Is Christianity due for a government-imposed Reformation?

[Jedidiah]

Except that my understanding is that currently, no state that allows gay marriage (or indeed, any state at all) can compel a church to administer any Sacrament against its will. Surely there's no need to protect people from a problem that doesn't exist?

Check that out with our Canadian members. They have had what would appear to be a "slippery slope" since legal support for homosexuals came into play.

[Jedidiah]

Except that my understanding is that currently, no state that allows gay marriage (or indeed, any state at all) can compel a church to administer any Sacrament against its will. Surely there's no need to protect people from a problem that doesn't exist?

Check that out with our Canadian members. They have had what would appear to be a "slippery slope" since legal support for homosexuals came into play.

[technomage]

Check that out with our Canadian members. They have had what would appear to be a "slippery slope" since legal support for homosexuals came into play.

Canada has a radically different basis of law, and one cannot extrapolate events in American law and jurisprudence from Canadian evidence.

[Jedidiah]

I do hope you are correct, but I have my own serious doubts.

[Nathan Poe]

Check that out with our Canadian members. They have had what would appear to be a "slippery slope" since legal support for homosexuals came into play.

My understanding is that the US has a stricter separation of Church and State than Canada does.

[Nathan Poe]

I do hope you are correct, but I have my own serious doubts.

Technomage is correct; there's nothing to fear.

At least insofar as marriage is concerned -- any church which engages in business practices outside of its own religious duties (renting property, adoption agencies, etc...) are operating in the secular world and would be expected to play by secular rules, which would necessarily include nondiscrimination.

Of course, if they have a problem with that, they should've thought of that before they got into the business.

[technomage]

Of course, if they have a problem with that, they should've thought of that before they got into the business.

Even then,if they wish to restrict their commercial activities to only their members, they can do so with no fear.

[technomage]

I believe that Same-sex marriage is inevitable, if for no other reason than the opposition is simply running out of excuses.

If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does.

[Jaecp]

Speaking of excuses, prepare to hear plenty of them. I finally finished a reply to some seriously repetitive stuff.

Here is a novel idea… try talking in paragraphs instead of sentences because it is very confusing to consistently have to go up and down to see where one rant of yours begins and the other ends. Your sentences are like disconnected rants and yet, you expect me to keep them intact? Yet again, it is everybody else’s fault, but your own, eh?

Are you familiar with the story of the Gordian Knot?

Why don't I talk in big paragraphs? Because you snip my replies up into tiny chunks anyway so that any conversation with you inevitably balloons into a mess. And now, after you've ballooned this into a massive thing you blame me for not being verbose enough? I hate to break it to you, but your idea's are not that complicated. They are wordy and overly verbose, but not complicated.

For example, the next part,

And yet, you're totally ignoring all the factors that go into it and just screaming it is 'religious base' and totally ignoring the social factors that go into it. A number of people are uncomfortable with the idea of sharing a room or even a work space with somebody that is a known homosexual. How do I know this? I have watched it and seen it for myself with the questions that came up with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. Personally, I could care less, as so long it doesn't move into being 'hit on' and outright harassment, yet others seem to have issues with even working with a known homosexual and these are not religious people either, so again you are battling not just a religious belief, but a social issue as well. Go ahead and talk to those that claim they are homosexuals and see what they say about this. Those I know note what I say.

What more should I have to do here than point out that its mostly anecdotal anyway and even granting that some people feel squicky around gay people doesn't change that the groups working towards anti-gay outcomes are religious and that those are who matter?

What more needs to be said? I'm never going to match you word for word because I pride myself on writing briefly.

The older conception of what homosexuality was was different. We've been over this. You keep repeating that like it matters.

The issue with religious people and homosexuality is that they are the ones who are the driving force for getting/keeping it banned. They are doing so, often publically, because of their religious convictions. Their reasoning is, often publically, based on their religion.

Translation: "I am going to ignore evidence you bring up I do not like and keep screaming that it is 'religious in nature' while IGNORING the social factor that goes into this mix because if I repeat myself enough, it will go away!"

Yep, ignoring evidence is par the course for you, isn't it? Sorry, little boy, but I keep bringing up facts you keep ignoring because it seems you really want them to go away. People who are not Christians, Jews, or Muslims seem to have some serious issues with homosexuals. Pretending they don't exist doesn't help your case; it just makes you look like you don't want it to be true. If others didn't want it to happen, they would simply ignore these religious people Jaecp, not support them (after all, how many people support Fred Phelps, beyond his tiny band). Ignoring data does not make it go away, so face the facts already.

So where are all the non-religious anti-gay groups?

Laws that are based solely on religion keep ending up getting repealed for violating the 1st amendment.

This is the argument, LPOT. Everything else is a waste of time.

Yet again, the idiot simply IGNORES date against his opinion because he doesn't care about the truth, he cares about his agenda and facts be damned! Yet again, I can introduce you to plenty of non-Christians that have some pretty serious issues with homosexuality and even are outright hostel to the very idea. If it was just a religious issue, you wouldn't find it among the non religious. Again, you are batting a social norm as well. Why don't you understand this?

