6678 replies to this topic

[Ulcer]

Today the RELIGION! thread turns 300...pages that is.

In recognition of this monumental milestone, I'm going to share with you these outstanding videos by ProfMTH entitled "Why Religious Arguments Fail to Persuade," in case you missed them. Enjoy.

[TheoConfidor]

misandrist family laws

No such things exist.

Sadly, that is untrue.

Ok, while I'd love to continue this enlightening debate of "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "Yes it is", please realize that if you guys are the ones making these radical claims that you should point to some evidence of it being so.

Here you go, for starters. This is taken from here.

1. Unilateral Divorce – This is also known as no-fault divorce, with no recourse for the other spouse. There is nothing you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce.

2. Domestic Violence Fraud : Presumed guilty until proven innocent DV laws are now widely used as the “opening chess move” of many divorces. Once the husband is removed from the primary residence he never comes back, and she gets the primary residence in the asset split. Also known as the Federal VAWA Legislation, this new unconstitutional law has been fraudalently misused by divorcing spouses ever since it came out. There are no equivalent laws to protect men in abusive situations.

3. Decriminalization of Adultery - Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.

4. No Custody for Dad - Custody of the children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM. When you read of cases like this October 2009 case where a little boy’s mother was arrested for prostitution and his stable/employed dad was still denied custody, you quickly understand how this loaded dice always rolls.

5. Nonenforcement of Visitation Rights – States enforce payment obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist, however they don’t lift a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain, which is the visitation rights of non-custodial parents. If you are going to police one parent’s obligation to pay, why not police the other parent’s obligation to allow regular meaningful access to one’s children?

6. Children as Cashcows - The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW’s brand of feminism is no longer about equality, but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow.

7. No-Fault Alimony – In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of “spouse-A cheats, but spouse-B pays”. In what other area of contract law does the party breaking the contract gets paid, and the innocent party gets punished? Only in Marriage 2.0!

8. One Sided Alimony: Ok so the ex-wife got used to a certain standard of living, so we will make the ex-husband pay alimony. Fine. But how about the things the ex-husband got used to? Do men have a right to be “accustomed” to stuff too? If not, why not? Shouldn’t there be some sort of reciprocal reverse-alimony payment by the ex-wife in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and “romantic companionship” services for the ex-husband? How come one spouse is obligated to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and the other isn’t obligated to provide anything?

[weener]

Here you go, for starters. This is taken from here.

1. Unilateral Divorce – This is also known as no-fault divorce, with no recourse for the other spouse. There is nothing you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce.

Oh, how terrible. Neither men nor women can force their spouse to stay married to them.

2. Domestic Violence Fraud : Presumed guilty until proven innocent DV laws are now widely used as the “opening chess move” of many divorces. Once the husband is removed from the primary residence he never comes back, and she gets the primary residence in the asset split. Also known as the Federal VAWA Legislation, this new unconstitutional law has been fraudalently misused by divorcing spouses ever since it came out. There are no equivalent laws to protect men in abusive situations.

Yeah, this sucks, but I don't hear you complaining about how hard it is to get abusers actually prosecuted for domestic violence. I wonder how often it's actually fraud. Domestic violence is far more common than you think.

3. Decriminalization of Adultery - Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.

Seeing as men are adulterers far more often than women are, you'd think this would be in their favor.

4. No Custody for Dad - Custody of the children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM. When you read of cases like this October 2009 case where a little boy’s mother was arrested for prostitution and his stable/employed dad was still denied custody, you quickly understand how this loaded dice always rolls.

Aren't you the one always harping about how women have this role to be nurturers to children and men have the role of providers? What's with this sudden idea that women can provide for themselves and men are capable of nurturing children?

5. Nonenforcement of Visitation Rights – States enforce payment obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist, however they don’t lift a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain, which is the visitation rights of non-custodial parents. If you are going to police one parent’s obligation to pay, why not police the other parent’s obligation to allow regular meaningful access to one’s children?

