Commandments with the golden rule, although there is some overlap. I think there are some elements of it in many philosophical systems.

Clearly morality is subjective, but most elements of it are shared amongst all, sane people. So I would expect there to be differences between the beliefs of religious people and atheists. Both are entitled to promote their own views but I think there is something fundamentally different in the religious view.

Every moral person believes in equality of the sexes now, right? But religion has always been responsible for inequality, and one religion (Islam) is still a major offender. Every moral person thinks everyone should have the same rights, OK? So why do so many religious people oppose same-sex marriage? See the problem here? People know something is right but cannot support it because of their religion. That is the difference.

Comment 9 (4815) by OJB on 2017-10-07 at 19:55:20:

Response to comment 7...

I'm not going to get into a debate about that particular story right now, so let's get back to the original subject. The "Anonymous" was the person making the comment which included the Bible verse, not the verse itself. Whatever you say I would like to know who created evil, if it wasn't God. He admits to it here, and he also created the devil. What more do you need?

Comment 10 (4816) by richard on 2017-10-08 at 17:09:23:

Comment 8: OK - by Topic changed - I was merely pointing out that the original topic (and my first response) was re your assertion of the source of morality and why that conclusion wasn't logically linked to the premises you used. This occurs in all three instances in Comment 6, and happy to stick to that, except you keep raising new objections...

While I do understand what you are trying to suggest re equality, the truth is actually that no moral person thinks 'everyone should have the same rights' at all - this is nonsense. For example - do you think that a six year old should the 'right to drive'? Do think I should have the right to practice medicine or law? The point is that every single law there is involves denying 'someone, something' they might like to do which could accurately be described as causing inequality. So this 'equality' word is way too often mis-used as well. The trick is determining what types of 'inequality' are 'moral' (produce the greater good). But yeah - a different topic for another post perhaps.

Comment 9: Happy not to debate any particular 'story' right now. As long as you acknowledge that I simply answered the specific challenge you asked in your post regarding evil with a clear sound answer showing where single picked verses plucked out of context can mislead us, when checked against the clear intention of the actual text. That was on topic. And btw that is still true even if you refuse to acknowledge that this not a 'story' at all, but an actual historical event as recorded and verified by both biblical by non biblical historians which was described in some detail well before it occurred.

Comment 11 (4817) by OJB on 2017-10-08 at 19:12:51:

Well, I've lost track of your assertion re morality, but I'm guessing it is the same old stuff which I have rejected in the past, so unless you have something new, I suggest we just move on.

You make a good point about equality, but it really depends on the details of how you use the word. Maybe a better word would be "opportunity". A 6 year old doesn't have the right to drive until they become more mature, but eventually they do. Also the age limitation applies to everyone. The situation denying gay people the right to marry is completely different, don't you think?

I'm not sure, but you aren't referring to the Prophecy fo Cyrus here, are you? Because I certainly hope not!

Comment 12 (4818) by richard on 2017-10-09 at 19:58:30:

My point about 'equality (thanks btw) isn't affected by the 6 year old becoming more mature. The point is that all laws 'discriminate' one way or another - and so 'discrimination' (or put another way - a specific instance of inequality) isn't always immoral - when viewed rationally without the blind PC indignation.

I suspect the same sex debate could get long and protracted, so up to you if you want to really get into that. My only point about it wrt inequality (because you have raised inequality as a specific complaint in this thread) is that using that term is inappropriate in that debate - and that is true no matter what your view on the matter.

I know you and others won't find this particular correction acceptable, but it is nevertheless true... No one, 'or no situation' (as you stated) is 'denying gay people the right to marry'. According to the current marriage laws - all individuals over a certain age, have exactly THE SAME right to marry a single other individual. It is just that the single other individual must be of the opposite sex. That law applies to all individuals - with absolute EQUALITY to ALL individuals - irrespective of race, colour, religion, OR sexual orientation.

I completely understand and sympathise that this answer doesn't satisfy gay couples at all, because they don't WANT to 'marry' another individual of the opposite sex. So the current definition of marriage means that they can't marry the person they love and want to. However the point about equality still stands wrt to the current marriage law. So it is important to define properly the change wanted by gay individuals - and we all agree it is their right to ask for it.

Their request is not actually one at all of 'equality', or 'marrying who you love' because it is not only gay couples that cannot 'marry' who they 'love'. Individuals who want to, (and their are cases of all of all of these) cannot anyone under age, marry their siblings, their sons or daughters, or conversely their mothers or fathers, they cannot marry their pets, or their furniture, nor can they marry more than one of these or anyone (currently). So granting this one change to gay individuals (note btw that human rights are not ever granted to couples or groups - they are only ever granted to individuals), doesn't resolve ANY 'equality' issue for marriage at all. It only resolves it for one case. Only when literally ANYONE of any age, can 'marry' either themselves, or any number of other humans or animals or non living objects of any age can marriage truly claim 'equality'.

So - the same-sex marriage request by gay individuals is obviously not one of equality wrt to the current marriage law at all. It is rather a request to re-define marriage to suit their desire for that particular label. The debate should not be illegitimately confusing the general public with 'equality' nonsense but being honest about the true nature of the request.