The plural of anecdote is not evidence. The groups that actively oppose homosexuality all seem to have one thing in common, don't they?

Repeating an anecdote does not make it into evidence.

And ignoring evidence does not make it disappear (despite you wanting it to). I find this as code among fundy atheist, like you, as "WAAA!!! I DON'T LIKE IT, SO HERE IS A QUICK EXCUSE TO IGNORE IT!" Again idiot, what did a captain in your service get in trouble for and what did his video's suggest (I also know you defended him too) did he have some negative stereotypes of homosexuality in his video’s? Yes or no? I know you really don’t want to believe this, but you are battling a social stigma against homosexuality, not just a religious belief you keep insisting this is all about.

Repeating an anecdote does not make it into evidence.

I wonder what that social stigma is based upon, in this country filled, predominantly, with Christians?

And, put simply, no. The simple fact that you consider something moral does not mean that it can be made into a law. It takes more than that. Showing harm is a good way, but good luck with that.

Sorry, I already did it and you just call it an ‘anecdote’ because you want to ignore evidence and observations because you’re not interested in truth. You’re interested in pressing your own agenda in spite of truth and ignoring any facts that get in the way. Is there something you don’t understand about fighting a social stigma that you don’t understand? Go ask open homosexuals yourself and see if I am right, all the ones I know and are friends with tell me the same thing.

When did you show harm?

That charge will really make me look bad when I start using anecdotes.

Nah, I am using evidence you personally dislike and bringing up stories you dislike because you could care less about truth. It is all around us Jaecp and all you have to do is do what I do, search for those that are in that group and talk to them about it. I know open homosexuals Jaecp and I got my information from there, go and ask the open homosexuals you know and see what they say. I bet 10 to 1 they could think of plenty of negative stereotypes and negative social stigmas against homosexuals they have experienced. I’ve seen it enough to know it is true and I don’t just ignore it and hope it goes away. After all, using your insanity, Brown vs the Board of Education is an ‘anecdote’ because after all, should the psychologist have interviewed every child that was in the ‘separate but equal’ system to determine if the system was damaging them psychologically?

Still anecdotes and no, BvBoA is not an anecdote. Statistics were, I imagine, used there. Your anecdote is a simple matter of you making hasty generalizations from people you know that I don't. Ergo, anecdote.

Regarding that guy, I never worked for him so I have no idea, but the majority of military officers at that rank are, uhh, religious aren't they? Hell, one of my boats chaplains was an idiot who claimed that admirals derived their power from god. Individuals behaving badly does not make for a good model of the group.

Officers are just as varied as any other group. I have known offers that are avid church goers and officers that never step foot in the door of a church. I have known NCO’s that are the same way, so just trying to reflect it to ‘DUH HE WAS AN OFFICER SO HE MUST HAVE BEEN RELIGIOUS!” is a deflection, one you have presented with zero evidence (which again is funny, since you demand I produce evidence for everything, but you seem to be able to make any you feel like making). I can find nothing to show any major religious understandings and from what I’ve seen and heard of his video’s, they are not the most ‘Christian like’ videos either.

Not the most Christian like videos? No True Scotsman. People of your religion doing bad things does not give you a pass on discounting them because they did bad stuff.

Your “Duh” is offbase. Most people in america are christians. This is common knowledge. The % increases the older you are. The officer is most likely around 35-40 years of age and the odds of him being a Christian are quite high.

Really? A quick google shows that average voter turnout for presidential elections is only 54% for the last 9, and you want me to belief that 50% of californian's regularly vote?

I know how to use Google too and guess what? Did you bother to look up the voter turnout for 2010? From what news articles I found said, the 2010 election was the largest turn out since 1994 in the state, with nearly 60% turning out to vote. Sorry, but yet again it seems facts just keep eluding you because I’m betting that you just went to find a quick figure and didn’t bother to look any further. Again, if you really believe in something, perhaps you should actually take the 30 minutes to go to the voting office or to fill out your mail in ballet? More assertions seem to come out of your mouth with zero evidence to back them up, while of course, demanding that I back up everything I say when you refuse to back up a word you say. How much of a hypocrite are you going to make yourself out to be ing?

Umm, exactly? Gigantic. The conservative base got mobilized, hard, nationwide. Not just in Cali. We can hardly use 2010's numbers as an indication of the average. In fact, that 2010's numbers were so much bigger than the average speaks to the point I've been making this entire time.

Oh, and, "I don't remember hearing about this" does not equal "there wasn't canvassing"

The amount of outside the state money involved with prop 8, particularly mormon, made national headlines.

Forgive me for not citing what should be common knowledge for a california who claims to be so informed on the issues :-/

Many things make ‘national headlines’ little boy. Fred Phelps has made many ‘national headlines’, but is his group largely supported by Christians? No. Want another example, ever heard of Scott Philip Roeder? He is the one that shot and killed George Tiller, does this therefore mean he has massive support from anti-abortionist? Nope. Sorry dear, but making national headlines does not equal widely supported. Yet you are telling me I need to brush up ont hings when it seems you need to brush up on logic, reasoning, and facts?