Since when do they do a good job enforcing child support payments? I'm sure this is news to plenty of divorced mothers.

6. Children as Cashcows - The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW’s brand of feminism is no longer about equality, but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow.

Huh? Women are bearing children for the sole purpose of bilking men out of money now?

7. No-Fault Alimony – In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of “spouse-A cheats, but spouse-B pays”. In what other area of contract law does the party breaking the contract gets paid, and the innocent party gets punished? Only in Marriage 2.0!

8. One Sided Alimony: Ok so the ex-wife got used to a certain standard of living, so we will make the ex-husband pay alimony. Fine. But how about the things the ex-husband got used to? Do men have a right to be “accustomed” to stuff too? If not, why not? Shouldn’t there be some sort of reciprocal reverse-alimony payment by the ex-wife in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and “romantic companionship” services for the ex-husband? How come one spouse is obligated to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and the other isn’t obligated to provide anything?

Sounds like an argument that women should have salaries they can live on, and men should learn how to cook and clean for themselves.

[arise_shine]

Here you go, for starters. This is taken from here.

That's a lovely anonymous blog site with no information about the person writing it or his motivations.

1. Unilateral Divorce – This is also known as no-fault divorce, with no recourse for the other spouse. There is nothing you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce.

So what's your solution for women who need to get out of abusive marriages? Also, why would anyone want to remain in a marriage with someone who doesn't want to be in it? Or worse, who is actually harmed by being in the marriage?

2. Domestic Violence Fraud : Presumed guilty until proven innocent DV laws are now widely used as the “opening chess move” of many divorces. Once the husband is removed from the primary residence he never comes back, and she gets the primary residence in the asset split. Also known as the Federal VAWA Legislation, this new unconstitutional law has been fraudalently misused by divorcing spouses ever since it came out. There are no equivalent laws to protect men in abusive situations.

I agree, sometimes the law goes too far. It happened to me personally. This shit needs to get cleaned up. That said, I can forgive the system a little for overcorrecting a little when it comes to helping victimized women get out of horrible situations (often brought on by, or at least enabled by the patriarchal system).

3. Decriminalization of Adultery - Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.

Why should consensual sex between two adults be illegal? If "because it hurts the other spouse" is the answer, then shouldn't we also criminalize emotional and psychological neglect?

4. No Custody for Dad - Custody of the children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM. When you read of cases like this October 2009 case where a little boy’s mother was arrested for prostitution and his stable/employed dad was still denied custody, you quickly understand how this loaded dice always rolls.

Yeah, because deadbeat dads are so much better.

5. Nonenforcement of Visitation Rights – States enforce payment obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist, however they don’t lift a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain, which is the visitation rights of non-custodial parents. If you are going to police one parent’s obligation to pay, why not police the other parent’s obligation to allow regular meaningful access to one’s children?

If this is true, then yeah, the system needs to be consistent. This seems to be a problem of execution, though, not the law itself.

6. Children as Cashcows - The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW’s brand of feminism is no longer about equality, but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow.

What if the dad is an abusive and/or neglectful asshole? What's your solution for that? If genuinely good dads are being deprived of their rights to visit their children, then yes, there is a problem. But maybe some children are not better off being around certain biological relatives. I have personally witnessed at least one case.

7. No-Fault Alimony – In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of “spouse-A cheats, but spouse-B pays”. In what other area of contract law does the party breaking the contract gets paid, and the innocent party gets punished? Only in Marriage 2.0!

Attributing fault can be (and usually is) a horribly ugly matter. I'm glad it's out of the system. I agree that alimony/settlement agreements can be bullshitty. It's another one of those little overcorrections that I have proportionally little problem with, compared to benefit it's given women who get out of situations they were otherwise trapped in.

