12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal

Oversoul

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
From the American Heritage Dictionary...

Religion: a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

How is atheism a religion?
 
M

mythosx

Guest
spiderman - Authority of definition...They did not name what was or wasn't a religion.

Oversoul - I am using the supreme court definition of what constitutes as religion. It is still a religion. It is like the number 0. 0 is still number. It may not denote a value in either way but it still is a number.
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
Hmmm. Whose definition should I believe?

Trust the people who decide what words mean...
...or a bunch of judges who have probably never studied linguistics?

How long have the words 'atheism' and 'religion' been in the dictionary? Over 150 years?
Are there ANY judges on the Supreme Court who have been alive even half that many years?

Sorry. In terms of credibility when it comes to definitions of words, Dictionary > Supreme Court.
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Astranbulth: Are the tax laws more favorable for married business people than married non-business people? Because until this last tax year, non-business married people had it worse off tax-wise than single people.

mythosx: I'm curious, why are you choosing them as the authority for the definition then?
 
M

mythosx

Guest
They are the law makers. Why do we take their definition of anything? Cuz they make the laws. What's a tax? What is a sales transaction? It's just the rules. Aethism by the dictionaries definition would still hold as a religion. Regardless American english always changes. And regardless of that, if I no one can use thier belief system to decide anything, how would we decide anything? We could role some dice, I guess.
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
You're just flailing now, mythosx.

Atheism, by the dictionary's definition (conveniently posted at the top of this page) would be the OPPOSITE of religion. Religion involves belief in a god, and atheism precludes belief in a god.
It doesn't matter that language changes. We're not dealing with 100 years ago, or 100 years from now. We're dealing with now and what things are right now. Definitions might be different someday, but that's immaterial in the present.
I never said that people couldn't use their belief system to decide anything. I said that RELIGION (and yes, there is a very important difference between 'belief system' and 'religion') should not be forced upon the populace, and that includes the denial of certain rights based upon that religion. Arguments against equality for blacks, Asians, women, and most other minorities were based on religion...be glad that religion *isn't* used too strongly to make decisions, or you'd be a second-class citizen.
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
mythosx: Is it because their definition does not contradict what you believe in is why you are willing to accept their authority?
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Originally posted by Oversoul
From the American Heritage Dictionary...

Religion: ... 4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

How is atheism a religion?
Click to expand...
I would argue that atheism is a religion based on definition #4. I see nothing in definition #4 that insists on "belief in God."

Regardless, a dictionary is still just a bunch of people deciding what words should mean and meanings often vary from dictionary to dictionary. Since this thread has been about legal issues, I don't see why mythosx is "flailing" because he is presenting it as a legal definition instead of a "dictionary" definition.

I was not part of the previous thread, so I can't say for sure, but what I've seen in this thread is Istanbul casually dismissing any point of view other than his own as "unfounded".


Edit - Just noticed. According to this dictionary, Atheism is linked to "immorality". Does that mean someone who doesn't believe in God cannot have a sence of morals? I'm fairly certain I don't agree with that.
 
A

Astranbrulth

Guest
Spiderman -- Ummmm .... I'm not really sure about the legal tax benefits of marriage in the US ... but in SA as far as I know it is advantageous to the couple.
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
EricBess - Congratulations. You have just rendered any and all arguments I may have, however valid and accurate, completely moot with this:

I was not part of the previous thread, so I can't say for sure, but what I've seen in this thread is Istanbul casually dismissing any point of view other than his own as "unfounded".

Of course, now it doesn't matter whether or not I was doing what you claim I was doing (I wasn't - if you want me to switch to your point of view, you have to CONVINCE me, just saying "this is how I think it should be, so believe this way" won't do it), now anything I say will just come off as another casual dismissal.


...or, at least, that's what you'd like to see. Sorry, buddy, but you're going to need to offer a little more proof if you want to actively attempt to discredit me. So come on, offer up some evidence. Let's see some quotes. I'm waiting...