So what if many things make national headlines? You didn't seem to be aware of the mormon canvassing, the out of state money and many other things relating to the ongoing issue of gay marriage in california.

At the same time, you are claiming to be well informed on a topic that you obviously, painfully, are not.

Oh no, people who aren't straight edge's probably aren't christians!

I know it is crazy and all, little boy, but those that do not follow the commands of, “Do not use the Lord’s name in vain”, but do so freely and regularly are most likely not very Christ like or not very committed to their beliefs from the start. Yeah, it is crazy that people actually have to follow what they believe and not do things their beliefs their belief say they shouldn’t do, huh?

Oh my, what a lovely No True Scotsmen you have there.

Stop with the No True Scotsmen already. That with the rampant speculation is boring. Perhaps if you stuck more to fact based arguments instead of your own personal interpretation of a nameless crowd of people you've met I wouldn't comment on how anecdotal so much of your position is rooted in.

Yet again, you keep saying stupid things and really hoping evidence you dislike disappears into a puff of smoke, are you? This is basic psychology 101 and something you should have learned in your NCO training and/or college if you decided to pay attention instead of dumping all that training as soon as you run across stuff you personally dislike (if you want to be a lawyer, you need to learn to carefully pay attention to peoples words because what they say or don’t say, tells you quite a bit). If a person talks about their car a lot, does it mean they most likely really care for their car? Yes. If a man consistently complains about his wife to his friends and co workers do you think he is very happy with his marriage? Most likely he is not. I know it is crazy to you that how people talk, what they say, sometimes what they don’t say, or the stuff they choose to have a conversation about says something about them, but it is quite accurate. You just don’t like this evidence, so you’re ignoring it and hoping it goes away, so try thinking for once in your life. If a person claims to be all for homosexuals, but uses gay slurs in their speech, are they very homosexual friendly? Most likely they are not. This is psychology 101, try it sometime!

If “Nice Car” was a common way of saying something was good, whether it be a taco or an attractive member of the opposite gender, would you assume the speaker liked his car?

Nobody is calling homosexuality marriage. What we're calling is people that get married, married. The timestamp on when this started happening is completely immaterial.

And yet, you are totally ignoring anything against your case and claiming it is ‘purely religious’ even when the evidence is against you, but of course, like the fundy atheist you are. You call it ‘anecdotal evidence’ because you’re too dumb to deal with it. Again, you earn every bit of snide contempt you get.

So where are all the non-religious groups opposing it?

The issue with the law is that we do not legislate religion, doing so violates the first amendment. Your insistence on belabouring the point does nothing except hammer out how little you know about the legal system.

Sorry child, I already proved you are wrong, but just like the idiot you are, you just keep ignoring the evidence you personally dislike because you don’t want to hear it.

Oh, where?

And our concept of marriage has evolved over the last few thousand years, or don't you know that appeal to tradition is a fallacy?

And don’t you know that appealing to ‘we live in the 21st century’ is also a fallacy? The tradition that marriage is between a man and a women is built into our society, little boy. Why are you ignoring this evidence?

An evolving tradition of who can marry whom, each step of progress that we today think of as being obvious, yet at the time were gigantic deals. Are you familiar with anti-miscegenation laws? Those only got struck down in 1967. Can't find it right now, but the were parts of the US that banned catholic/protestant marriages as law as late as 1902. It's apparently also against parts of canon law to marry protestants, the author commenting that most americans have no idea that its even part of being a catholic because nobody here pays attention to it.

When did marrying for love overtake parents choosing for their kids? When did divorce even become an option? Isn't that where we got Anglicanism from? So the king didn't have to have his wives killed when they didn't produce an heir for him?

Marriage has evolved, LPOT, and it has evolved over long periods of time in various ways, amongst various groups and its evolving right now in ways that you cannot stand, but that you also cannot stop. The ball is rolling and, as you can read here is gaining some level of prominence in the world

Oh, and while I was looking up the list of countries and states that allow or recognize it, I found this,

Same-sex unions in premodern Europe


Thats a book about how, a looong time ago, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox did the gay marriage thing.

Hell, even Israel, which does not perform gay marriages, recognizes them from other countries.

People are often crass or crude, doesn't mean they actually hate gay people. Anecdote time, I knew plenty of people that described stuff as gay in the navy all while having no actual issue with our many (maaany) gay coworkers.

So I could use the N word to describe every black person I know? Try it and see how well it works for you, sure they may CLAIM not to have any issues, but again, how you talk can reveal quite a bit about your underlining beliefs that you may not make public to others. This is something you should have learned in school and something that is very important to a lawyer; a lawyer could tear a person apart and make them look like a guy that wants to bash gay’s heads in just by picking up on how they talk (and of course, a bit of exaggeration helps too). You should be very careful with what you say and pay attention to what others say for the same reason (if you really want to be a lawyer, this may help you win the case or at the very least, destroy the credibility of a witness on the stand or build up their credibility, depending on what you are trying to do).