8. One Sided Alimony: Ok so the ex-wife got used to a certain standard of living, so we will make the ex-husband pay alimony. Fine. But how about the things the ex-husband got used to? Do men have a right to be “accustomed” to stuff too? If not, why not? Shouldn’t there be some sort of reciprocal reverse-alimony payment by the ex-wife in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and “romantic companionship” services for the ex-husband? How come one spouse is obligated to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and the other isn’t obligated to provide anything?

I don't think the principle is "I got used to a certain standard of living," as much as "I need financial help to survive day-to-day." There are situations where a stay-at-home spouse gets the rug pulled from under them and suddenly find themselves having to fend for themselves otherwise unprepared. Alimony is a Good Thing here. If not, then what's your solution? But yes, there are probably situations where the not-as-well-off spouse gets more than they really "need" from the settlement. Oh well; another overcorrection that could be remedied.

All in all, I think these arguments are pretty weak. There are kinks in the system, but the system we have now is MILES ahead of where we were 60 years ago, where there was so much institutional patriarchal misogyny that women were routinely neglected and trapped in shitty (and abusive) relationships with no recourse. "To the moon!" ha ha ha ha ... And again, I'll ask: what's your solution?

[Ryan8bit]

Here you go, for starters.

I don't see how any of these laws are even sexist, much less misandrist.

[TheoConfidor]

Here you go, for starters.

I don't see how any of these laws are even sexist, much less misandrist.

Really? You don't see how presumption of guilt in DV, one-sided alimony (from the man to the woman), and essentially guaranteed female custody are at all misandrist?

Then, I suppose nothing in your world is misandrist.

Would you see it as misogynistic if it were the other way around? A man could have an adulterous affair, divorce his wife, receive lifetime alimony payments from her and get to keep the kids, and you wouldn't see anything at all lopsided about that?

[weener]

A man could have an adulterous affair, divorce his wife, receive lifetime alimony payments from her and get to keep the kids, and you wouldn't see anything at all lopsided about that?

I'm sure this has happened in situations where the woman is really wealthy and a fuckup to boot, such as a Kevin Federline-Britney Spears type of situation. However, when a clearly irresponsible mom gets custody over the dad who has it together, the culprit is really outdated gender roles that state than only women know how to care for a child. What better way to fight it than by men showing what involved, together dads they can be? If a man relies on his wife to cook and clean for him, how can he care for a child?

[TheoConfidor]

1. Unilateral Divorce – This is also known as no-fault divorce, with no recourse for the other spouse. There is nothing you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce.

Oh, how terrible. Neither men nor women can force their spouse to stay married to them.

Or the more awful fact that neither men nor women are bound by their covenants anymore. The wedding covenant, which is specifically worded as "to death do us part" and is sworn to by both parties is no longer something that a person is bound by. With the present laws, the marriage covenant carries less legal weight than a business contract.

3. Decriminalization of Adultery - Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.

Seeing as men are adulterers far more often than women are, you'd think this would be in their favor.

Evidence please? Presently, I doubt the statistics would support your claim.

4. No Custody for Dad - Custody of the children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM. When you read of cases like this October 2009 case where a little boy’s mother was arrested for prostitution and his stable/employed dad was still denied custody, you quickly understand how this loaded dice always rolls.

Aren't you the one always harping about how women have this role to be nurturers to children and men have the role of providers?

Only within the marriage. No man has the reponsibility to provide for a woman who is not his wife.

7. No-Fault Alimony – In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of “spouse-A cheats, but spouse-B pays”. In what other area of contract law does the party breaking the contract gets paid, and the innocent party gets punished? Only in Marriage 2.0!

8. One Sided Alimony: Ok so the ex-wife got used to a certain standard of living, so we will make the ex-husband pay alimony. Fine. But how about the things the ex-husband got used to? Do men have a right to be “accustomed” to stuff too? If not, why not? Shouldn’t there be some sort of reciprocal reverse-alimony payment by the ex-wife in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and “romantic companionship” services for the ex-husband? How come one spouse is obligated to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and the other isn’t obligated to provide anything?

Sounds like an argument that women should have salaries they can live on, and men should learn how to cook and clean for themselves.

