^Pretty sure edited his original post to append that stunning bit of stating-the-obviousnism. It made a shit post slightly more shit. :D
Printable View
^Pretty sure edited his original post to append that stunning bit of stating-the-obviousnism. It made a shit post slightly more shit. :D
Scientology is not really like other religions though since it was designed as a money making business by a dime novel science fiction paperback writer.Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
Other religions may have developed facets that operate like businesses but they almost all originated as and continue to be sincere (if in some ways misguided) searches for spiritual truth.
Scientology originated as a money-making tax-avoidance scam and is essentially a brain-washing cult.
Even if your hypothesis were correct, they all remain illegitimate as an entity, founded on deities, developed as a focal point to submerge the unwary and the weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
oppressive expressions of humanity's fear of the unknown, yes...but not necessarily illegitimate...Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
imagined deities...Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you"
Don't close your minds to what is. Open your minds to what may be.
agree: my mind is open to any deity that presents itself...so far, however, despite all the entreaties, prayers, festivals, donations, mewling and caterwauling: zilch...I wonder why all these beings are so shy...a quick sashay across the swimming pool would create many more believers (and donors!)...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Cow
Evidence of physical presence is enough. No time for the absent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Cow
That I can sense just a tiny part of it being present is enough for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Cow
My mind is far too busy dealing with what is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Cow
Platitudes are just platitudes. They, like religion, are nothing without dumb, conditioned followers.
Does that include de-listing fags, when victims, from the 'hate' crimes list and the enhanced sentencing and police prioritizing a more rapid response that, that involves,?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
How about sending homos the bill for the cost of policing their gay shame marches?
:smileylaughing:
Fantastic.... now blue's trying to claim that hate and ignorance from people like him equates to special treatment for gays!
Fucking hell blue, the sooner you come out of the closet the more you'll be able to salvage your mental health.
https://teakdoor.com/Gallery/albums/u...psxjorueek.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by blueDoes that include de-listing fags, when victims, from the 'hate' crimes list and the enhanced sentencing and police prioritizing a more rapid response that, that involves,?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
How about sending homos the bill for the cost of policing their gay shame marches?
Hey MrG what's the craic?
Whadaya say?
Whadaya know?
Snap vote: German lawmakers to vote on same-sex marriage
German lawmakers will decide Friday whether to legalize same-sex marriage, according to CNN affiliate NTV. The snap vote comes after Chancellor Angela Merkel said Monday that she would like to see parliament move towards a "vote of conscience" on the issue.
Following Merkel's comments, German politicians writing on Twitter called for a vote to be held as soon as possible. Martin Schulz, leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) -- the second largest party in parliament -- called for parliament not to wait until after the federal election in September. "We will push through marriage equality in Germany," he tweeted. "This week."
The vote is likely to pass with strong support from other German parties and from some lawmakers within Merkel's CDU. Volker Kauder, leader of the parliamentary group of the ruling CDU faction, called Tuesday for CDU members voting for and against the law to show respect for each other's position, according to NTV. But he also warned that such a sudden vote could lead to a "hasty decision."
____________
How dinner with a lesbian couple changed Angela Merkel's position on same-sex marriages
“I had a life-changing experience in my home constituency,” Merkel explained during a question-and-answer session with the audience. She said she had been invited to dinner with a woman and her partner who were caring for eight foster children. She saw that the children were well cared for, and it dawned on her that her party’s arguments against same-sex marriage were no longer valid.
“If the youth welfare service entrusts a lesbian couple with eight foster children, then the state could no longer use child welfare as an argument against adoptions,” she said.
The opposition from Merkel’s government has been oddly out of tune with much of Europe and the rest of the country, which, according to polls, has long favored same-sex marriage. Yet Merkel’s popularity has remained high over the last 12 years and she is well ahead of her nearest rival in polls.
“Merkel switched her position now to prevent the [political opposition] from attacking her on it in the campaign,” said Thomas Jaeger, a political scientist at Cologne University. “About 80% of the people in Germany are in favor and she's willing to take on a few hard-line conservatives in her own ranks.”
____________
US - Same-Sex Marriage Support At All-Time High, Even Among Groups That Opposed It
Support for same-sex marriage is growing — even among groups traditionally opposed to it — according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center. The report, based on a survey conducted earlier this month, suggests public opinion is shifting quickly, two years after the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.
Overall support for same-sex marriage is at its highest level since the Pew Center began polling on the issue more than two decades ago, at 62 percent in favor compared to 32 percent opposed. Support is also growing among groups that have been more skeptical than the population as a whole toward allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry.
...wonderful! I wonder when gayness will be an acknowledged part of Thainess...
don't know...
guess it depends how fast nasty chemicals enter the food chain
I think it already has - in all but the legal sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
In many ways, the acceptance has more validity, as comes from the people themselves and does not actually require government to rubber stamp it.
agree with the first part, but government acceptance in the form of legal recognition of gay marriage, hospital visits, inheritance for adopted children, etc is still necessary...Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
Didn't that one TV presenter come out recently? I don't watch much TV so was only tangentially aware of it but it seemed like kinda a big deal.
Edit: also Re: TC's point, I also recall they've tightened rules on adoption, surrogacy etc. which precludes same-sex couples.
I have a feeling that you would object to the title 'common law wife'.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
An old English phrase.
folks in states like Oklahoma and Texas really grind their molars when gays adopt kids that would otherwise be left in state care until 18: good Christian folks in the state legislatures, you know...Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
emphasis on old and acutely judgmental...Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
Is unregistered cohabitation any better? Who is judging whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
not better, just different...no need for judgment...Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
the short answer is, of course, that folks judge each other all the time...when those judgments lead to harm, the state needs to step in...Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
But harm can come in many forms and go both ways simultaneously.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
Harm is also a highly subjective notion. People tend to view their own behaviour as more benign and sympathetic than an objective impartial observer (let alone an opponent) would judge it to be.
Conversely, people also tend to view their opponent's behaviour as more antagonistic than an objective impartial observer (let alone their opponent) would judge it to be.
Name one way that same-sex marriage harms you, Loops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
It doesn't even have to be in a 'Oh I didn't get that job/promotion/whatever' or a 'Oh I got beaten up/beaten to death today' because of your sexuality way, just any old way.
Well I would (and have) argued that the institution of marriage is special because it involves a contractual compromise between the evolutionary reproductive strategies engaged in by men and women respectively.
It provides a cultural and legal structure that formalises the compromise that women make (providing exclusive access to their reproductive capacity) and that which men make (agreeing to stick around and provide parental investment).
Failing to recognise the unique nature of the marriage bond as a special type of strategic compromise between 2 individuals of each sex (and instead saying it is just about any 2 people loving each other) is a well intentioned but short sighted and misguided step in the cultural evolution of 21st century humans.
Dissolving the definition of a business-oriented compromise deal between the sexes and dressing it up instead as a schmaltzy sentimental vague notion of 'just love' will not benefit the strength of the institution and why it was brought about in the first place: to maximise the benefit to biological children that result from the union of the respective sexes.
Recognising other types of union using similar legal and ceremonial structures is the most rational way forward IMHO.
You would think that the level of acceptance and legal right to consensual relations would be a pretty good start. The fact that most countries no longer consider homosexuality as a mental disorder, including Thailand, is surely a sign of progress?
The first country in the world to legally recognise same sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2001.
I personally think that marriage as an institution is archaic, and a symptom of wider malaise in religious promotion of guilt.
Civil partnership or union should really suffice for all. Why bother chasing a religious dream of marriage when the institution is clearly failing anyway?
Has to be better than the death sentence, which still exists in some backward religious doctrines.