Gay Marriage

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[TheWindCriesMary]

As a Roman Catholic i find that rather insulting (and no do not be surprised by that. Just because i hate their views on homosexuality doesn't mean i hate all their other views).

Getting insulted when someone points out how Roman Catholic beliefs are bullshit is kind of hilarious.

I mean anyone who can read the bible for up to 5 minutes without immediately becoming aware it is a supremely hilarious (although not so hilarious if you lived during any of the times when it had the power to determine whether you would live or die) piece of loosely historical fiction. And that's including the absurd gospels upon which so much of catholicism and it's inane superstitions are based.

As just a rambling, sporadic coverage of some of the highlights of Roman Catholic beliefs:

As a Roman Catholic you believe there is a magical figure in the sky who created the world in seven days because he felt like it. Then he created a man and stuck him in a magical paradise garden where everything was fine and dandy... but he was lonely. So this magical figure took one of his ribs and made a woman. And for a time they were really ignorant about the entire world and just happily went along like sheep with whatever they were told and didn't really ask questions.

 But the woman was an idiot and got tricked by a snake into eating an apple of knowledge that she shared with the man. Then this imaginary god guy got really pissed because now his mindless ignorant toys were aware of things like jealousy and anger and shame and started asking questions. So he punished the woman and the man (the woman hardest of all) and threw them out.

Then a bunch of equally ridiculous bullshit happened where god played really sick games with his followers (commanding them to kill their son's just to see if they would go through with it.... and then in another case totally fucking up one of his most loyal believer's life just to prove to another imaginary figure called the devil that he wasn't just a fair-weather friend)... and then sends his emissaries to his followers to commit genocide on entire races of people (Deuteronomy & Exodus). Oh and in the meantime he also makes sure to let his followers know that it's god's law that you can sell your daughter into slavery, and that its obligatory to put people to death for working on the sabbath (exodus)... and that stoning people for planting different crops side by side is always required.... and that if you wear a garment made from two different threads you must be burned alive.

But hell, that's just a small sampling from the old testament.

Let's move on to the New Testament where the majority of Catholic dogma is rooted.

As a Roman Catholic you believe that this mythical god figure decided one day to impregnate a 12 or 13 year old virgin girl who was betrothed to a man named Joseph. You believe this because of the Gospels, all of which offer contradictory and anacrhonistic reports which make pinning down the birthplace, birth date and other contextual details of this boy's birth almost impossible.

But no matter about all that, because historically there is (surprisingly) actually evidence that a man named Jesus lived around the time in question and that he was killed by the Romans.

...even though there is absolutely zero historical evidence that he ever performed any miracles, had any notable supernatural powers, ever resurrected after his crucifixion, or was the son of any otherwordly being (beyond his own word and the fact that he accrued many followers and enemies which was not uncommon in a period rife with "messiahs")... all of these things are still things Roman Catholics believe.

Oh and best of all?

As a Roman Catholic you believe that, up until Jesus died, every single person who ever died was unable to get into heaven. Heaven, of course, being the imaginary realm where dead people go to spend eternity basking in the glory and company of your mythical figure god. Now those who held to their Old Testament values (the ten commandments and following to the letter the proper procedures for burning people who wore two different types of fabric... and who made sure they were selling people into slavery at the appropriate price etc.) got to to to a layaway paradise in the meantime. ( See Luke)

But for those who didn't? Eternal suffering in an imaginary hellfire.

And now fast forward past two millenia of ignorance, absurd intellectual repression, murder and tyranny in the name of a fictional mythology and you, as a Roman Catholic, believe that this fictional god guy is represented by an infallible super priest who is surrounded by a multi-billion dollar organization known as the church who brings his word and will to the general public. You believe that it is god's will that no woman should be one of his priests, and that contraception is evil and that gay people are doomed to spend eternity burning in agony because of something they cannot control: who they are in love with.

You believe that it is also a colossal sin not to give 10% of your income to that church (though I doubt you do that, thankfully) and that one day that jesus guy will return to earth and spare all the believers and bring them up to this heaven place with him before he destroys everyone and everything else.



At the end of the day you can believe whatever absurd, ridiculous mythology you want and it's your right. Hell the Greeks believed in mythical gods with winged shoes and thunder bolt weaponry... Scientologists believe in nukes and volcanoes and intergalactic wars... Hindu followers believe in hundreds of absurd deities...


