Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

[Jive Turkey]

Your aggressive hostility to values informed by religious teachings which have been passed on and tested for thousands of years as opposed to values informed by pop culture and emotions is... puzzling to me.

You're getting really boring, but I'd just like to point out that, despite what you think, religion did not invent morality. There would be no human race if not for an ingrained, innate sense of morality; one that had been instilled in us though evolution long before religion reared its ugly head. I don't need religion to be a morally good person. Apart from the fact that the morality of your religion can often times to called into question, I shudder to think what kind of morally corrupt person you'd be without Christianity to hold your hand along way. But then again, maybe without it, you'd finally be able to think for yourself and come to truly moral conclusions on issues like the one in this thread

 

[INDY500]

You're getting really boring, but I'd just like to point out that, despite what you think, religion did not invent morality. There would be no human race if not for an ingrained, innate sense of morality; one that had been instilled in us though evolution long before religion reared its ugly head. I don't need religion to be a morally good person. Apart from the fact that the morality of your religion can often times to called into question, I shudder to think what kind of morally corrupt person you'd be without Christianity to hold your hand along way. But then again, maybe without it, you'd finally be able to think for yourself and come to truly moral conclusions on issues like the one in this thread

No surprise that you would again confer meanings that I haven't stated. Where have I ever said one needs religion to be a morally good person? I haven't.

You're not bored with arguing with me J.T. because you aren't arguing with me. You're arguing with a twisted, prejudiced abstraction of your own construct.

I shudder to think what kind of morally corrupt person you'd be without Christianity to hold your hand along way.

That makes two of us. But apparently you can't accept that an individual may be a better person because of their religion. Or that, even with all its faults, evils and transgressions, religion is a huge net plus on civilization.

 

[Jive Turkey]

You're not bored with arguing with me J.T. because you aren't arguing with me. You're arguing with a twisted, prejudiced abstraction of your own construct.

Hahaha ok Indy

 

[Irvine511]

Eugenics did, and could only, originate from the Left and progressivism. The notion that a human suffering from severe disabilities is of lesser moral worth and therefore less desirable to society is incompatible with both Christianity and constitutional conservatism.

This is among the more offensive, nasty posts in this thread.

 

[iron yuppie]

This argument about whether religion, by which I assume people mean Abrahamic religions, has been a net positive or negative on society, seems to recur frequently.

I will say this. From a strictly historical perspective, the adoption and spread of Christianity in Europe and the Near East had little to no influence on people's day-to-day lives. I'll just assume that we are talking about morality as basic decency in terms of altruism, respect, and peacefulness. The crime rate in Europe before and in the ten or so centuries after Christianity had been adopted is basically the same. Wars are still constant. The charities that "pagan" temples and, later, monasteries and convents provided are more or less constant. Out-of-wedlock births, if one sees that as a moral issue, are also very common in both eras. Poverty rates and economic stratification are essentially the same as well.

All this is to say that the effect of Christianity on the day-to-day behavior and economic circumstances of an ordinary person is negligible. You could argue that the Christian era sees greater localization of social and economic life under bishops and other church figures, leading to less interaction with and therefore less understanding of other cultures, but even that can be attributed to the ruin of infrastructure after the Germanic invasions of Rome rather than anything intrinsic to Christianity.

Religion as the western world knows it has been neither a positive nor negative influence on society. It has been a net zero in measurable terms. And I stress "measurable," because obviously there is no way to calculate how a perception of a happy afterlife might have influenced someone psychologically. But regardless of how thoroughly people believed in that afterlife, it does not seem to have influenced their treatment of each other in any substantial way.

 

[Pearl]

Good points, iron yuppie.

 

[INDY500]

This is among the more offensive, nasty posts in this thread.

Because it's true?

Oh let me guess, because I correctly point out that eugenics sprang from the progressive movement here in the U.S and Europe 100 years ago... I think, what? That anyone that calls themselves a progressive today trips blind people and illegally parks in handicapped spaces.

You'll have to explain what's offensive and nasty about my post.

 

[Irvine511]

Because it's true?

Oh let me guess, because I correctly point out that eugenics sprang from the progressive movement here in the U.S and Europe 100 years ago... I think, what? That anyone that calls themselves a progressive today trips blind people and illegally parks in handicapped spaces.

You'll have to explain what's offensive and nasty about my post.

Look at your "could only have come" part of your post.

People who live in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

That anyone that calls themselves a progressive today trips blind people and illegally parks in handicapped spaces.

What the hell is this?

Please tell me you're joking. You have to be. Otherwise, seriously, what in the world is the deal with your attitude here?

 

[corianderstem]

He's asking Irvine if that's what he (Irvine) thinks he (Indy) is saying.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Okay, clearly misread, then. Apologies.

For my part, I'd say one big offensive thing about your post, INDY, is the idea that eugenics is a thing that "could only originate" from the left/progressive side of the political spectrum.

This whole discussion is messed up, though, really. Same sex marriage has no ties to the topics of incest or eugenics, so it's really insane that we've gotten to the point where we're discussing the latter two topics in this thread.

 

[INDY500]

For my part, I'd say one big offensive thing about your post, INDY, is the idea that eugenics is a thing that "could only originate" from the left/progressive side of the political spectrum.

It couldn't originate from Christians or the Right because we're anti-science.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Okay, gotta give you that one. Touche .

 

[Pearl]

I think it's unfair to associate every liberal/progressive with eugenics. I'm sure there are plenty that are against it. I mean, I get the impression that Indy is doing that, apologies if he isn't.

 

[iron yuppie]

I don't know a single person who supports eugenics, regardless of their political leanings.

 

[Irvine511]

I don't know a single person who supports eugenics, regardless of their political leanings.