Gay /= N Word

Your example with a lawyer making someone think that the guy hates gays just by how he talks is exactly what I'm talking about. Not everyone speaks precisely. Other than that, my “nice car” question is needed before we can continue this.

Except, thats just anecdotes and trading anecdotes doesn't make for a very interesting discussion. Wiki provides a reasonable starting point. There is always more to go, which is why the little blue numbers are links to more sources. I'll take wiki over random anecdotes any day of the week.

Sorry jaecp, Wiki could be written by an expert in the subject, or it could be written by my next door neighbor’s 14 year old son (and I have seen plenty of anecdotes used in Wiki, so it is even funnier that you condemn anecdotes, while using a web that that in many cases, uses them) that is why Wiki should be taken with a grain of salt or perhaps used as a starting point to anything in depth. Of course, if you think I am wrong, go ahead and talk to the open homosexuals you know and see if they have dealt with negative stereotypes or negative people beyond simply those that are religious. I’m sure they have.

And because both options are possible, therefore the odds are 50/50? You've spent a huge amount of time bashing me for citing wikipedia, but the one thing you've yet to do is ever say is actually dispute what I choose to cite.

The point here is that you've given me a lot of anecdotes and wiki is generally reliable and sources itself consistently.

Boring insults are boring.

And throwing a temper tantrum over them is even more boring. You’re just not as bright as you seem to think you are.

I'd imagine a tantrum would involve more than four words.

[quote=Jaecp]I'm ignoring evidence by mentioning your point and explaining why it doesn't do what you think it does?

No, you are not mentioning my points at all; you’re just making up excuses to ignore them because you really hope they go away.

Feel free to demonstrate this.

You have a strange definition of "ignore"

Funny, how I am not the only one that has called you on this, but it is everybody else’s fault, but your own, eh?

Everybody elses fault?

All you implying that your opinion of me has somehow become universal amongst the denizens of the site? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Who are these other people who have “called me out” on this? I have a guess, but I'm betting you aren't naming names because they are all members of the triple-A club.

Why? Because when you implied some sort of false equivalency between atheist and christian opposition to homosexuality.

No I didn’t, I used evidence that you have ignored and called ‘anecdotes’ because you’re too stupid to deal with any of it and you’re just INGORING EVIDENCE you personally dislike. How revealing… again, is there something crazy about the idea that how one talks, reveals what they truly believe?

Talking about random, unnamed people you know is real life is practically the definition of anecdote.

The way those two words are used are very different. Notably, N is used almost exclusively about/towards black people. Gay is used almost exclusively about things that are not gay people. When people want to talk about disliking a gay man or men they might use faggot or homo or something and word choice that does imply what they really think about those guys. Just using gay as an adjective? People get their "negative words of choice" imprinted and then its hard to change. I, and many atheists I know, still use religious terminolgy when we stub our toes. It something that takes awhile to change.

I do love the excuses that come rolling out about how it is ‘hard to change’ and about gay is used and how you simply ignore evidence against your belief. When I was a teen in high school, I knew one kid that was very open about him being a homosexual and the stuff he dealt with was outright terrible. I can remember kids driving by him at school and scream “GAY BOY” and all sorts of very nasty things to him. I also remember them doing the same stuff to people that they even thought were gay (when of course, they were not, but why do they care). These were not religious kids doing it either, these were kids that acted and talked even less religious then you do. As an adult, most people tend to grow a filter between their brain and mouth and don’t do things that extreme, but again, it sometimes slips out. Calling everything ‘gay’ and using pretty negative comments and stereotypes about homosexuality does say something about the person using them. At the very least, I doubt they are all that comfortable with open homosexuals or even suspected homosexuals as they claim to be. What is really funny though is how you condemn me for insults, but seem to be making excuses for people using negative stereotypes towards homosexuals. How funny.

Ah, so now you're focusing mostly on what kid do?

Kids don't vote...

@Rest, my car question needs to be answered first.

Indeed. Similar ballot measures failed multiple times. Then one time it squeaked by with ~52% of the vote. After many failures and one big campaign by outside the state religious groups (you're telling me you live and california and you don't remember that?)

Too bad 2010 had the largest voter turnout in 16 years, eh? Got another excuse you made up? Let me guess… it was those evil homoexual haters that made the voter turn out so huge?

Umm... exactly? Largest voter turnout in 16 years. Ballot passed with 52% of the vote. Ballot had failed repeatedly before this.

Why are you helping me?

So, yeah, games.

Nah, I just enjoy watching you say something very stupid and backpedding when it is exposed

Let me know when that happens

It isn't changing fast enough so people aren't all that serious? Is that really your argument? These things take time

If you are serious for change, you make it happen pretty fast, if you are half hearted or just trying to make it appear you want change, things will not change fast or at all. Look at the history of the black rights movement, after the civil war, the whites didn’t want blacks to be equal to them, so they made a half hearted attempt at ‘equality’, but simply made up rules and laws to keep this going and it worked for what… 80+ years? Likewise, how long did the civil rights movement take to interact and really make a change? About 20 years, if people are not serious, things will not change or will not change very fast. It is pretty observed and easily shown by any student of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

What were the poll numbers of nationwide support for gay marriage at anyway?