If you don't think that is true - then what are the actual 'rights' of gay individuals being denied wrt marriage? Is it the 'right' to love who they want to? No - they have that right. Is it the right to walk down the aisle in a public ceremony declaring their love publicly 'for life'? No again - they have that right. Is it the right to live together in the same way as other 'married' couples do? They already have that right too. In fact - there isn't a single 'right' that is available to other sexually intimate couples that isn't already available to gay individuals - and btw no (reasonable) Christians are trying to take ANY of those rights away - clearly not - because this has been actually the case in law for years, and no (reasonable) Christians have been doing any campaigning for law changes to prevent all the freedoms that have.

Only when you understand that it's a actually a label change request, does it appropriately lead to the correct questions for society to consider, like 'What really do we think the marriage label refers to, and why does the Govt even have any interest in the label anyway? Once we know that - should we change the label for one particular group, and what happens if we do wrt to all the others? Both sides of the debate should be able to reasonably and rationally give their case on the pro's and cons, with absolute tolerance (equality) on both sides. Don't you think?

That's all a different debate of course - but as for equality - this issue is clearly not about that when examined honestly. Sorry it's another long one. Regards.

Comment 13 (4819) by OJB on 2017-10-09 at 21:21:43:

Yes, you could make the case that all laws discriminate in some ways and perfect equality doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean there aren't big differences in degree of discrimination and the reasons for discrimination.

Look at the two examples. The major difference between them is that there is a good *reason* for one which most people would agree with (few people think a 6 year old is capable of driving safely) but the other is almost arbitrary, based on subjective ideas and unlikely to cause any harm (allowing same-sex marriage isn't harming anyone).

So although both laws are restrictive, one is by necessity and the other amounts to little more than bigotry or a wish to enforce one group's beliefs on everyone.

Comment 14 (4820) by OJB on 2017-10-09 at 21:25:46:

By the way, I'm not supporting same-sex marriage because I'm an SJW who is a blind follower of the latest PC issue. It's more because I believe in the greatest level of freedom practical. I'm sort of a libertarian in that way, although I don't follow libertarian economic theory.

Comment 15 (4821) by richard on 2017-10-10 at 08:45:02:

I too agree in the greatest level of practial freedom 'practical', precisely why I asked what actual freedoms are being denied same sex couples. And as to the debate whether it is harming anyone - again that is the big question isn't it. What if it DOES harm an innocent group of people most affected by it? But yeah - another debate.

Two things though about your response - how is it that when I an others taking one side are 'trying to force one groups belief on everyone' and when the other 'group' takes a side thay are not doing EXACTLY the same thing? Clearly that line is another complete red-herring there in terms of answering the question.

And what groups beliefs are you referring to? You'll note that not a scrap of my assessment above was religously motivated or originated. This is not a religious argument even though most religious people happen to take the one side. Marriage is not (just) a religious institution - it is a Govt policy matter. There are plenty of non religious people who agree that a Govt decision to change the standard definition of marriage that has proven to benefit society pretty much since civilisation has started taking records is overall not a good idea, and that even includes many gay people. It is extremely hard to define one group, unless you simply mean the whole group with that sides view - which again is meaningless.

No all my assessment was purely a 'scientific assessment' of the relevant facts. A similar unbiased scientific approach to the real questions I posed above about the nature of the label 'marriage' etc yields very interesting answers - if people are willing to be open minded about it.

So I am interested in your level of libertarianism, wrt the definition of marriage. What level of 'libertarian freedom' would you have issues with - in terms of the 'equality' question I posed? i.e. where would YOU draw a line in the sand, and say 'Sorry - your definition of marriage isn't a valid one'. And how would you justify that line, over the traditional one or NZ's current one?

Comment 16 (4822) by OJB on 2017-10-10 at 10:39:57:

The freedom being denied is the freedom every other person who is identical to them apart from sexual preference: the right to marry. Having that right doesn't affect other people in any practical way.

The only belief one side is trying to enforce is to have the same rights as everyone else. The other side is trying to deny a group equal rights based on a belief in tradition or some other personal, subjective criterion. it is not the same at all.

I agree it is not entirely religion which is driving this issue, but that is a significant factor. It is also an example of a religious moral belief which has outlived its usefulness (if it ever had any).

The "slippery slope" argument has been applied to same sex marriage, where people have said it will extend to marrying yourself, an animal, a fictitious character, etc. I see no need for those because no one wants them. Social norms may change in the future however, so I am open to whatever ideas may arise.

Comment 17 (4823) by richard on 2017-10-10 at 16:49:32:

No - you obviously weren't reading closely enough, and are plain wrong. They already have exactly the same 'freedom to marry' as everyone else does - irrespective of their sexual preference. Unfortunately for them - they want to marry another particular individual who is not in the current definition of marriage eligibility. Every individual has the same freedoms - and the same restrictions - and this has always (and always will be the case whatever the ruling on SSM). Again - this is not an equality issue.

You say 'no one wants' these other examples. Wrong again - You obviously don't read Stuff. Now I do agree that some of the above were more extreme than others, (for the purpose of illustrationg the logic) but the very next things off the block are marriages involving Polygamy, Polyamory, and Incest - and Stuff has recently posted articles in their 'Lifestyle' category, suggesting all of these are absolutely the next wave of marriage related 'but I wants'. The slippery slope argument has been confirmed as predicted as these articles would never had hit the pages until SSM got through.

