Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, all after the event. But when the event took place, the Colorado law was effective. This has since been overturned.
Actually the law was not overturned. The ruling was very narrow, namely the Colorado Human Rights Commission (or whatever they are called), discriminated against the baker in their treatment of him. They did not say he has a legal right to refuse to bake cakes for same-sex couples, only that the CHRC must treat him ethically and respectfully, particularly as it pertains to his religious beliefs.
What is false about it? It is just another form of love, right? I would like to know from a logical standpoint while atheists suddenly are celebrating homosexuality yet would be against other types of unions.
It's call the Law. We follow it rather than a religious dogma which in fact will be forgotten in fifty years' time.
Hey I'm just trying to find ANYTHING that an atheist would find immoral. It's kinda hard. They just won't admit that a father marrying a daughter is immoral and therefore the whole "love" argument fails miserably.
As for using the Bible against me, it won't work. The passages you cite were only temporary cultural class type Mosaic written only for the Israelites and made null and void by the death and resurrection of Christ.
Jeff, try to be honest hrte. Many times we have mentioned informed consent required for a marriage or a uniin. A father daughter relationship is not one where one party is not equal to the other in that a parent will always be the parent even after a marriage. Same goes with other forms of incest. Marriage to a chikd, dog, truck, video game also does not involved consent in the legal manner. This claim 9f yours is rather weak when one looks into past threads and posts and see that this has been explained to you many times.
That you think that even straight atheist cannot love one another, or that it is only atheist that support SSM indicates that no argument will work on you. 0lus when you are confronted on some of your claims or your posts are questioned you have the habit of running silent.
The law has definitions of what is consent and what are the legal age of consent and if your argument is that if we support SSM that we should support anything g shows that you are not the least interested in carrying on an open and honest discussion.
Your morality does not allow for SSM but does for the marriage of adulterers, for divorced straight folks, anything but gays marrying other gays.
Actually the law was not overturned. The ruling was very narrow, namely the Colorado Human Rights Commission (or whatever they are called), discriminated against the baker in their treatment of him. They did not say he has a legal right to refuse to bake cakes for same-sex couples, only that the CHRC must treat him ethically and respectfully, particularly as it pertains to his religious beliefs.
In other words outrage against the bigotry that inspired the law must not be allowed when it comes disguised as Christianity.
There is no room in Christ's commands to love God and each other every day and repent when you don't that allows ANY reason to discriminate against anyone. All the Christian dogma followers are trying to be God and judge everyone but themselves pretending that the "precepts and doctrines of men" justify it. It is one of the worst of the many bad traits of humanity. What anyone else does is between them and God and is NONE of your business, period. Your concerns should be between you and God.
Jeff, try to be honest hrte. Many times we have mentioned informed consent required for a marriage or a uniin. A father daughter relationship is not one where one party is not equal to the other in that a parent will always be the parent even after a marriage. Same goes with other forms of incest. Marriage to a chikd, dog, truck, video game also does not involved consent in the legal manner. This claim 9f yours is rather weak when one looks into past threads and posts and see that this has been explained to you many times.
I'm sorry, but all you are doing is showing me a hypocritical position. That's why I mentioned a grown daughter. A grown daughter can fully give consent. So if you are going to throw at me the argument that it is wrong to ever oppose SSM because it is just two people wanting to show their love then the exact same argument can be made for incest. You can't have it both ways so you desperately grasp for any kind of legal loophole to wiggle out of the argument. Grasping on legal arguments rather than looking at the moral backbone is being weak in your arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
That you think that even straight atheist cannot love one another, or that it is only atheist that support SSM indicates that no argument will work on you. 0lus when you are confronted on some of your claims or your posts are questioned you have the habit of running silent.
I have never made those claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
The law has definitions of what is consent and what are the legal age of consent and if your argument is that if we support SSM that we should support anything g shows that you are not the least interested in carrying on an open and honest discussion.
Your morality does not allow for SSM but does for the marriage of adulterers, for divorced straight folks, anything but gays marrying other gays.
My morality allows for forgiveness and second chances which can occur with divorce. OTOH, SSM is a public daily commitment to continue in a sinful lifestyle. The only way to equate with your charge would be if someone is commiting adultry and divorcing every day.
There is no room in Christ's commands to love God and each other every day and repent when you don't that allows ANY reason to discriminate against anyone. All the Christian dogma followers are trying to be God and judge everyone but themselves pretending that the "precepts and doctrines of men" justify it. It is one of the worst of the many bad traits of humanity. What anyone else does is between them and God and is NONE of your business, period. Your concerns should be between you and God.
Then they should keep their business to themselves instead of dragging Christians into being involved with their immoral ceremony.
Hey I'm just trying to find ANYTHING that an atheist would find immoral. It's kinda hard. They just won't admit that a father marrying a daughter is immoral and therefore the whole "love" argument fails miserably.
As for using the Bible against me, it won't work. The passages you cite were only temporary cultural class type Mosaic written only for the Israelites and made null and void by the death and resurrection of Christ.