(Hey, if you want to debate, we can debate. If you'd rather turn this into a flamewar, let's get it on!)
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by Astranbrulth
Spiderman -- Ummmm .... I'm not really sure about the legal tax benefits of marriage in the US ... but in SA as far as I know it is advantageous to the couple.
Click to expand...
It got a bit better for the 2003 taxes, but before, the most notable difference was that the total tax deduction for a married couple was less than if the two filed separately (you'd think it would be common sense for it to be the same, i.e. for a single, the deduction is $500 so married, it would be $1000, but strangely it wasn't for the longest time. It was like $750*).

* Numbers are not exact, just pulled out of the air for example purposes.
 
A

Astranbrulth

Guest
Here is a link to an interesting post on transgender / gay issues in Florida.

http://www.mykeru.com

**Disclaimer** Reverend Mykeru's site contains strong language and highly politically charged analysis. Enter at your own peril.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Istanbul - I am specifically referring to the tone of your "arguments" as being dismissive rather than substansive. In other words, I don't think it is a question of being "accurate" or "valid". I certainly don't consider anything you present as being inaccurate or invalid as a matter of course, but I don't think you can label something such as the following:
And it often draws the ignorant out to express their opinions. Looks like it worked.
Click to expand...
as either "valid" or "invalid".

My point is that I don't believe you've stated any arguments in this thread, only opinions.

Now, before you go off and call me a hypocrite, I've tried to be clear from the beginning that everything I've stated is intended as opinion or, at the very least, based on religion. As such, I don't expect you to necessarily take it any more seriously than I take much of what you say.

I think the difference, however, is that most people in this thread have respected other people's opinions while stating their own. I don't feel that you have done that.

Please understand, this is not intended as a personal attack - you are intitled to your point of view and I respect that. I just also ask that you respect the same of everyone else.

I'll summarize what I was trying to say in the post you quoted. Just because someone's viewpoint does not agree with yours does not automatically make that person "ignorant".
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I personally feel he was frustrated with the lack of response/discussion in the original thread so it sort of carried over to this one...
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
*shakes head*

Yet again, my points prove too valid. So instead of attacking what I'm saying, those that oppose me start attacking how I'm saying it. (Also, I notice the lack of requested quotes supporting your claim, as pointless as said claim is.)

That's fine. I came here for a debate, but obviously some people can only stand a real debate when they're winning...and when they're not, they turn it into a flamewar.

I'll not return to this thread; there's no longer any point.
 
M

mythosx

Guest
ok what happened Im back...Had a horrible flight and I missed out on a lot.

Spiderman - No, I don't just accept their definition of religion because it coincicdes with mine. I agree with it cuz it is the definition of religion and obviously would coincide with mine. You notice the ISM at the end of Aethism? The ism means religion. Ok im oversimplifying but you get the point.

Istanbul - Never attacked you cept that quip about the snide remarks. The fight for equality was also fought with Ideas from different relgions. Leaders of equality movement were very religious men such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X. I don't think I would be a second class citizen. You are only one if you let yourself be one.
 
A

Astranbrulth

Guest
I have to jump in here ... I'm an atheist, and don't feel that it is a religion. By being religious, one defines one's belief in something 'supernatural', greater than man. Atheism defines what one does *not* believe in, namely, something 'supernatural', greater than man. I believe that legalistic arguments to define atheism as a religion probably stem from a beaurocratic mania of classifying everything.

Feel free to flame liberally ...

--Astranbrulth--
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
mythosx: I'm a bit confused why you say the Supreme Court's definition is the definition when, as pointed out, dictionaries say different. What makes the Supreme Court the "authority" as opposed to dictionaries who are actually in the business of definitions?

The whole reason behind this line of questions is because I am trying to reconcile this view of you accepting this government body's "authority" while refusing to accept another government body's authority to declare gay marriages legal (or valid or whatever). The only reason so far I could find is that you said (in the other thread) that the legality of gay marriage does not coincide with your religious beliefs so you refuse to accept it. Fair enough. So I'm trying to figure out if the Supreme Court's definition also follows your belief as to why you accept it or are you just choosing which governmental bodies "words" to follow arbitrarily.

And I agree with Astranbulth's statement
I believe that legalistic arguments to define atheism as a religion probably stem from a beaurocratic mania of classifying everything.
Click to expand...
It was probably part of some case about the separation of state and religion and so the need to define "what is a religion" came about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top