However 'celebrating' these types of unions should ALSO not be encouraged as because they have proven in the past to be detrimental to both the women involved, and more critically to the children that are the innocent victims of the sexual desires of their adult 'parents' (in many well documented ways according to scientific studies. You say SSM affects no one - wrong again. A basic law of nature / science is that children are the natural even expected (normally) result of 'traditional marriage', and they are never going to be the result of SSM. However, SSM couples absolutely want the freedom to adopt children. Given they have all the other rights that any married couple does - this is the real driver. They want to try and suggest that SSM is 'the same' as hetero marriage, and science clearly indicates that it is fundatmentally different in this way - in the specific way that causes the Govt to take any interest in marriage in the first place - to promote and protect the natural result of marriage - The 'family' and their children.

So what about the basic human right of children to grow up with both a Mother and a Father - as (according to your world view at least) evolution has intended / (made 'moral')? Their basic human right to this freedom is absolutely being denied by SSM, and this is one of the main reasons that many more astute and thinking gay individuals don't agree with SSM either.

Can you confirm - you have no problem if Social norms trend towards acceptance of someone marrying (and by marrying - lets be specific here - we are talking about including sexual intimacy with) - their own 12 year old daughter?

I do realise this is an example on the 'extreme end of the scale' - but I only ask in response to your comment about being open to any ideas - seriously- are you Ok with that proposition as being 'something to be celebrated'?! If so - I am shocked. If not - then exactly how do you propose to suggest to the person who wants this and crys the very same 'discrimination and inequality' message - that they should be denied that 'freedom'. That is the slippery slope problem and it is real - and all thinking people should be very concerned.

Comment 18 (4824) by OJB on 2017-10-10 at 22:31:40:

The freedom I am referring to is the freedom to marry a person of the gender you prefer. That is a right straight people have but not gay. It's sort of similar to saying everyone can vote as long as they are a man. So I think it is an equality issue.

When I wrote "no one" I was wondering whether I had to make it clear that I didn't really mean it literally. I thought it was a commonly used phrase to mean "no one except the occasional person with extreme views". Anyway, that's what I meant. I don't think society is ready for the options you mentioned yet, but who knows what might happen in future.

I don't quite understand how SSM negatively affects children. Several studies have shown that the children of same sex couples do as well as, or better than, those of conventional couples.

I have a problem with people "marrying" their own 12 year old daughter and so does practically every other person. That's because a 12 year old doesn't have the maturity to be involved in a relationship like that. What does that have to do with SSM?

I do wonder if the fact that you are so emotionally involved with this subject is an indication that it does derive from your religious beliefs. Why else would you even care what other people do?

Comment 19 (4825) by richard on 2017-10-11 at 13:40:36:

No - you're still not getting it - it's a definition of marriage issue not an equality one as clearly explained above. The complaint you make is like a man complaining that the 'freedom to have a hysterectomy' is one not available to him - as if this complaint makes real sense. It's the definition of the word 'marry' that already defines it's scope. So - when you say 'marry' what do you actually mean? - again - what is it that gay people cannot do that 'straight can? - nothing! - except be given that label. They DO even have a provision available to them - the civil union - which was given precisely to ensure the same (sensible) civil rights were available to gay individuals who want to 'publically unite'.

Yes - your statement is telling - society is not yet ready, but who knows what might happen in the future. Well it's pretty obvious what will happen in the future actually - that's the point.

No - truth is that real studies show clearly that children of SS couples as a whole do worse than those with a single man an woman as dedicated parents. Of course there are exception in both directions - we are talking about the statistical norm here. As an example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

Just take suicide rates for example - plenty of studies show a rough estimate that LBGT individuals are more than 25x more likely (per capita) to commit suicide than non LGBT. 25x - It's a horrible tragedy, to be sure, but true. So why would a Govt encourage policy that forces children to be placed (note that they sure aren't naturally 'produced' by the couple) into an environment where they are over 25x more likely to lose a parent to suicide - with the emotional harm that would cause? That just one example of many you could point to.

It's like smoking - sure we are prepared to accommodate smoking - even though it is much more likely to produce your death. But what the Govt doesn't (and shouldn't) do, is actively try to produce laws that suggest that smoking is 'exactly the same as not smoking', and encouraging young people to 'have that freedom', when science shows that is absolutely not true.

I totally agree (as does practically every other person) re the 12 year old - the only thing it has to do with SSM is that it is simply another change in the definition of marriage that needs a logical basis for denial. Once you decide that marriage is not based on the purely scientific observation of what occurs naturally, but can be anything decided by committee, then there is little logical basis for denial of any request - eventually.

I am very happy to state that I am indeed emotionally involved, but it is somewhat insulting to start to try and accuse me of derinving that purely from religious beliefs. Nothing I have said in this entire thread has been based on religious beliefs! An easy copout though. No - what I am emotional about is primarily childrens welfare. I care what people do to innocent children. Also I care about the promotion of truth - and get emotional when good people get suckered by a red herring like 'equality', on this issue instead of taking a less selfish view and instead being prepared to think more about what is best for everyone involved in the issue. (Had to avoid the term - 'for the greater good' - Seen Hot Fuzz)? - Lol. Cheers.

Comment 20 (4826) by OJB on 2017-10-11 at 16:25:28:

I think I am getting it, but just not in the way you want. It's the definition of marriage which causes the inequality, so it is an equality issue. The civil union could be seen as a "second best" option for someone who doesn't deserve the same privileges as the rest. Sort of like black passengers allowed in the bus as long as it's at the back, like it used to be in the US.