Or perhaps it's an argument that neither men nor women should get divorced. The simple fact remains that legally, only the man is required to continue providing resources. The women is legally required to... oh wait, she just sits back and collects money, with no further obligations. Note also, that presently women file for 70% of all divorces, and have consistently instigate that percentage of divroces for the past 90 years. Legal plunder, a little?

[bucky]

...this makes me realize that I've been spending so much time answering everyone else's charges, that I've let slide the fact that people have been ignoring mine. So, I'm going to be finished with this discussion until answers are given to the following:
Why homosexuality was removed from the list of mental disorders by the American Psychological Association?

In 1973 it was first removed (in part) by a board of trustees in the APA, who voted against general homosexuality as being relevant as an illness. Two important revisions since then, DSM-III and DSM-III-R, further strengthened this.

The DSM-III committee and subcommittee charged with drafting the new manual (1976-78) settled on the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality, which, according to Meyer, "...represented a compromise between those individuals whose clinical experience, interpretation of the data, and, perhaps, biases, led them to the conviction that homosexuality was a normal variant of sexual expression..." By the time DSM-III-R (revised version of DSM-III) came out in 1987, the tide had shifted again. The category of ego-dystonic homosexuality was eliminated. As DSM-III-R itself stated, "...the diagnosis...has rarely been used clinically, and there have been only a few articles in the scientific literature that use the concept..."

It would appear that a mixture of data and bias lead to this change. Does this devalue this decision if some bias was involved? There are cited incidents of activism from members within this decision making (APA member Kent Robinson), but then also keep in mind it was activists and not scientists who broke down segregation as well. They could rightly see 'no good' in coming from treating homosexuality as an illness, so it is valid to say that some of the decision came from that of passion. However, that does nothing to support that homosexuality is 'still' a mental illness, if that's what you're trying to imply, because the initial finding was flawed and incorrect to begin with. Also saying that there was bias involved in the decision at the time says nothing against new data and arguments that have weighed-in since then. China removed homosexuality as an illness in 2001, for example, based on a 5 year study. Do you think Chinese activists persuaded that one as well?

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems. Although there have been claims by conservative political groups in the USA that this higher prevalence of mental health difficulties is confirmation that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder, there is no evidence whatever to substantiate such a claim."[60]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Homosexuality

Is there more you'd like to talk about on this subject, or is this a sufficient acknowledgment of what you were asking about?

I'd like to ask about this again-

However, there as never been anything in the law that allows for a man to marry a man, nor a woman to marry a woman. It's a completely new thing that will have far-reaching effects beyond mere "equal rights."

Hmm, please elaborate. What will these far-reaching effects be? Tolerance? Less homophobia? Or are you implying that there's a relevant-enough downside to allowing same sex marriages that they're worth denying or finding them "not a-ok"?

I also take some offense to what you refer to as "mere equal rights". This would mean you think this is a trivial issue compared to something else. What is it?

[mooniniteG]

Here you go, for starters. This is taken from here.

1. Unilateral Divorce – This is also known as no-fault divorce, with no recourse for the other spouse. There is nothing you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce.

2. Domestic Violence Fraud : Presumed guilty until proven innocent DV laws are now widely used as the “opening chess move” of many divorces. Once the husband is removed from the primary residence he never comes back, and she gets the primary residence in the asset split. Also known as the Federal VAWA Legislation, this new unconstitutional law has been fraudalently misused by divorcing spouses ever since it came out. There are no equivalent laws to protect men in abusive situations.

3. Decriminalization of Adultery - Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.

4. No Custody for Dad - Custody of the children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM. When you read of cases like this October 2009 case where a little boy’s mother was arrested for prostitution and his stable/employed dad was still denied custody, you quickly understand how this loaded dice always rolls.

5. Nonenforcement of Visitation Rights – States enforce payment obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist, however they don’t lift a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain, which is the visitation rights of non-custodial parents. If you are going to police one parent’s obligation to pay, why not police the other parent’s obligation to allow regular meaningful access to one’s children?