Don’t know, don’t care, but again, the fact 2010 was the largest voter turnout in 16 years seems to hurt your argument quite a bit.

I said they got mobilized, you said that its the largest voter turnout in 16 years. Again. Thanks.

[quote=Jaecp]Conspiracy? What?

You’re the one claiming that the anti-gay movement somehow pulled support and the pro gay movement simply thought it wouldn’t pass didn’t thing. Evidence presented for this? Nothing… so thus I will dismiss it because again, more people turn out for the 2010 election then turned out for the 2008 election and how do I know this? I know how Google works and specifically looked for the 2010 stats.

Aaaand you're back to ignoring how the ballot had failed repeatedly. Next block of text is arguing the exact same thing (you really should consolidate) so imma skip it.

3 equal branches...

You really need to brush up on your legal knowledge

And using the government to try to enforce what you believe isn’t going to really help people come to your case. You want to see how strong the gay movement is in Cali, do what they other side did, get a prop placed on the ballet to repeal it instead of whining to the courts about it.

Its helped before, it'll help now.

But what part of it was the typo? How should it actually have read? It looked pretty clear that you were calling me never really a Christian just like you impunged other people in this post im replying to.

It would be pretty obvious to somebody with a brain what part was at typo and I even told you what part was you idiot! Yet you wonder why I treat you this way? Do I need to break down what I said, word by word and tell you what part was before you’ll believe me or will you just make up some conspiracy theory to support your paranoia with?

You could just copy what you wrote, put the old text in brackets and insert what you meant in bold, except, well, it serves you better to evade via insult so... whatever.

And you're describing voting, not law making. Youtube up that schoolhouse rock special.

And you're describing voting, not law making. Youtube up that schoolhouse rock special.

It's seeking to be voted upon. You've seemed to have skipped a big part of the process. Perhaps when talking about complex things you could be complex and when you're speaking of simple things be simple? It's a bit backwards, atm.

Boring Insults are Boring is my little code for, well, that your comment was content free and you used insults instead of, well, argument. Any impartial observer is going to see the smoke.

Sorry child, but I insult you because you’re an idiot and well your appeal to the ‘impartical observe’ is just yet another assertion you will not back up with any evidence because evidence is

I don't think you understand what I mean when I say “Impartial observer”

Huh? Snip posts to give you more time to repeat yourself refers to how you break my post up further than I did, significantly so. With one exception, the time you cut out the "typo", every single time i pressed enter in my last post was a new quote/reply from you. It gets repetative. It gets repetative.

So the answer is you can’t back up this assertion with a single piece of evidence and will not say sorry for making a false accusation because you can’t admit to being wrong without somebody having to nearly pull your teeth out.

Huh?

[lilpixieofterror]

Speaking of excuses, prepare to hear plenty of them. I finally finished a reply to some seriously repetitive stuff.

And if you wouldn't whine, throw a fit, and repeat yourself so much, I wouldn't have a need to repeat myself over and over again. Perhaps you could try 'listening' or is that too hard for you?

Are you familiar with the story of the Gordian Knot?

Are you familiar with making your post in to easily recognizable pieces of text?

Why don't I talk in big paragraphs? Because you snip my replies up into tiny chunks anyway so that any conversation with you inevitably balloons into a mess. And now, after you've ballooned this into a massive thing you blame me for not being verbose enough? I hate to break it to you, but your idea's are not that complicated. They are wordy and overly verbose, but not complicated.

Which is pretty entertaining since you are about the only one that complains about it and of course, you're blaming everybody else instead of taking responsibility for your half is quite revealing. If you would make your post into paragraphs, wouldn't respond to multiple people in one post, or make your stuff into easily recognizable pieces, I would be able to respond to what you say, as a whole. You seem to love throwing a fit and just complaining for the sake of complaining. My post are well within the post limits and are not that hard for almost everybody else to understand, in fact, many have said I am precise and to the point. Again, instead of whining and blaming everybody else, perhaps you should try this thing called 'taking responsibility for yourself' or is that too hard?

For example, the next part,

What more should I have to do here than point out that its mostly anecdotal anyway and even granting that some people feel squicky around gay people doesn't change that the groups working towards anti-gay outcomes are religious and that those are who matter?

I do love how fundy atheist call stories they disagree with 'anecdotal' so they can avoid answering them. It is rather simple for even somebody of your obviously limited understanding to grasp, it is simply because religious people are more vocal and have more reason to be against it vs. those who are not religious which while they may be uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, they do not have as much at stake. Is that so hard for you to understand?

What more needs to be said? I'm never going to match you word for word because I pride myself on writing briefly.

So says the person that I spend more time

So where are all the non-religious anti-gay groups?