If society in the future wants to allow those behaviours which we might see as undesirable now what's the problem? After all, in the past in some countries inter-racial marriage was illegal, now it isn't. You have to move with the times. Not all of us are stuck with the teachings of a 2000 year old book!

Re, that study. I didn't want to spend $40 on the paper. Have you read it, because there is no evidence in the abstract or highlights of any negative consequences to the children of same-sex parents. On the other hand, according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies Research Paper No. 30, January 2003: "literature is accumulating that suggests that children raised by gays or lesbians do not show poor adjustment when compared with other children (Golombok, Spencer and Rutter 1983; Green, Mandel, Hotvedt and Smith 1986; Patterson 1992, 2000". Your thoughts?

Yes, I have also seen studies showing higher suicide rates amongst the LGBT community. Do you think some of it might be due to the fact that they aren't given equal rights? If you were genuinely concerned about them maybe you would support them instead of insisting they be treated like second class citizens. Also, despite that, the evidence shows that children brought up by same sex couples do as well or better than others.

The logic I use to make these judgements is maximum freedom without incurring any significant disadvantage to innocent people. A 12 year old has insufficient maturity to marry, an adult gay or lesbian does.

I think we would both accept that religious attitude is linked to this issue, is it not? I would be surprised if your religious belief wasn't a factor in some way. I'm not saying it's the only factor, just a significant one. Obviously I can't say I know that for sure but you must be able to see that it's a fair guess.

Comment 21 (4827) by OJB on 2017-10-11 at 16:26:57:

Also, I must ask you this (I love this question): What would Jesus do? The kind, forgiving, understanding Jesus wouldn't want a significant group in society to be treated as second class citizens, would he?

Comment 22 (4828) by OJB on 2017-10-11 at 22:05:23:

OMG, you were right all along! ...Woman gives up on men, marries dog. This is the end of society as we know it!

Comment 23 (4829) by richard on 2017-10-12 at 10:20:11:

RE Comment 20: Um - perhaps you are finally getting it. Did you forget I already pointed out a number of comments ago that ALL laws by definition produce what you might describe as inequality (if you must use that word). Some do it completely inappropriately (like the blacks in bus issue which was bravely contested and beaten by Rosa Parks) where the particulars of the inequality involved actually had no sound basis to it. So the argument for a law change is NEVER made just because there is an apparent 'inequality' is it? It is made because the particular inequality involved is inappropriate. Citing inequality alone however works well as a motivational slogan for those who prefer not to take the next step and actually think rationally about the issue in detail. I prefer the latter.

Similarly, laws banning inter-racial marriage had no sound basis for that particular discrimination because all thinking people can recognise that skin colour is irrelevant to the undertaking of a marriage commitment between one man and one woman. So you are right - people must move with the times and improve by removing inappropriate restrictions. No problem there.

Why do you say that a civil union could be considered a second best option? Just because it's different doesn't have to mean that at all. That's your moral judgement not mine.

Wow - that's weird - sorry about that paper. When I checked the link yesterday, I honestly was able to review the entire paper. Now when I check it today, I get the Buy link and abstract alone. My apologies.

Please remember that I am certainly not trying to seriously equate SSM with marrying 12 year olds. That was purely an extreme used to ask a question regarding the extent of your willingness to allow 'public opinions' to change over time. Kind of a gauge of whether you consider some moral questions absolute or are they all subjective. Your answers suggest the latter - i.e. IF society did 'evolve' to approve of fathers marrying their 12 year olds, then you say 'What's the problem'. Wow - Thanks for the clarification.

There is a link to this issue and religion for sure, but that does not make it a motivation for a view. This is easily demonstrated, and I also suggest that it has a link to the higher suicide rates.

If you are religious (theist) you believe that humans are specifically designed by a higher power for a purpose. One major part of that purpose is to reproduce and raise children - the next generation that 'honours' our design (and thus Designer) by 'fulfilling the original design' and thus we find real meaning. That doesn't mean of course that all can do that of course for various reasons, just that overall it's a big part of our 'design'. The good news for us though, is that under our view those that cannot do that for whatever reason - are still fully valuable 'creations' and they have a plethora of other ways they can 'honour their design' and thus find very real personal meaning to their lives.

If you are non-religious on the other hand, you believe that we are NOT the product of design (in an intelligent sense), but a purely accidental product of random mutations. OK. However, this sill means we have been 'designed' by those mutations for a 'purpose' - and in your case - it is for absolutely one single purpose alone - to reproduce and thus spread your genes to the next generation. Everything else you do that is not in accordance with evolutions 'design' for mindless reproduction - is therefore pretty meaningless compared to this.

In either view equally (equality - yay) - There is no question that humans have 'succeeded' so well (that we know of - since written records began) because of a 'design requirement' (from somewhere) for a mother and a father who must commit to a long term relationship to nurture the next generation until they are capable of surviving themselves. Our physical bodies obviously have a particular 'design' that is 'made' for this purpose, and there is plenty of evidence that the consciousness of men vs woman is also quantifiably different wrt to successfully fulfilling this exact purpose i.e. the hunter-gatherer vs the nurturer idea. All of this isn't religion at all - it is simple scientific fact.