6. Children as Cashcows - The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW’s brand of feminism is no longer about equality, but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow.

7. No-Fault Alimony – In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of “spouse-A cheats, but spouse-B pays”. In what other area of contract law does the party breaking the contract gets paid, and the innocent party gets punished? Only in Marriage 2.0!

8. One Sided Alimony: Ok so the ex-wife got used to a certain standard of living, so we will make the ex-husband pay alimony. Fine. But how about the things the ex-husband got used to? Do men have a right to be “accustomed” to stuff too? If not, why not? Shouldn’t there be some sort of reciprocal reverse-alimony payment by the ex-wife in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and “romantic companionship” services for the ex-husband? How come one spouse is obligated to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and the other isn’t obligated to provide anything?

I have an easy solution to avoid all of these problems: Don't get married until you're absolutely sure you're going to stay with the person you're marrying for the rest of your life. Part of that would probably be dating them for a number of years before rushing into marriage.

[Norrin_Radd]

I have an easy solution to avoid all of these problems: Don't get married until you're absolutely sure you're going to stay with the person you're marrying for the rest of your life. Part of that would probably be dating them for a number of years before rushing into marriage.

*ding ding ding ding ding*

Agreed.

[Ryan8bit]

You don't see how presumption of guilt in DV, one-sided alimony (from the man to the woman), and essentially guaranteed female custody are at all misandrist?

Ok, let's start by defining misandrist since you seem to throw it around a bit. It's hatred of all men. You're using it as some kind of loaded word to try and prove something. None of these laws are misandrist.

Now, you might have a case of saying that they're sexist, which is totally different. But even then, I still don't think they're sexist. Alimony isn't always one-sided, custody isn't always guaranteed to the female, and men often do tend to engage in domestic violence much more than women (or to a more severe degree). That some will exploit the system does not make the system itself sexist.

[weener]

3. Decriminalization of Adultery - Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.

Seeing as men are adulterers far more often than women are, you'd think this would be in their favor.

Evidence please? Presently, I doubt the statistics would support your claim.

True, I was making an assumption, and you know what? I wasn't able to find any statistics that I would trust on this. It's not really the sort of thing people tell the truth about.

.....

Or perhaps it's an argument that neither men nor women should get divorced. The simple fact remains that legally, only the man is required to continue providing resources. The women is legally required to... oh wait, she just sits back and collects money, with no further obligations. Note also, that presently women file for 70% of all divorces, and have consistently instigate that percentage of divroces for the past 90 years. Legal plunder, a little?

You know, it's interesting you're much less worried about the reality of women trapped in abusive relationships than about the much more far-fetched scenario of paragons of male virtue forced into funding their ex-wives lavish lifestyles and/or prostitution sprees. You've said in the past that you wish women weren't allowed to vote or hold jobs, and have said you wouldn't mind fathers being allowed to choose their daughters' husbands for them. You seem to believe that men have other people's best interests in mind at all times and are all but incapable of harming anyone, but women are just out to screw men out of their money and children. This says a lot more about you than it does about women, marriage or society.

[Sam]

Heterosexual attractions don't mean one will engage in heterosexual behaviour as well. Not to mention that behaviour unto itself is distinct from the preference or predisposition. For example, psychopaths engage in horrendous behaviour like ritualistic murder, in part because they don't seem to have the faculty to be empathetic. But you can still murder someone without being a psychopath: the distinction is the neurological grounding (I like how I made a comparison between murder and sex. Ha!).

The point is, in the case of sexual activity, of course it's a choice. I could choose to host a bisexual orgy with bestiality to spice things up if I chose to. I'm not going to though, especially because I have no ingrained - neurologically or otherwise - preference for the aforementioned activity. Same thing for heterosexuals. Every time one engages in any remotely honestly romantic or sexual interactions or activities of the opposite sex, you could say that's a choice. Likewise for homosexuals.

