Originally posted by Nephthys
I'm not denying anything, I'm just amazed that you didn't know that he was asking whether you thought that. Are you seriously so dense that you missed that?
Please continue covering up your incessant stupidity. Or at least, pick something that isn't so blatantly obvious that me and Veneficus have been arguing about for pages precisely because of what he was asking and because of what I thought. My, your stupidity is hilarious. 😆
You shouldn't speak for the opinion's of others. Even an idiot knows that.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Please explain how me saying the two can coexist, as in exist in the same time in the same society, as in you can be religious or you can be secular, is the same thing as religions should play a role in social policy? Are you even trying anymore?
Your statement that the two can coexists is the illogical, Beef. They are fundamentally opposed, because the basis for religious believes (regardless which holy book you chose) wants to influence society while secularism denies that act.
You said MY moral code was influenced by religion, and if it was it wouldn't be Christianity. You know, the religion of the founding fathers?
You do realize that the moral influences of Judaism and Christianity are the same, due to the facts that they utilize the same rules present in Thora and Bible alike (which includes a denial of homosexual relations). The point was that you can't escape being coined by religious beliefs in some way, especially not when you hold them in high regards. That's like standing pool of water and claim that the only reason you're wet is your own sweat.
I referenced your situation with one that actually exists for a reason. You're saying that homosexual couples want equal rights, as those given to heterosexual couples, while I'm saying at least a large number just want to be recognized as a legally married couple.
And I'm still asking myself where the problem is? So instead of Mr. and Mrs. Smith you have Mr. and Mr. Smith. Who cares? As long as they don't demand to get a married by a priest or a rabbi or whatever-religious-figure-there-is but just archive the legal previleges by getting married by some government official, I don't see much of a problem here.
Prove same sex marriages would benefit society as a whole.
Your second sentence is an assertion which you base your argument on, nothing more.
Your third sentence wouldn't exist if the same rights were afforded to same sex couples as heterosexual couples. So instead of allowing same sex marriages and diluting the concept, why not just give domestic partners the same rights?
Apparently you still don't get my point: I've already stated that, equipping domestic partners with the exact same rights that married couples have, would render same sex marriages obsolete. At least from a rational point of view. And that's pretty much all that the same sex couples can hope (and fight) for.
Originally posted by Borbarad
Your statement that the two can coexists is the illogical, Beef. They are fundamentally opposed, because the basis for religious believes (regardless which holy book you chose) wants to influence society while secularism denies that act.
You do realize that the moral influences of Judaism and Christianity are the same, due to the facts that they utilize the same rules present in Thora and Bible alike (which includes a denial of homosexual relations). The point was that you can't escape being coined by religious beliefs in some way, especially not when you hold them in high regards. That's like standing pool of water and claim that the only reason you're wet is your own sweat.
And I'm still asking myself where the problem is? So instead of Mr. and Mrs. Smith you have Mr. and Mr. Smith. Who cares? As long as they don't demand to get a married by a priest or a rabbi or whatever-religious-figure-there-is but just archive the legal previleges by getting married by some government official, I don't see much of a problem here.
Apparently you still don't get my point: I've already stated that, equipping domestic partners with the exact same rights that married couples have, would render same sex marriages obsolete. At least from a rational point of view. And that's pretty much all that the same sex couples can hope (and fight) for. [/B]
Originally posted by Nephthys
Wut?
Oh jesus, here comes the stumbling block. Nai is saying that religion affects my "morals" whether I want to or not because I live in America that's heavily influenced by religion. Not only is that debatable, but it would make no sense since my parents and I came from the Soviet Union, where religion had nothing to do with anything.