It is also an irrefutable fact that gay and lesbian are simply not able to produce the next generation. So in either world view - the sad case is that these individuals just cannot fullfill what is a primary purpose for their 'design'. In the same way for transgender individuals, all the societal encouragement we can artificially muster in the world cannot change the scientific fact that every cell in their bodies has only one of two genders, and that this is not changeable by surgery. Unfortunately, while these facts can be repressed by society decision, they can never be fully repressed, and ultimately it leads to the higher suicide rates we see amongst these people, and I absolutely agree we must support them - but do in the right way.

The only link to religion in this - is that religion once again (as in many other areas) happens to align with these scientific realities, whereas atheists & secularists continue to deny and 'rebel' against the 'creation'. The only other link with religion, is that if true (and some might admit - even if not true) - the religious world view provides real answers for people in all circumstances, including LGBT, whereas there is no answer and no hope to this real problem with an atheist world view.

So just because my religious view aligns with reality that forms my motivation, it doesn't make it my motivation. I'll now ask you to stop trying to insert religion as a red-herring distraction in this debate, as the easiest way to combat reality, and lets just talk within your world view about it.

Comment 24 (4830) by OJB on 2017-10-12 at 21:49:49:

Yes all laws have their issues and might produce inequality in some form. I'm debating the best approach we can hope for, given that perfection is impossible. We all prefer to think rationally, but in these situations rationality isn't as clear as it might be in other situations not involving partly subjective concepts like morality.

Today skin colour is seen as irrelevant but it wasn't in the past. Can gender not be seen in the same way - as something that will be seen as being less relevant over time? In fact, in most progressive countries it is already seen as irrelevant.

If a civil union is equivalent to marriage why not just allow marriage? Clearly the fact that conventional couples can have marriage or civil union and same-sex couples can only have civil union, there is a degree of bias here.

According to what I have seen the majority view is that children of same-sex couples don't have any great disadvantages, if any. There may be the odd study indicating the opposite, but that is the current general conclusion.

One phenomenon I have heard a lot about in current psychological research is how people justify their views. They reach a conclusion based on irrational beliefs, like religon, then look around for ways to justify that conclusion, including cherry-picking science. Not saying that's what you're doing, but it might fit!

Yes, same-sex couples cannot "create new life" by themselves. Not yet anyway, although there is reason to think they might be able to in the not too distant future. Would it be OK for them to be married then? Also, should hetero couples with fertility issues not be allowed to marry?

Also, adopting a child who might live in an institution otherwise seems like just as worth an act of love as giving birth to, and raising your own child. Is that not worthy of being allowed the dignity of a label everyone else is already allowed?

And, you didn't answer my question about "what would Jesus do". It seems to me that the only positive aspect of Christianity is the tolerant, forgiving attitude sometimes attributed to Jesus, and it is exactly this attitude you are denying. Who is the better Christian in this case: you or me?

Comment 25 (4831) by richard on 2017-10-14 at 14:25:46:

While laws may not be perfect, the point is that inequality is not (always) what makes them flawed. Inequality is inevitable in all laws and the inequality is entirely appropriate in most cases. This is precisely why we agree it's entirely appropriate to 'discriminate' against the 12 year old driver (or the 12 year old wife).

Gender is generally seen the same way, in that everyone accepts that Gay couples have every freedom to adopt their chosen lifestyle and all that comes with it, including many things that married couples do. No problem there from a tolerance pov.

But - the exact issue at stake here is that SSM is NOT equivalent to traditional marriage - in the ways that the Govt promotes and protects it, which has nothing to do with the equality of romance, or love or the freedoms that are rightly provided. It's all to do with child protection and endorsing the family unit that has promoted the best outcomes for children pretty much forever.

As for child outcomes - studies may show one thing or another. None of that dismisses my own experience though. My mother had an affair that produced me, and it resulted in divorce, and my biological father wanting no further involvement. Hence I was raised by a single parent. In the words of the great White Shark in Finding Nemo - "I never knew my Father' (lol). Studies will probably show I 'turned out all right' - average perhaps in the 'outcomes' scales they measure? But no one can convince me that I am 'better off' or even as better off' as the families of my friends I grew up with that had both parents committed to each other and their children. While I am extremely proud of my Mother and the sacrifices she endured for my sake, she simply could not completely replace all that a real father contributes to the family, and be a mother too. It's exactly the same with two single sex parents - while they are without a doubt mostly fantastic, loving people, and frankly sometimes more so than selfish hetero parents, it doesn't mean that the children don't have to deal with that truth, and wonder why their family is different - not because of tragic loss of a parent to illness, or accident, or numerous other reasons beyond their parents choice, but rather ONLY because their parents decided that their own personal sexual desires were more important than their childs right to a Mum and a Dad. This is exactly the anecdotal reports of many SSM kids.

Re Your hypothetical assertion about people looking for ways to justify their irrational religious conclusion - you need to apply that to this very hypothesis. In short - you can assert it all you want, but haven't provided a scrap of evidence to justify that assertion - which is precisely why you say you are not saying I am doing it. Then why say it at all?

These are all very good questions and worthy of careful thinking. If SS couples can ever really (as in legitimately) create new life, then by definition they probably wouldn't be same sex couples then would they, so yeah who knows what decisions might come up in future. I am not sure why that fairy tale premise dictates any current decision in the current real world though - do you?

