32: Godless

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

I understand the point you're trying to make but that has nothing to do with legal rights themselves.

You're approaching this from someone who is married and haven't had to deal with all the issues that same-sex couples deal with. You already have your civil rights whether you're an atheist or not. You're married.

Given the fact that the objective is to give couples their civil rights would you rather call it marriage or a civil union?

If you keep insisting that the term must be marriage, you run into opposition from (most) republicans, (most) religious people, etc. In the meantime your opposition to the "definition" of that term is delaying the right that human beings have.

If you approach and define it as simply a civil union, which it is, everyone can get their civil rights without the argument that it's against their religious beliefs.


That was 9 years ago and it really opened my eyes. I often think that if it was approached as "civil union" rather than "marriage", everyone would have civil rights by now. I also think that if they owned a business together, or have raised a child together, or either has a legal will, or have done anything else that "traditional" married couple can do, their legal rights would amount to nothing.

Sure Myq is right that it IS working and I totally agree that it is. To me it's not happening fast enough because of the term, definition, and beliefs that the word marriage creates.

we're talking about legal rights AND social class. it's an on-going negotiation, but i give no rat's ass to belittle in any way the dignity of my non-heteros in the public arena over bronze age mythos and the recoil that erupts in mens' bellies when two men kiss. it's fucking stupid and i won't tolerate it. the definition of marriage /is/ shifting. words /do/ that. it's in their nature. we can be inclusive or we can /change it all the fucking same/ in a way that creates class difference (high holy christian marriage and everyone else--aren't you fucking special)

you do not own 'marriage' you don't get to hoard 'marriage.' you do not get to dole out 'marriage.' you do not hold 'marriage' hostage.

no one gave you that power over the rest of us. in fact, the constitution explicitly protects me from horseshit like that coming down from the Church. by allowing the word 'marriage' to institutionally hold weight as a 'hetero' only term, we're institutionalizing the prejudice itself. no bueno.

my gay christian homeslices will not be made to subversively become One in the eyes of God.

i'm not currently married. was for a brief time in my early twenties, but i have no intention of being anyone's 'wife' now or ever. my lovely bear is my person. all of that springs from some personal baggage i have over things like the connotations of ownership and power the word 'husband' has and how small it makes me feel, but is by no means germane to what we're talking about. but should i WANT to, bet your fucking ass i should be able to. it's still part of my culture. and even if it weren't, this is fucking America.

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

my gay christian homeslices will not be made to subversively become one in the eyes of God.

I can tell that what you've just said is profound as fuck.

I can tell, because I have read it several times, and still have no idea what the fucking shit you're talking about; but something in that sentence pleases me viscerally.

[Sparrow]

if we give everyone 'civil unions' to appease the religious right and save 'marriage' for their sole and only idea of what that means, the religious homosexual community still becomes second class and will be forced to procure their personal religious blessings through perceived 'less than,' shady, underground, and, again, publicly unrecognized unions. it infringes on /their/ religious freedoms and dignities as Free Americans.

i will /not/ hand over 'marriage' to the Church to institutionally lord over the rest of us. they do not get to invalidate anyone's choice to become a 'husband' or 'wife.' they do not own these words.

[myq]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

I hope you're right. That the terms have power and therefore, progress. I just hope that it doesn't take away many rights people have in the meantime by insisting that we stick to the word marriage.

I think you're mischaracterizing the issue. I understand that we both want the same things, equal rights for everyone. (Technically speaking, I don't really care about marriage OR civil unions, but I think anyone should be able to declare who they love and have them visit them in the hospital, or leave them an inheritance without ridiculous taxes... I mean, if some people can do it, all people should be able to do it. So we're JUST arguing about terminology.)

I don't think it's an either/or thing. Meaning, if people are pushing for complete equality (in the form of the word "marriage") and you're saying people are pushing back against it, I believe they're not doing it by saying "if you want marriage, you get nothing, but if you wanted civil unions, we'd give them to you." Rather, the opposition IS offering civil unions. That's happening places. Politicians ARE seeing that the population is shifting its opinion, so they are taking baby steps. The PRESIDENT said gay people are people. Which is crazy that that IS crazy, but it's crazy.

So I understand that you're trying to do the utilitarian thing, by saying "civil unions will get people their rights." But that's what the people oppressing gay people are saying as well. I'm not saying YOU are oppressing gay people, but with enough people saying the thing that is oppressing gay people, that can't be as good as all those fine people like you saying "marriage would be the best (in this scenario)!" But then also accepting a civil union if that was what was offered.