You're welcome to believe Roman Catholicism's equally absurd and goofy brand of imaginary hocus pocus... but don't be insulted when people say it's bullshit. It's only going to become more and more common as human civilization continues to evolve and progress its intellectual capacity out of the dark ages.

[brn4meplz]

Quite frankly I'm offended that pretenders have taken the stage in faith. The true Pantheon of the gods having been forgotten. No wonder Zues sends lightning and tornadoes across the Midwest and Poseidon floods your cities.

[Mysthalin]

The Boston bombings was just Thor's way of trying to get some more people into Valhalla. He's starting to feel lonely lately. Nobody dies in battle like a true Norse should anymore.

[Mysthalin]

Lol Wind, it's funny how you say "You" as if you believe that I believe that is all true. I don't believe that most things in the bible literally happened. I believe that many of them are stories with a moral. Though some are just stupid.

Many religious people don't believe that stuff actually happened, they just follow religion because they think they are good moral to live by, and good teachings.

Many scientists are also religious you know.

Then you're not a real Catholic and that's a good thing.

Being bombed doesn't get you in Valhalla. You weren't in combat with someone and you were killed by a coward with a bomb.

Nah, Thor told me he'll let it fly. He's REALLY lonely lately, and Odin's cool with it too.

(PS why do so many threads I post in end up becoming about me?)

Dunno, you draw attention to yourself?

[acker]

The link didnt say anything, it just recomended not screening genetics. But using dye markers during pregnancy.


Yeah I didn't word it properly, I kinda got lost in the post. Though I'm pretty sure incest cases produce much higher amounts of birth defects then non incestuous couples. The alleles are just so similar in parent-child or sibling-sibling cases.

Either way it's illegal.

Check page 105 of the report, they list the studies and results on this issue.

Nobody is questioning that incest increases fetal birth defect % compared to non incestuous couples. What's questionable is why actions that are far more likely to damage the fetus are allowed, while incest is not.

For example, marrying someone with double-dominant Huntington's is perfectly legal...even though the chance of giving any potential fetus a fatal genetic disease is 100%, an +98% additive increase (for comparison, the average chance of any genetic disease in the case of cousin incest is 5%). If it really were increased birth defects that were the issue, one would imagine that marrying into families with histories of horrific genetic diseases should be a blanket ban long before any laws on incest. I bet there's more countries that ban incest than countries that ban chain smoking or binge drinking during pregnancy, for heaven's sake.

I mean, really, I'm not even taking into account genetic screening. It'd be perfectly possible for an incestuous couple nowadays to lower the chance of genetic defects to average or even below-average levels.



Less importantly, let's take into account the most extreme example. Let's say that some god magically punished incestuous relationships with a 200000000000% increased chance of genetic defects (because fuck logic). Even under such a case, why would marriage be prohibited, instead of childbearing? Marriage does not automatically equate babies; everyone knows a couple that prefers to adopt. Banning marriage would seem to eliminate the tax credits and other benefits loving couples might otherwise enjoy...a rather unfair proposal, considering that it's genetic risk everyone believes is the root cause.

[nikomas]

Because acker, it was never actually about the slightly increased chance of birth defects but that a lot of people find it morally objectionable to love a relative. The defect thing has always been a convenient excuse to justify said morals. That's it! I have not done much research on this particular point but I'm pretty sure brother sister/cousin relationships started getting frowned upon long before there was actually scientific evidence to support the birth defect part of it.

One has to look no further than this thread, were the anti-gay people are using flimsy and made up "evidence" to support their points rather than admit that they're simply being close minded biggots. Oh, while they're free to think what they want of gay people it's more of a justification to themselves than to anyone else, nobody wants to think of themselves as a bad person after all, what sounds better to you?


"I don't like them gays and their way of life, it disturbs me."
"Homosexuality is unnatrual and there is evidence to support blablabla"

Now, there is some truth to the birth defect thing unlike the gay couples. However most free countries are not in the habit of outlawing that kind of behavior and compared to some other stuff (like the diseases you mention yourself) the chance of a defect from incest is pretty damn minor. It's simply just what most find acceptable or not.

I remember reading/hearing (been a while) about this, not sure if it was cousin or siblings that were separated at birth, then met each other some 20 years later and fell in love before they even knew they were related. It's a rare ass occurrence for sure but personally I don't think it would be right to force these two people apart given the fact that the only thing that would even make them siblings in the first place would be the DNA, otherwise they'd be just like any other normal couple out there.