There is no reason that couples with fertility issues cannot marry, because (to answer your question) they are allowed to adopt, and they can provide the child with all the same benefits as current parents without fertility issues, unlike two males or two females (as above). And of course it's impossible to know that they have these issues until they are married. Remember that while the Govt doesn't do thorough checks to determine whether two people really do love each other - a traditional wedding usually involves a public declaration of this, and this love and commitment is also a vital part of the protection for future children. At least it used to be - sadly the decreasing level of long term commitment to hetero marriage for the benefit of the children is another sad consequence in relatively recent years, and we are seeing the consequences of all this in the truly tragic statistics like our teen suicide rates and general outcomes. So no one is suggesting that all this is the product of SSM. We all know that hetero couples contribute to lots of issues as well - as you said the system isn't perfect by any stretch. So suggesting that there are some hetero parents that probably should not have kids isn't PC either of course, but we all know it's true.

I really don't need to answer the question about what would Jesus do. You already know that completely. That old love and tolerance line is a crock. Jesus had a very clear stance on marriage (Matt 19v4-6). Was he 'tolerant' to the money changers (who also desecrated Gods design) by turning the temple (a place set apart for worship) into a market place for personal profit, by targeting the poor. No - he tore the place apart, all while loving them and all other people enough to die for them. Yes - His response to the adulterous woman was love, tolerance and kindness, but he still said 'Go and leave your life of sin' (John 8) We can and should expect the same response here. Cheers.

Comment 26 (4832) by OJB on 2017-10-15 at 10:30:35:

Inequality is one reason laws can be flawed. If we can have a law that treats all people equally, with no real disadvantage to anyone else, then that is a better law than one which unnecessarily treats one group as second best.

You say "including many things that married couples do" but why not try to give them all the advantages of others? There's no real disadvantage to this, apart from satisfying some bigoted ancient religious rule with no relevance in modern society.

Well SSM is equivalent in many places, including New Zealand. And, apart from backwards theocracies (a group I'm sure many fundies would like NZ to join), it is likely to happen in more places, not less. Who knows, maybe even Australia!

Well I sympathise with your personal experience, but that is a single anecdote and not even related to SSM anyway. There are many things I could say about that but it must be a bit sensitive for you so I will refrain.

Psychology has established that people think that way. That is, they form conclusions based on their irrational beliefs, then look around for reasons why those conclusions make sense. It's well known this is particularly prominent amongst fundamentalists, deniers, etc. It doesn't always happen and I don't pretend to fully understand for your motivations. Just putting it out there as a possibility.

The technology for two women to create a life is just around the corner and involves manipulating cells from one. They will still same be sex. This is the origin of the recent story about males being obsolete!

Your point about Jesus is interesting and very revealing. It is quite contrary to the narrative portrayed by many other Christians, and I think it reveals a lot about religion in general. That is, that the religious stories are meaningless. The so-called teachings of Jesus come from many competing, contrary sources and have no meaning beyond what people want to create from them.

Comment 27 (4833) by richard on 2017-10-17 at 09:19:48:

Well, the content here is showing we have again reached the end of this one. All I can say is I am surprised that someone that bases all their conclusions on scientific observation thinks that SSM is equivalent in all respects to the standard family unit in humans that has been the design of evolution (according to your world view) as long as records have been kept.

The differences are obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by their philosophical biases.

It is a single anecdote, I agree, and I'm not sensitive about it at all. But it is completely relevant to SSM for the purpose of the discussion, in that in both it is the choices made by the parents that deny the 'natural' expectation that human children deserve the protections and privileges provided by both a mother and a father that created them.

If resorting to claiming such possibilities regarding my motivations is your line of argument in this debate, then one wonders why that has to be the case, and why the other side of the argument is somehow out of the same questioning. Waste of time.

The last comment about Jesus and being contrary to a narrative by other Christians meaning that religious stories are meaningless is nonsense. Just because people can come up with wildly alternative and even contradictory interpretations to satisfy their desires, doesn't mean their interpretation is actually justified. Don't you think one thing is absolutely certain - Jesus himself didn't expect people to come up with multiple interpretations - He expected people to get His (single) interpretation, and quite frankly - that isn't difficult at all in this issue - and in fact all cases, though some are of course more tricky than others. Not in this case though at all.

So my question to you is - by reading the full account of Jesus life and acts, including what he had to say about the nature of marriage, and (whether true or not) His belief about His 'divine' authority - what do you think Jesus response to SSM would be? Don't listen to any other Christians - what do you think is the right honest and more rational / justifiable interpretation? And remember Jesus claimed to be God and as such he didn't just write the 'red letters' - he aligns with the OT too - where it is applicable both to homosexuality and therefore SSM.

Note too though that the Bible (Jesus) isn't just defining a position on SSM wrt marriage. No one is being unfair to them. All sexual activity outside of the bibles clear and obvious definition of marriage is deemed wrong, so that rules out all the other proposed deviations
that are undoubtedly in the pipeline now, like polygamy, polyamory, incest, & potentially even bestiality. Don't forget adultery, which is now so common place we forget that this too is the same type of deviation from marriage - one that has caused millions of children so much heartache. Similarly, fornication (sex before marriage) is also just as wrong wrong, and potentially causes huge issues for couples when they do get married. But of course, this is all seen as old fashioned and irrelevant by those that want to do it.

Comment 28 (4834) by OJB on 2017-10-17 at 12:13:24:

Yes, I don't think we are getting anywhere. We just have two different philosophies here: I want the greatest freedom and fairness practical, and you want to follow some outdated rules from an old book. :) Probably no way around that disagreement. I'm not saying conventional marriage and SSM marriage are equivalent in every respect, I'm just saying we should use the law to try to give both groups equal rights as much as possible.