The gallop polls I have seen have shown that 23% of the non-religious in 2010 are opposed to gay marriage. That is about 1 in 4 and while that is lower than the 70% or 2 out of 3 religious people that oppose gay marriage, but that took me 30 seconds to look up on Google. It is amazing how you can use Google when you think it supports your points, but Google is suddenly it is so hard? I also found this article, by ABC news written this year that shows the same thing. It isn't that hard to find this stuff, try learning how to use Google searching for stuff you disagree with. I'm also sure you're going to say, "BUT YOU DIDNT NAME GROUPS!" but since I didn't say a thing about groups, but people as individuals, what is your point? Try responding to what people say instead of what you want to hear.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence. The groups that actively oppose homosexuality all seem to have one thing in common, don't they?

Where did I say a thing about 'groups'. I am talking about people as individuals, not in groups. Again, try responding to what I said instead of what you think I said, who knows, you might learn something!

Repeating an anecdote does not make it into evidence.

And screaming 'anecdote' over and over again as though that is a refutation doesn't answer it, little boy. I am often amazed about how many fundy atheists like screaming out 'anecdote' over and over again because they think it proves something. What, does observation not count with evidence you personally dislike?

I wonder what that social stigma is based upon, in this country filled, predominantly, with Christians?

Too bad non-Christians also said the same thing, eh?

When did you show harm?

Still anecdotes and no, BvBoA is not an anecdote. Statistics were, I imagine, used there. Your anecdote is a simple matter of you making hasty generalizations from people you know that I don't. Ergo, anecdote.

Yet again, the child screams "ANECDOTE!" over and over again because he's too stupid to actually refute a word that was said. How revealing...

Not the most Christian like videos? No True Scotsman. People of your religion doing bad things does not give you a pass on discounting them because they did bad stuff.

It is rather entertaining to watch you flip flop and throw out the 'no-true-Scotsmen fallacy' and then go on to say this:

Your “Duh” is offbase. Most people in america are christians. This is common knowledge. The % increases the older you are. The officer is most likely around 35-40 years of age and the odds of him being a Christian are quite high.

So is this 'typical Christian' or is this a 'no true Scotsmen fallacy' and thus I can dismiss what you say above as such because you're a moron that can't see he's contradicting himself? So is this a 'typical Christian thing' or does that only work when Christians do bad things so you can try to lump Christians among those 'bad people' so you can feel better about yourself?

Umm, exactly? Gigantic. The conservative base got mobilized, hard, nationwide. Not just in Cali. We can hardly use 2010's numbers as an indication of the average. In fact, that 2010's numbers were so much bigger than the average speaks to the point I've been making this entire time.

Evidence presented... none... rejected as such until Jaecp can produce evidence to support his assertions with. Again, it is amazing that you are allowed to make all the assertions you want, but I need to produce piles of evidence for everything I say.

So what if many things make national headlines? You didn't seem to be aware of the mormon canvassing, the out of state money and many other things relating to the ongoing issue of gay marriage in california.

You're the one that claimed that these national headlines mean something, you need to show that the Mormon church pouring money into Cali for the gay marriage prop = that those that voted for it must have been religious. Well, so much for that 'no-true-Scotsmen' fallacy, eh? I guess it only matters when you agree with what is said or trying to make a point.

At the same time, you are claiming to be well informed on a topic that you obviously, painfully, are not.

Yet, you want me to produce all of this pile of evidence, but all you need to do is make an assertion, without evidence, and puff you don't have to defend a word you say. How does it feel being above the rules you expect me to follow?

Oh my, what a lovely No True Scotsmen you have there.

Oh my, what a lovely flip flop between positions you got there, so what is it are those who are non-religious against gay marriage don't exist or do they exist because only religious people oppose gay marriage? Anyway, to be serious, I know it is crazy and all, but if a prime belief of a religious system is not using God's name in vain, but you do it anyway, are you very good at following what your religion teaches?

If “Nice Car” was a common way of saying something was good, whether it be a taco or an attractive member of the opposite gender, would you assume the speaker liked his car?

More anecdotes evidence while of course, condemning it when it is convent for you. Got to love it.

So where are all the non-religious groups opposing it?

Where did I say a thing about non-religious groups? Since I didn't, you're attacking a strawmen.

Oh, where?

Since you don't have to produce a single shred of evidence, neither do I. Until you produce evidence, I don't have to. Fair is fair after all...

An evolving tradition of who can marry whom, each step of progress that we today think of as being obvious, yet at the time were gigantic deals. Are you familiar with anti-miscegenation laws? Those only got struck down in 1967. Can't find it right now, but the were parts of the US that banned catholic/protestant marriages as law as late as 1902. It's apparently also against parts of canon law to marry protestants, the author commenting that most americans have no idea that its even part of being a catholic because nobody here pays attention to it.