That's what I've been saying all along. Thank you. Although, you do seem to be saying that, because there exists a "neurologically programmed preference," a person ought to act on it. And this is obviously untrue; untrue for psychopathic murderers, and often untrue for heterosexual behavior as well. Just because I meet a girl and want to have sex with her, that doesn't mean that I should. First of all, obviously, I'm married, and adultery is absolutely not okay. But even if I weren't, that still doesn't make it a good idea, either morally or practically.

Let's be clear here: you're concerned with Catholic spiritual concerns. There are plenty of people from other faiths that are concerned with spiritual matters as well but don't see conflict between them and homosexuality. Your quote of "Because unlike most everyone else, I'm not just concerned with worldly pleasure and contentment" is inaccurate, degrading, and judgmental.

First, I should qualify that I was talking of people here, and mainly limiting it to this very thread. To my knowledge, there aren't any people of other faiths here, except for Theo, who agrees with me. Unless the various shades of agnosticism/atheism count as "faiths," which I could accept for argument's sake, but they don't tend to acknowledge the existence of the spiritual realm, except as an object of derision. But, more to the point, so what if there are other faiths? They make mutually contradictory claims, and cannot possibly be all true. As I've said time and again, from a simply logical point of view, there is, at most, one true religion in the world today. Plurality of opinion does not mean plurality of truth.

The scientific method is pretty much the anti-faith: you make an observation, you form a testable hypothesis, then you work out an experiment that would either prove or disprove your hypothesis. You submit your results to a scientific journal where they're scrutinized by other specialists in your field, some of whom will try to recreate your results by repeating your experiments. If your results can't be replicated, your hypothesis is thrown out. Science revolves around skepticism.

First, as has been pointed out before, there's some faith required even of the scientific method, that things will continue to be the same today as yesterday, that universal laws are not arbitrary and prone to change, that repeatable phenomena have underlying reasons that will keep them so. The ancients didn't always have such faith. Now, I understand that we have thousands of years of empirical data collected by billions of people that tend to reinforce some of our scientific notions, and I also believe that consistent science will produce consistent results; the faith component is subtle, but it's there.

But I do think that there are some issues, not that faith and reason are opposed, but where one or the other just doesn't apply. For example, the universal gravitational constant isn't an act of faith. It's not opposed to faith (although I think that most of us accept it on faith, rather than performing the necessary experiments to independently verify); it just doesn't really apply to faith. Similarly, science is completely unequipped to speak about the existence and nature of God. How could it? Science involves observing with our physical senses and controlled, repeatable experimentation. So the idea of analyzing an omnipotent, free-willed God who exists outside of time and space as a purely spiritual being is pretty silly, scientifically speaking.

Critical thinking is also anti-faith. It's not logical to believe something with 100% certainty when there's no proof (or even any solid evidence). When I say I'm an atheist, I don't mean that I'm 100% sure that there is no god - that would require just as much faith as you saying you're 100% sure that there is one. I do know that as time goes on, more and more questions that used to require god as an explanation are being answered by scientific means. It's getting to the point where a god just isn't necessary; things can be explained without one. That doesn't rule out the existence of one. However, considering all the religions that have existed throughout human history, and all the possibilities there are for what a god (or gods) could be like (which are virtually limitless), I think it's extremely unlikely that a god exists who resembles the god described by any particular religion.

Critical thinking is not anti-faith at all. You're implying that there is absolutely no good reason that a person could believe in the existence of God. Sure, there are some people who blindly and unquestioningly follow, but that's true in areas outside of religion, and of people outside of religions. But I've never insisted on blind acceptance. Truth is, there are plenty of valid reasonable reasons to believe in God. For example, there are philosophical arguments to be made, there are historical bases for Christianity, at least, there are miracles that science hasn't been able to explain as purely natural.

As for questions that require God as an explanation, I'm really not sure what all you mean, here, although I'm glad that you understand that God's existence isn't necessitated on such things. But I will ask the one example that I can think of. Pong, why do you think that there exists something, instead of nothing?