I still can't see how your anecdote is particularly relevant, so let's just move on from that as well.

No one knows what Jesus thought because no one wrote down what he said. And let's not even get started on whether he even existed in any recognisable form, or not! All the gospels were made up by unknown writers years after the event. They copy each other, yet still contradict in places. Anyone who takes that stuff seriously needs to really look at their motives.

It's completely unclear how much of the OT is still relevant according to the NT. In some places we are told there are now new rules, and in others that all the old rules still apply. Again, the Bible is useless as a definitive source of information.

I think your defence of the Bible and the close match between your beliefs and it, do show what you denied before: that your opinion on this comes straight from those same anonymous, primitive tribesmen who wrote that old book thousands of years ago! Check your calendar. It's 2017. Time to join the rest of us in the 21st century!

Comment 29 (4835) by Richard on 2017-10-19 at 21:19:27:

Wow. Pretty speech, but just the sort of rhetoric used when facts don't actually support your case. I have always agreed with you that we should be giving the most freedom practical to SS couples!

Sorry, but your ridiculous claim that no one wrote down what Jesus said is just laughable. You need to get in step with historical scholarship on that one. Anyone who takes that seriously needs to either really look at their motives, or to dismiss all historical records as unreliable.

No Owen, my 'defence of the bible' as you call it, was in this case merely a reasoned and rational response to your previous claim that you can't get a consistent position on what Jesus would do about same sex marriage from the bible. Clearly you aren't up to the challenge of defending your claims by answering my question in the same reasonable way. I wonder why that is? Until you are prepared to do so your comments hold very little weight.

Again, you can make that tired old claim all you want, but I never denied that I agree with the Bibles position on SSM. I denied that is my sole 'blind' motivation for my position. My position on the benefit of recognising marriage for what experience shows is actually is, and not what people might want it to be, ( just as in the case of many others who don't put any stock in the bible at all, including many gays in fact), comes from a simple common sense look at all the facts on this issue. Cheers.

Comment 30 (4836) by OJB on 2017-10-19 at 22:21:48:

So you want to give a group of people the most freedom possible by, for no good reason, denying them a right everyone else has. Interesting strategy you've got there.

I've done a check on this, in pro-religious sources, and there doesn't seem to be any good evidence that anything was recorded at the time, either by Jesus himself, or by any of his followers. All the stories were made up many years after the events they allegedly portray. Maybe you could show me some of this "historical scholarship" you have.

My point was that you can support any position you like by using the Bible. Want to start a war? Look up some of the violent stuff. Want to bring peace? Use the nice, hippy bits instead. So there's not a lot of point in using it to support any view since it could equally easily support a contrary view.

Well reading back through your thoughts regarding SSM it is clear that your objection comes to a significant degree from your religion. I'm sure there are other factors as well, but it seems to me that (especially given your extreme fundy views) that is the most important source.

Comment 31 (4841) by richard on 2017-10-30 at 15:45:03:

Denying them a right? Shame - Back where you started. This is not about 'rights' - no one is denying anyone a right that isn't already denied to plenty of others as well - also for sound reasons, given the whole purpose and policy around marriage. That's the red herring I complained about in the first place. You're just pounding the podium now.

Seriously - You do realise that all major Universities have Religious Studies departments and programs that publish all the time on this stuff and some have done for hundreds of years. But perhaps it'd be better to look at someone you might not expect me to use - Bart Ehrman - He is no friend at all to religion, but he is a bona-fide biblical scholar and he recognises the authenticity of the historical texts. Of course his book 'Mis-quoting Jesus' tries to cast doubt on it, by claiming there are lots of errors and counterfiet versions'. He fails to realise the complete suicide of his whole premise! How does he know they are counterfeits? The only reason he can possibly know this is because he knows the originals are perfectly well supported and clear enough to be recognised as such!

Actually it's not true at all you can equally support 'any position' you like. Simply cherry-picking quotes that appear to support your case, doesn't mean that the Bible (when treated properly) does that at all. Same applies to any large piece of literature, including War and Peace! No, instead one has to ask - what did the Author intend? In this particular case (SSM) there is no possible way to adequately defend the position using the Bible when the entire text is treated consistently. If you think otherwise - then up to you to show why...

Last comment is completely irrelevant to the topic, and have already shown in the thread why it's not the case. So not bothering to bite again.

Comment 32 (4842) by OJB on 2017-10-30 at 22:43:09:

Look, it's really simple. The right to marry is something given to heterosexual couples and could be extended to same-sex couples without really incurring any negative outcomes. So why not just do it? The only possible reason I can see is that people might want to preserve existing standards, which are most likely derived from a religious belief.

So getting back to the original question: can you show me anything which credibly suggests that any of the alleged thoughts of Jesus were recorded at the time. Try to answer the question this time.

But religion is all abut cherry picking. How else can there be so many totally conflicting interpretations of the same text? If you can't handle this being applied to your own religion, look at it in regards to a different one. Apparently, Islam is a religion of peace. Most Muslims genuinely believe that, but a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the same text leads to jihadist atrocities.

You denied it was the case and that isn't the same as showing me it wasn't. But let's leave that aside. It's bad form to try to guess another person's motivations anyway.