That is to say, I don't think in any state where civil unions were put up to a vote, the pro-gay movement was like "NO! marriage or nothing! vote no on civil unions!" (If I'm mistaken, please point me to that information.) Gay people are reasonable! If that's the vote that's happening, they'll take it.

But it's like a job interview. "What salary do you want?" Strategically most people would say something HIGHER than what they want, hoping to settle for what is actually fair. You are actually advocating for something LOWER, because you're worried they'll get nothing. But that is an unreasonable worry. They are getting paid, slowly. And I think they'll get paid (with marriage) FASTER if people shoot for the highest.

(I used to have a joke, and may bring it back, about how gay people should demand MORE rights, not equal, and then settle for equal in the negotiations. Gay people should be able to visit OTHER people's spouses in the hospital. How about THAT?)

Sincerely, I understand that we all want essentially the same things. And I understand your concern that religious people may want to fight to maintain the word marriage. But the way many of them ARE fighting it is with the concept of civil unions, which is just what you're doing.

Aim higher. Aim highest. Aim extra-high. And I truly believe that will lead to more rights sooner.

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by myq

(I used to have a joke, and may bring it back, about how gay people should demand MORE rights, not equal, and then settle for equal in the negotiations. Gay people should be able to visit OTHER people's spouses in the hospital. How about THAT?)

That's hilarious!

Aim higher. Aim highest. Aim extra-high. And I truly believe that will lead to more rights sooner.

Yeah I guess it's like minimum wage - aim for $15/hr, settle for $9.

So what's the next discussion? Do atheists believe that there's a scientific explanation for everything (including random events based on science)? Also science that we may just haven't discovered yet.

I may not have phrased that correctly - I know atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, but I'm interested to know what they believe (instead of what they don't believe).

I find this stuff absolutely fascinating. Mostly because I'm from the midwest in a pretty small town, and I don't know many atheists personally. Much like Keet's hometown I suppose. No wonder he got the fuck out.

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by myq

gay people should demand MORE rights, not equal, and then settle for equal in the negotiations. Gay people should be able to visit OTHER people's spouses in the hospital.

That sounds like a great standup shot.

[myq]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

That sounds like a great standup shot.

Thanks! Maybe I'll do one of it. Haven't done one in a little while...

Originally Posted by DJQuad

That's hilarious!

So what's the next discussion? Do atheists believe that there's a scientific explanation for everything (including random events based on science)? Also science that we may just haven't discovered yet.

Look at this definition of science:
Science - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Science is about learning things, knowing things, testing things, finding things out.

Any explanation based on observation of phenomena in the world then would be a scientific one, so I think the basic answer to your question is yes. Or a more complicated answer would be it doesn't make complete sense. But I'll go with yes.

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

So what's the next discussion? Do atheists believe that there's a scientific explanation for everything (including random events based on science)? Also science that we may just haven't discovered yet.

What Myq said. Also, there's no such thing as random events, there's only the appearance of random. We attribute randomness to something we don't understand the cause of.

Originally Posted by DJQuad

I may not have phrased that correctly - I know atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, but I'm interested to know what they believe (instead of what they don't believe).

We are an evidenced based group. Show us evidence and we'll believe it.

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

What Myq said. Also, there's no such thing as random events, there's only the appearance of random. We attribute randomness to something we don't understand the cause of.

That's what I meant.

We are an evidenced based group. Show us evidence and we'll believe it.

Show us evidence that there's no deity and we'll believe it.

I suppose that's what makes us have different approaches. Atheists reject the belief in the existence of deities, Theists reject the belief that there can't be one or more deities.

I guess it's the age-old argument - you're wrong, no show me proof that I'm wrong, no, show me proof I'm not wrong, no, show me proof I'm right, no, you're wrong because I can't prove it, no, I have proof, no, so do I.

[myq]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

Show us evidence that there's no deity and we'll believe it.

Proving a negative is impossible.

In our legal system, the prosecution has to show proof that the defendant committed the crime. Not the other way around.
(An old joke... prosecutor says "we can produce five witnesses that saw you rob that bank." defendant says, "with due respect, I can produce five million people who DIDN'T see me rob it.")

When you say "show us evidence there's no deity and we'll believe it," I say to you, you could say the same thing about unicorns, flying pigs, dragons, Slimer from Ghostbusters...

That's not the way evidence works.

You can believe anything you want (about god or unicorns or dragons, that they exist, that they COULD exist), but that belief is not based on evidence.

And again, the person who doesn't believe in god isn't declaring assertively that there IS no god definitively or that there COULDN'T be, but just that there is no evidence for it. Just as there is no evidence for any of the mythical creatures I mentioned (and I presume you don't go around saying "show me evidence there IS no Slimer, and I'll believe there is no Slimer").