It's perfectly legal to have a Satanic/Wiccan/Athiest/Hindu/Santerian/Rastafarian/etc marriage. Instead of violating an obscure passage in Leviticus, these walks of life generally disregard the overall message of the entire New Testament. I'm surprised this doesn't piss off the hard-line Abrahamic devout as much as the concept of LGBT marriage does.

While I may not agree with Satanism, Wicca, atheism, and whatnot, that doesn't really bear on the fact that marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. So that's not terribly relevant to the discussion.

Also note that despite the direction this thread has taken, bear in mind that many Christians see no problem with homosexual marriage. A couple mainstream protestant churches even embrace it, waiting for the government to allow them to legally marry couples instead of these neutered "civil unions." There are many, many flavors of Christianity, and some people's narrow interpretation definitely does not speak for us all.

If Christ's death didn't save his followers from all the laws like "don't eat pork," and "a man must not lie with another man," then you probably ought to become a vegetarian since you can't eat meat unless it's slaughtered in your fucking temple the Romans destroyed 2000 ago. And don't go bowling on Shabbos, either. You go to hell for that.

Some Christians may not see a problem, but, 1) plurality of opinion doesn't mean plurality of truth, and 2) those people are blatantly ignoring the Bible from which they claim to draw their faith. Leaving the moral argument for a moment, both the Old and New Testaments are pretty clear that homosexual acts are not okay.

Further, you're missing the distinction between disciplines and doctrines. Things like "don't ear pork" were intended for the nation of Israel, that is, for a specific people in a specific time and place. There's nothing intrinsically immoral about eating a pig, except that it was against the law. And we find this clearly spelled out in several places in the New Testament. That "a man must not lie with another man," however, is a doctrinal matter of morals that does not change. And, as I said, we see such a prohibition affirmed in the New Testament in multiple places, as well as throughout the centuries by early Church fathers and other Christian writers.

And please note that this is only a correction of Radioeyes's misconceptions. Since he brought Christianity into the discussion, I will refute his assertions on those grounds.

3. Decriminalization of Adultery - Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.

Why should consensual sex between two adults be illegal? If "because it hurts the other spouse" is the answer, then shouldn't we also criminalize emotional and psychological neglect?

You actually can be held liable for emotional and psychological damage, interestingly enough. But, more to the point, how can you argue, on the one hand, that any consentual sex act is find as long as no one gets hurt, and, on the other, say that adultery is fine even if the faithful spouse gets hurt? (And you've expressed such a sentiment before, outside of a purely legal context.)

http://en.wikipedia....i/Homosexuality

Is there more you'd like to talk about on this subject, or is this a sufficient acknowledgment of what you were asking about?

No, it's really not. That's an extremely one-sided article, and a good deal of it reads like a propaganda piece. (The "longstanding consensus" that homosexuality is okay is neither longstanding, nor was there really a consensus when the DSM was altered.) Further, I couldn't help but notice that it's been locked, so no one could add contradictory information even if he wanted to. I'm sure that it was officially done to keep Fred Phelps out, but, coincidentally, it's a great way to stifle any sort of dissension or debate on the matter. It also doesn't touch on the historical changes of who was defined to be a "homosexual," especially by homosexual movements themselves.

Don't get married until you're absolutely sure you're going to stay with the person you're marrying for the rest of your life. Part of that would probably be dating them for a number of years before rushing into marriage.

I pretty much agree with that, although I would question what it means to be "absolutely sure you're going to stay with" your spouse. Do all that many people get married thinking, "Eh, this might not work out." Rather, it is a choice to remain faithful and loving, even if you might not feel like it at a given moment.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[Pongball]

Pong, why do you think that there exists something, instead of nothing?

Just for clarification, since that question could be interpreted a couple different ways: Are you asking how I know for sure that something exists rather than nothing? Or are you asking me what reason there is for something to exist?