Do you know how to use Google to glance at information before you say something stupid, right? The earliest examples of these laws are from the 9th century in China and 18-20th in the west is the period for these laws. In other words idiot, the anti-miscegenation laws are more of a modern development and are not rooted in more ancient views of marriage. Gosh, I found that within 2 minutes of searching. Your example is shot down, get another one please.

When did marrying for love overtake parents choosing for their kids? When did divorce even become an option? Isn't that where we got Anglicanism from? So the king didn't have to have his wives killed when they didn't produce an heir for him?

And where did the anti-miscegenation and other racist laws come from? Oh, that is the modern peroid. It is amazing how many skeptics do not know history very well and/or are very selective with the facts they like to report.

Marriage has evolved, LPOT, and it has evolved over long periods of time in various ways, amongst various groups and its evolving right now in ways that you cannot stand, but that you also cannot stop. The ball is rolling and, as you can read here is gaining some level of prominence in the world

I do love how fundy atheist use the 'this is the 21st century!' as though that is a refutation to a thing I said. You do know that appealing to the modern times as though that is a refutation to a word I said is a fallacy, right? Anyway, try to use Google for once in your life to find facts you actually disagree with because gosh, what did your modern concepts of marriage get us? High divorce rates, children with one parent, more behavioral problems in schools than ever before, broken families, etc. Oh yeah, our modern views of marriage have sure made our society so great and grand, eh?

Oh, and while I was looking up the list of countries and states that allow or recognize it, I found this,

Same-sex unions in premodern Europe


Thats a book about how, a looong time ago, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox did the gay marriage thing.

Amazing, he knows how to use Google to find things he agrees with, but doesn't know how to use Google to find things he disagrees with. You know, like finding the percentages of non-religious people that do not agree with gay marriage or like finding out that the Anti-miscegenation laws have their history (at least in the west) date from the modern period and not the ancient period at all. Again Jaecp, I am not too surprised that you are trying to be a lawyer, they have a tendency to only report facts relevant to their case and outright ignore facts against their case, but you're going to have to work at being able to obscure the truth from your opponent a little bit harder.

Hell, even Israel, which does not perform gay marriages, recognizes them from other countries.

And Alabama recognizes gay marriages from Iowa or other places, what is your point?

Gay /= N Word

It is interesting that using the N word to call something 'bad' is somehow bad to say, but using the term 'gay' in the same way isn't. Interesting how you arbitrarily pick and choose what words and phrases are 'bad' and what ones are not, eh?

Your example with a lawyer making someone think that the guy hates gays just by how he talks is exactly what I'm talking about. Not everyone speaks precisely. Other than that, my “nice car” question is needed before we can continue this.

Really, it isn't important at all? Might want to go talk to psychologist and ask them the same question or do you not think before you speak? And perhaps you could show how ‘nice car’ has a thing to do with this or are you just being dumb again?

And because both options are possible, therefore the odds are 50/50? You've spent a huge amount of time bashing me for citing wikipedia, but the one thing you've yet to do is ever say is actually dispute what I choose to cite.

What, did you not learn how to research and select sources in college? I don't know how your school is/was, but mine said you couldn't quote wiki or use it as a source in your papers. Why did you think they said that? Could it be because in subjects such as this, feelings sometimes overtake logic and therefore people might put things in there that are not true and/or exaggerate things to being larger issues then really are there? That is why I would be very careful about using a source that can be edited by anybody as a source of information (that is also the same reason I do not use forum post as sources). Did you not learn this in college? Wow...

The point here is that you've given me a lot of anecdotes and wiki is generally reliable and sources itself consistently.

Might want to go tell my college professors that one whom would automatically fail anybody that used wiki as a source. Funny thing is Jaecp, I have seen quite a bit of anecdotes used on wiki and quite a bit of less than factual information posted on wiki before. That is why when I read something on Wiki (and when it is a topic like this, even more so) I get a second source too. Did you not learn this in school? Wow...

I'd imagine a tantrum would involve more than four words.

Or less.

Feel free to demonstrate this.

I think the fact you left out the fact that Anti-miscegenation laws date from modern times, not ancient ones, would demonstrate how loose you can be with facts or how you don't bother to look up information before you say something.

Everybody elses fault?

Many people have observed your tendency to blame everybody else for anything that goes on. You know, even though you are repeating yourself over and over again, you attack me for doing it when I am just responding to your idiocy and you doing it yourself.

All you implying that your opinion of me has somehow become universal amongst the denizens of the site? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Who are these other people who have “called me out” on this? I have a guess, but I'm betting you aren't naming names because they are all members of the triple-A club.

Forgetting things that make you look bad? I'm sorry jaecp, but DO, Steve, and many others have noted the same thing with you. Let me guess, you 'forgot' these cases and don't remember them because they make you look bad and thus are ignored?

Talking about random, unnamed people you know is real life is practically the definition of anecdote.

So I need to go and dig up stories from people, with a link and a source, or you'll just dismiss it because you don't like what it reveals? Don't believe it, but as the gallop poll shows, there is non-religious outright opposed to gay marriage and while it doesn't say a thing about how comfortable they are with it, I don't know too many of them that are willing to shack up with a known homosexual. Hummm... I wonder why...