Given the right wing history of being, well, Nazis, they try to rewrite history to say, "see? You do it too."

Well, no. We don't.

But I take all of this as desperation over the disaster of te Romney campaign and the slow realization that Obama, for all his flaws, has basically been as good as we could reasonably hope for.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I don't know a single person who supports eugenics, regardless of their political leanings.

Nor do I. I have a feeling that people who do support such things are probably crazy loner types and whatnot.

 

[Irvine511]

We really are scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to arguments against SSM, aren't we?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Pretty much, yeah. If that isn't a signal to the anti-gay rights side to put a fork in it already, I really don't know what is.

 

[Kieran McConville]

At the risk of derailing a thread even further, and at the risk of seeming to give any one side more ammunition, it is simply not true to say that the early twentieth century eugenics ideas were wholly of the right. They were a part of the self-described progressive outlook of the times (which has only a little to do with 'left' or 'liberal' or any other tag you might want to give to social democrats in the year 2012).

 

[LJT]

Eugenics was a shared view of many across the political spectrum Keynes was a big fan as was Churchill just to give an example each from the opposite ends. It was fairly popular in the in the early 20th century and only fell out of favour really due to the Nazi's.

Whatever any of that has to do with SSM, I really have no idea.

 

[Kieran McConville]

No well, this is the SSM/Eugenics thread now, so...

 

[LJT]

To be fair when I read SSM, my initial thought is always, 'so we're talkin about BDSM right?'

Then I become fairly disappointed when I discover same sex marriage is still an issue and that we haven't moved on to kinkier things

 

[Irvine511]

Eugenics was a shared view of many across the political spectrum Keynes was a big fan as was Churchill just to give an example each from the opposite ends. It was fairly popular in the in the early 20th century and only fell out of favour really due to the Nazi's.

Whatever any of that has to do with SSM, I really have no idea.

I often wonder what American Conservatives do when they read simple, widely known facts like this. They read that they are simply wrong ... And then what? Do they turn up Fox even louder? Hit refresh again on Red State? Peruse old Krauthammer and Prager articles?

What does keep them going? Is it really that satisfying to call Margaret Sanger a Nazi?

 

[Jive Turkey]

This argument about whether religion, by which I assume people mean Abrahamic religions, has been a net positive or negative on society, seems to recur frequently.

I will say this. From a strictly historical perspective, the adoption and spread of Christianity in Europe and the Near East had little to no influence on people's day-to-day lives. I'll just assume that we are talking about morality as basic decency in terms of altruism, respect, and peacefulness. The crime rate in Europe before and in the ten or so centuries after Christianity had been adopted is basically the same. Wars are still constant. The charities that "pagan" temples and, later, monasteries and convents provided are more or less constant. Out-of-wedlock births, if one sees that as a moral issue, are also very common in both eras. Poverty rates and economic stratification are essentially the same as well.

All this is to say that the effect of Christianity on the day-to-day behavior and economic circumstances of an ordinary person is negligible. You could argue that the Christian era sees greater localization of social and economic life under bishops and other church figures, leading to less interaction with and therefore less understanding of other cultures, but even that can be attributed to the ruin of infrastructure after the Germanic invasions of Rome rather than anything intrinsic to Christianity.

Religion as the western world knows it has been neither a positive nor negative influence on society. It has been a net zero in measurable terms. And I stress "measurable," because obviously there is no way to calculate how a perception of a happy afterlife might have influenced someone psychologically. But regardless of how thoroughly people believed in that afterlife, it does not seem to have influenced their treatment of each other in any substantial way.

But this says nothing on whether a lack of any religion whatsoever would have a positive or negative affect. One religion was just replaced by another here, so any affect religion had wouldn't be measurable, because nothing really changed

 

[iron yuppie]

But this says nothing on whether a lack of any religion whatsoever would have a positive or negative affect. One religion was just replaced by another here, so any affect religion had wouldn't be measurable, because nothing really changed

I think this depends on how you define "religion," which is why I prefaced my comments by noting my assumption that we are talking about the transition from polytheism to Christianity. Do you see religion as primarily a belief in the supernatural or primarily as social organization around a certain belief system held as valuable?

 

[Jive Turkey]

I think this depends on how you define "religion," which is why I prefaced my comments by noting my assumption that we are talking about the transition from polytheism to Christianity. Do you see religion as primarily a belief in the supernatural or primarily as social organization around a certain belief system held as valuable?

I find that hard to answer... I suppose the latter to appease the former? It's difficult to separate the two

 

[INDY500]

Given the right wing history of being, well, Nazis, they try to rewrite history to say, "see? You do it too."

So why isn't this "among the more offensive, nasty posts in this thread"? I see no disclaimers or effort to disassociate present day conservatives from the Nazis lurking in the shadows of right-wing history.

But of course an honest description of Nazi Germany wouldn't be right-wing or left-wing. They were race-based totalitarians. There was certainly nothing conservative about Hitler; he was an anti-capitalist, anti-Christian revolutionary.
But, in the current, lazy rewriting of history Nazi Germany must be right-wing because they liked big guns and invaded Russia and Joseph Stalin (the definition of Left).

 

[Jive Turkey]

anti-Christian

No sir. That said, he did what he did because he was a fucking nutcase, not for any religious leanings

 

[INDY500]

No sir. That said, he did what he did because he was a fucking nutcase, not for any religious leanings

I think I could make a strong argument that genocidal anti-Semitism qualifies as a "religious leaning" but, moving on, Hitler above all else was a facist and facism is a religion of the state. Education, the economy, civil society, religion; all must be aligned with the objectives of the facist state.

And now the thread is totally derailed.