[nikomas]

Not the one I read, but here is one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282575/Couple-discover-siblings-Child-courts-blamed-strangers-fall-love-son--half-brother-sister.html

[Mysthalin]

Yet again, in most countries incest laws are generally there to protect children from parental figures, rather than anything else. Sure, one would say that rape and statutory rape laws are good enough for that, but since the crime is easier to commit while having potentially more psychological damage on the victim it makes sense to have these seperate clauses (maybe not an entirely different set of laws, if we're talking about matters of pure legal efficiency).

[Heartmann]

What the hell TIG your a catholic?

why not be a real Cristian like me? ^^

At least in my faith you have a broader ability for interpretation and personal views, in the catholic dogma you are subjected to the whims of old dudes miles away who used to have a tradition where they lifted the guy with the shiniest hat above them to display his nut sack, in order to make sure it was not a woman in disguise! ^^


Anyway, both Myst and Sach have a point, joining a church of faith or temple of what ever, you either accept the ideals, or find a way to cope with the ideals that are dictated in that dogma, i.e. personal faith in contrast to institutionalized religion. Or, you renounce the faith and remain open minded of the possibility of a greater force, or you close your mind and put your faith in hoi polloi science stuff with the rest of the "modern world" ^^

Jokes aside ppl do get very agitated when it comes to faith in contrast to science, like my dear target of irritation recently, Richard Dawkins, he has very good points, but he him self sometimes closes the possibilities that he may be wrong in some statements, which i do find rather annoying to say the least ^^

[Scotzmen]

[Scotzmen]

Sorry to bust your ego like this Tig, but it wasn't even in relevance to your.... Attention seeking disorder?

Although i think this thread alone proves you are a woman.

Congratz

p.s, i can now masturbate over that tattoo picture of you without fear.

[Heartmann]

I was going to write a lengthy respons to TIGs
Post then I saw score last sentence and suddenly
I just wanted to pull blanket over head and die

[aeroblade56]

I actually enjoyed this thread then tig ruins it. Typical. we can lock this now.

[terrapinsrock]

Fap fap fap fap
 
It's mental masturbation time!

[acker]

Yet again, in most countries incest laws are generally there to protect children from parental figures, rather than anything else. Sure, one would say that rape and statutory rape laws are good enough for that, but since the crime is easier to commit while having potentially more psychological damage on the victim it makes sense to have these seperate clauses (maybe not an entirely different set of laws, if we're talking about matters of pure legal efficiency).

Eh, that makes more sense than genetics, but still seems shoddy.

If this were the case, incest laws would contain fewer references to lineage and more references to guardians. Very few countries have incest laws that cover parents that adopt children or social service workers that take care of orphans and wards of the state. On the other hand, the vast majority of incest laws cover first cousins, and I've never heard of anyone claiming some sort of egregious power struggle there.

And most countries already have extra penalties for committing rape concerning disproportionate power imbalances between the two parties. Which would cover the parental hurt scenario.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Look, its just fucked up to fuck your mom or sister, thats all there really is to it.

[TheWindCriesMary]

If people want to believe in an imaginary being called god for which absolutely zero evidence exists, all the power to them.


Hell, people believe all kinds of crazy things (that psychics exist, that ghosts exist, that they go to some kind of paradise when they die, that some guy named jesus/buddha/mohammed/great spaghetti monster in the sky had magical powers) so it's not even like belief in some god or gods is extra silly.

Now believing that this god somehow wants there to be this massive, extremely rich organized dogma with cardinals and bishops and tithes and priests and sex scandal cover-ups and giant freaking palaces and cathedrals... well there's no accounting for how far people will go in their need for answers to the question of why humanity as a species is here.

[tank130]

I don't know Wind, that whole 21 virgins thing kinda peaked my interest a little .......

[AmPM]

Look, its just fucked up to fuck your mom or sister, thats all there really is to it.

This can easily be changed to

Look, its just fucked up to fuck your own gender, thats all there really is to it.

I don't support incest, but you can't argue for the rights of some and not others. Just like if we are free to reject the church the church should be free to reject us.

[XIIcorps]

Sorry to bust your ego like this Tig, but it wasn't even in relevance to your.... Attention seeking disorder?

Although i think this thread alone proves you are a woman.

Congratz

p.s, i can now masturbate over that tattoo picture of you without fear.

way ahead of you scotz