Ah, so now you're focusing mostly on what kid do?

Kids don't vote...

And yet... kids become adults or do you not know that?

@Rest, my car question needs to be answered first.

Perhaps if it made a lick of sense, I would answer it.

Umm... exactly? Largest voter turnout in 16 years. Ballot passed with 52% of the vote. Ballot had failed repeatedly before this.

Why are you helping me?

Actually, nope the facts will destroy you a bit below. Hang on and watch.

Let me know when that happens

Just did, but par the course for you, you just changed up your position to something new or did you 'forget' that you just got done arguing your last post that there were less people voting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Typical Jaecp, ignores history and just throws up links because he's too stupid to deal with a word I said. I'm sorry jaecp, but what do you think did more for black people in our country, the works and words of MLK or court cases? MLK often gets far more attention for the civil rights movement then Brown vs Board of Education... hummm... I wonder why...

I said they got mobilized, you said that its the largest voter turnout in 16 years. Again. Thanks.

I was wrong prop 8 was form the 2008, not the 2010 elections (like you claimed, guess I should have looked it up first before believing you), which was a higher turnout then 2006, but we could account for that because 2008 was the Obama race and it drew larger voter turn outs all over the country (not just in Cali), so for all the hype and claims about how the minority was 'rallied' you really haven't brought forth any evidence for this assertion at all. In fact, prop 22 in 2000 also passed too (with a larger margin and again, it seems the whiners when to whine in court to get it thrown out). Yet again, facts just keep stacking up against you, don't they?

Aaaand you're back to ignoring how the ballot had failed repeatedly. Next block of text is arguing the exact same thing (you really should consolidate) so imma skip it.

Failed repeatedly? Are you reading the same sources I am reading? Prop 22 passed with 61% of the vote and prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote. Can you show me where the prop was brought up before and failed, by giving just the numbers instead of giving a link to a wiki article? I sure can't or are you being selective with your facts, yet again?

Its helped before, it'll help now.

Sure, it really upsets everybody and gets emotions flaring. Oh yeah, that is great. I'm sorry that you are selective with your facts, but what do you think did more for blacks in the US, court decisions or the works of people like MLK?

You could just copy what you wrote, put the old text in brackets and insert what you meant in bold, except, well, it serves you better to evade via insult so... whatever.

Or I could do what you do and just ignore facts against my case and just make up things to support what I would like to believe. Can you show me where the ban on gay marriage prop 'failed repeatedly'? I know you can't because it didn't, it passed everytime it was put on the ballet and only a group of whiners whined to the courts about it to get it overturned. Hummm... I guess you don't remember the results of prop 22, so you ignored it?

It's seeking to be voted upon. You've seemed to have skipped a big part of the process. Perhaps when talking about complex things you could be complex and when you're speaking of simple things be simple? It's a bit backwards, atm.

Whining again, do you ever get tired of crying like a little baby?

I don't think you understand what I mean when I say “Impartial observer”

Sure I do, it means (in Jaecp speak) SOME WHOM AGREES WITH ME!" I've learned that long ago when I made the mistake of debating with you and I would think I would learn that lesson already. You're an idiot and a waste of time debating. You are very loose with the facts. Prop 8 was voted on in 2008, not 2010 and thus that would blow your theory that they were 'railled' right out the window because in 2000, a gay marriage ban was also passed. Hummm... can you support anything you say with facts or have you given me yet another reason to simply skip past Wiki whenever it comes up in my search?

Huh?

Selective memory acting up again?

[Nathan Poe]

Even then,if they wish to restrict their commercial activities to only their members, they can do so with no fear.

Well, certainly no legal fear... of course, it may be that they may not wish to be seen as an isolationist group that only cares for the well-being of its own members, and couldn't care less if the rest of the community at large goes to rot.

[technomage]

Well, certainly no legal fear... of course, it may be that they may not wish to be seen as an isolationist group that only cares for the well-being of its own members, and couldn't care less if the rest of the community at large goes to rot.

If they open the door to commercial activity, then they open the door all the way. Take it or leave it.

[Darth Executor]

I do hope you are correct, but I have my own serious doubts.

And you should, laws are made based on social dynamics, not "basis for law". The latter is just a delusion used to keep a semblance of order and justice alive.

[Nathan Poe]

If they open the door to commercial activity, then they open the door all the way. Take it or leave it.

Not necessarily -- if they choose only to do business with one another, that's certainly their right.

A church is well within its right to restrict the use of its facilities to its own members -- and charge said members a reasonable fee for expenses and whatnot -- kind of like a country club; "members only." Of course, they'd probably lose money doing so, but they'd be within their rights.

Not sure how that would play out for the rest of the community, but legally, they could get away with it.

[technomage]

Not necessarily -- if they choose only to do business with one another, that's certainly their right.

"Doing business with one another" (restricting their commercial activity to church members only) is not "opening the door." It is only when they start offering their facilities to the public (non-members) that they open the door to commercial activity.