Comment 33 (4843) by richard on 2017-11-01 at 11:06:54:

If only it was simple. The question of what decision a governing power should make to extend or deny some apparent rights to individuals, is often not simple. Doesn't it come down to having a longer term view of what makes more sense, than a short term - 'baby see baby want' view?

The classical definition of marriage is not just religiously defined - or even Govt policy defined. Rather it is a 'discovered' naturally occurring feature of reality that (in your world view) is the product of evolution and discoverable by science. To change that definition is to go against both. Why is preserving that already existing standard wrong?

It logicially follows that you cannot extend that particular 'right' to one group of individuals, and then subsequently deny that right to other groups , ones which will produce even greater harm - and btw you haven't demonstrated that no harm is involved with this decision anyway.

All the real practical rights wanted by SS couples are already provided to them. There is nothing they can't do. All they want is the same label - that tries to falsely affirm that the SSM relationship is the same as classical marriage. This is demonstratably false - at least wrt to the only reasons that Govts bother with marriage licences in the first place.

So why isn't it more selfish to continue to demand this label, given the downstream effects to any change that denys the scientific evidence describing what 'marriage' looks like, when they already have every right to celebrate their unique (different) relationship in every way possible?

You are hanging on this 'at the time' as if that is relevant to historical accuracy. Not true. They were recorded at the time, orally - as part of the cultures tradition, and all the Universities I mentioned understand and (generally) agree that the earliest manuscripts were written by either eye witnesses to the events, or those that got it from eye-witnesses, the first within 30 years or so - a time span far earlier than alot of historical records from that period that we don't question at all. Again - use highly qualifed historical scholar Bat Erhman whose other book 'Did Jesus Exist' defends the case that of course he did - and any suggestion to the contrary lacks historical credibility.

That some people can cherry pick is irrelevant. Doesn't mean their view can be 'reasonably defended'. You just admitted that very thing when you said "a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the text leads to Jihadist atrocities'. So better to ask the Muslims how they defend their view that Islam is a religion of peace.

Love that last comment: 'It's bad form to try to guess another person's motivations anyway." Was that by way of an apology? ;)

Comment 34 (4844) by OJB on 2017-11-01 at 20:07:38:

Standards change over time, generally to more inclusive, fair, and secular views. That's why SSM is now accepted in far more places than in the past. The only parts of the world returning to more regressive, religion-based views are in the Islamic world. Maybe you would prefer we emulate their views more?

We are "discovering" that greater inclusivity is good for society, so social evolution seems to be dictating that SSM is a good idea.

I have referred you to studies showing children of same-sex parents get as good or better outcomes than those of "conventional" families. Also, you are the one making the claim against the default position (that there is no significant difference) so it is really up to you to prove your view.

Yes, practically they have the same rights but surely you can see that the symbolism of being "second best" here is the real problem. In society, labels and symbolism matter.

Interesting that you should mention Bat [sic] Erhman, who from what I understand, claims the Bible is hopelessly unreliable having been re-written for political and theological purposes, as well as being transcribed inaccurately by amateurs. Maybe you agree with me after all?

Of course views based on cherry-picking are difficult to defend. That's why people genuinely seeking the truth look for objective, empirical evidence for any hypothesis they formulate.

Not so much an apology, more an admission it was a pointless exercise since it is difficult to either prove or disprove.

Comment 35 (4845) by richard on 2017-11-03 at 21:52:35:

Yes - I know that social evolution (engineering) is occurring such that SSM is a foregone conclusion, as will be the logical slope that follows. I agree that SSM couples are generally lovely folks, but I did provide a bona fide example of increased harm risk, in their greatly increased suicide rates. For some inexplicable reason you choose to ignore that.

There is not just a moral judgement here, but with any other form of increased health risk to a child (smoking, or anorexia say - though not being compared to LBTG in any sense other than a verified harm risk btw), while we don't 'criminalise' such behaviour, we don't create public policy to celebrate it and pretend that it has no effect either - not if we care more about our kids that the basic gratifications of our adults, who as you say are really just looking for nothing more than symbolism.

My sincere apologies to Bart. That was not intentional at all. Ha ha. The point is how on earth does Bart decide that it was transcribed inaccurately, without knowing that there is actually a valid reference to judge the inaccuracy by. His whole book commits suicide wrt inaccuracy on that basis, but it shows clearly that even like nearly all historical scholars know that there is no reason to doubt their were ancient texts written close to the time.

So if 'cherry picked views are difficult to defend', you clearly understand the point that the bible (when correctly used) provides reasonably clear views on most moral issues (whether you agree with them or not is a different questions). So just don't cherry pick (unless they are in line with the overall message). Easy enough.

Nice to chat over such things amicably with you. Cheers.

Comment 36 (4846) by OJB on 2017-11-05 at 20:52:38:

We were discussing same sex marriage but you seem to be quoting figures showing greater suicide rates amongst the LGBTQ community. How does SSM increase the chances of a child having parents who are more likely to commit suicide? Maybe if they felt more included in society (by being allowed something everyone else already has) their suicide rate might be lower? Also, they can adopt kids whether they are married of not, so this is a bit of a non sequitur.

The fact that various texts were translated poorly doesn't mean the first versions were accurate. If I translated the Lord of the Rings badly it would still have been fantasy to start with. You still have showed no evidence at all that records were made at the time.

The Bible provides both clear and contradictory views because you can cherry pick different sections of text to support your view. Each section might be clear (but often isn't) but there is often another, equally clear, section saying something contradictory.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.