On the contrary. I've already told you pretty much the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed to by many atheists, is a measure of what we have agreed upon as collectively Moral. The Bible is full of immorality - its appalling. If you want to take an average humanist atheist and an average religionist and ask me which one is likely more moral - the atheist definitely. Morality-wise the Declaration of human rights beats the bible and the Koran hands down - they are embarrassing in their flaws compared to it. Of course, it doesn't appeal to the venal narcissistic nature of humans by promising glittery rewards (like everlasting life - yea believe in our rules and you don't die when you die. Cool huh?). It just urges you to do the right thing because collectively we have recognized it is the right thing. Which motivation is more upstandingly moral?
And if you are agreeing some parts of the Bible aren't moral - in fact they exhibit the absolute opposite - well you seem to be getting it. You realize already that's it flawed. A father selling his daughter? Sex with slaves? Ok to kill your servant by beating as long as they don't die the same day you beat them? Its absolutely disgusting, it should be banned (but for freedom of speech) or reserved for "adults only" in the warped books section of the library.
On the contrary. I've already told you pretty much the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed to by many atheists, is a measure of what we have agreed upon as collectively Moral. The Bible is full of immorality - its appalling. If you want to take an average humanist atheist and an average religionist and ask me which one is likely more moral - the atheist definitely.
Much of the bullet points in that declaration can be derived straight from the Bible. In fact, the founding fathers of the US praised the Bible as a beacon of morality.
All you are doing is bring the charge of immorality while refusing to fairly acknowledge cultural context. It is silly to think the ancient cultures had unemployment offices and everyone could easily find a job. The social economic climate thousands of years ago didn't allow for that. Slavery or starvation was often the only choices. That doesn't mean that the Bible stamp approves that type of situation that MAN created. In fact, there are quite a few anti-slavery verses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chint
And if you are agreeing some parts of the Bible aren't moral - in fact they exhibit the absolute opposite - well you seem to be getting it. You realize already that's it flawed. A father selling his daughter? Sex with slaves? Ok to kill your servant by beating as long as they don't die the same day you beat them? Its absolutely disgusting, it should be banned (but for freedom of speech) or reserved for "adults only" in the warped books section of the library.
The Bible also gives rules on divorce while it also says God hates divorce. You can't find a single verse where God directly says He approves of such things. The way I see it, the Bible is only giving rules to the make the best of a bad situation until Christ could come. If God uprooted such an ingrained system immediately, it could have resulted in extreme poverty, death and starvation. A modern day equivalent would be saying that it is immoral to force people in the US to pay for healthcare. So God should demand that all health providers immediately give free healthcare. The result would end up crashing the whole system. Man created the system, not God.
Sorry, but Christian morality trumps atheist morality because for one thing we have empathy for all people, even those who do us wrong. OTOH, Atheists champion and praise things like mockery which is disgusting.
Then they should keep their business to themselves instead of dragging Christians into being involved with their immoral ceremony.
No. Christians should stay out of business if they are not prepared to provide a service for anybody under the law.
You obviously have great difficulty with relative morality. At one time, daughters were mere Things to be used on marriage deals. The church didn't seem to have a problem with that, but only ever with increased liberation for women and their taking control of their own lives. Christianity would increasingly bleat about 'immorality' because they say immorality as anything not countenanced by the Bible or (as you observed) not the Bible but the dogmas of the church. Whichever you belonged to.
It's been one long religious battle against one moral advance after another. contraception, Transplants, assisted birth, and now same sex - first decriminalised and now given equal marriage rights. This is here, it is supported by law, and there is no way that religion is going to win this one. Religious dogma is not an excuse in law for refusing services provides to anyone else, and to be brital, like the Somali taxi drivers who wouldn't take passengers carrying booze, out on their ear, and little sympathy from me.
Start getting used to it - this case is over. Bar the complaining.
What's next? Bestial;ity has gone illegal because animals cannot give consent. It's the same precedent in fact for age of consent and the vulnerable. Incest (where not otherwise illegal) is against social convention. But the question is asked Why? What practical reason is there not to decriminalise it. Trust me Jeff, if yoy can come up with a really good reason why, I'll support you.
Childbirth is irrelevant, ever since contraception, and if you're going to fight that, fight Islamic first cousin marriage. damage to family relations..maybe. It's the best argument. Religious disapproval being NO argument and even a reason for me to cheer them on.
I find it rather interesting that Christianity compared to atheism doesn't look too good- Kim Davis, Jailed, Kent Hovind, Jailed, scamps, rip -offs, scandals and exploitation. That's the record of Christianity. Atheism has only Dawkins not being as sensitive as he should be to women and their problems with being hit on at atheist conferences.
And that's not looking at Catholicism at all, and .I'm not even mentioning dodgy deals like Ham's ark, Osteen's megachurch and a good number of luxurious lifestyles at the expense of the congregation.
I know which looks the more moral record to me.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-12-2018 at 08:32 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
