Atheist Revolution
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Jason Grosser
May 27, 2009, 1:23:36 PM5/27/09
to MFA Discussion
I don't agree with the author. I don't think California is that liberal except in cities that also have pockets of fundamentalism. There are many mega-churches near San Francisco (e.g., well funded pockets of fundamentalism). When I used to drive in the country for consulting in the San Joaquin and Napa Valley in California during the Gore/Bush election, I do not recall seeing many supporter signs for Al Gore but plenty, plenty for George Bush.
Jason
Atheist Revolution |
|
The Proposition 8 Ruling: Implications for Atheists Posted: 27 May 2009 03:22 AM PDT  On May 26, 2009, California's Supreme Court made history by voting 6-1 to uphold Proposition 8, a voter approved amendment the state constitution to define marriage an an exclusively heterosexual act. One may wonder how such a thing could be possible in a state with such a liberal reputation. In brief, the initial passage of Proposition 8 was made possible by the massive financial support of the Mormon church and other Christian groups. And based on state law, it appears that the Supreme Court had little recourse but to uphold the law. I am optimistic that California will legalize same-sex marriage in 2010 when this issue is before the voters again, but that does not take away the sting of the latest ruling. There are lessons here for the fledgling atheist movement too, and we would be remiss to neglect them.Proposition 8 should be a nightmare scenario for any atheist because it shows us that well-funded religious groups can essentially mold the law to enforce their bigotry. They believed that same-sex marriage is immoral on the basis of their religion, and they effectively banned it. History provides numerous examples of where privileged Christians have legislated their view of morality. Whether we think of prohibition, anti-miscegenation laws, or efforts to censor certain forms of music in the 1980s and 1990s, we see a common theme emerging. These groups want to force their religion on others through theocratic means. They threaten everything that makes America worthwhile. We have recently learned that at least one high-profile Christian extremist opposes marriage between atheists and Christians. Who is to say that this will not be the next measure to appear on the ballot? And who is to say that they might not achieve their desired outcome by pouring enough money into it? I have recently grown frustrated with some heterosexual atheists talking about how they oppose Proposition 8 as some sort of gift to their gay friends even though it is "irrelevant" to them. If you are truly convinced that gay rights is irrelevant to those of us who are not gay, then I'm not sure why you would expect anyone to give a damn about our rights as atheists. How can the civil rights of any group be irrelevant? I have reached the unpleasant conclusion that some sort of vaguely articulated atheist movement is simply insufficient. We need an atheist rights movement in order to protect those liberties we currently have from encroachment by Christian extremists and other religious fanatics. We need true atheist activism to raise awareness among atheists and other groups, to cultivate effective power, and to respond to religiously-motivated attacks. We need to build atheist community to provide support to those who are desperate for a kind word or a willing ear. The forces of bigotry have learned a great deal about how to influence the political and legal processes. If we refuse to learn from our experience, we risk giving up our basic rights. That is one risk I am simply not willing to take. (photo by Tony the Misfit)  Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionCopyright © 2008 Atheist Revolution. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement.      |
|
California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8 Posted: 26 May 2009 11:09 AM PDT
For more, see Atheists and Gays: Time For An Alliance. Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionTags: California, Proposition 8, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, law, court
Copyright © 2008 Atheist Revolution. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement.    |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Atheist Revolution To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. |
Email delivery powered by Google |
Inbox too full?  Subscribe to the feed version of Atheist Revolution in a feed reader. | |
| If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Atheist Revolution, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out.
Clogtowner
May 27, 2009, 3:13:50 PM5/27/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - if he's right in saying that "well-funded religious groups
can essentially mold the law to enforce their bigotry" then, of
course, it should be fought, but perhaps, he is not taking the views
of people like me into account. Although I am an anti-theist, I do not
support gay marriage. I do support gay unions with all the rights of a
married couple who don't reproduce. If I was to take another man as my
lifetime partner, I'd be happy to call it a civil union but not a
marriage, as I wouldn't want to be mistaken for having a female
partner.
Perhaps the Californians feel that a relatively new public union
should have a new name.
I suppose it is something like the difference between milk chocolate
and dark chocolate. They are both the same delicious foodstuff, but
semantics identify them to our tastebuds.
On May 27, 12:23 pm, Jason Grosser <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't agree with the author. I don't think California is that liberal except in cities that also have pockets of fundamentalism. There are many mega-churches near San Francisco (e.g., well funded pockets of fundamentalism). When I used to drive in the country for consulting in the San Joaquin and Napa Valley in California during the Gore/Bush election, I do not recall seeing many supporter signs for Al Gore but plenty, plenty for George Bush.
>
> Jason
>
> Atheist Revolution
>
> Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits.http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_...
can essentially mold the law to enforce their bigotry" then, of
course, it should be fought, but perhaps, he is not taking the views
of people like me into account. Although I am an anti-theist, I do not
support gay marriage. I do support gay unions with all the rights of a
married couple who don't reproduce. If I was to take another man as my
lifetime partner, I'd be happy to call it a civil union but not a
marriage, as I wouldn't want to be mistaken for having a female
partner.
Perhaps the Californians feel that a relatively new public union
should have a new name.
I suppose it is something like the difference between milk chocolate
and dark chocolate. They are both the same delicious foodstuff, but
semantics identify them to our tastebuds.
On May 27, 12:23 pm, Jason Grosser <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't agree with the author. I don't think California is that liberal except in cities that also have pockets of fundamentalism. There are many mega-churches near San Francisco (e.g., well funded pockets of fundamentalism). When I used to drive in the country for consulting in the San Joaquin and Napa Valley in California during the Gore/Bush election, I do not recall seeing many supporter signs for Al Gore but plenty, plenty for George Bush.
>
> Jason
>
> Atheist Revolution
>
> The Proposition 8 Ruling: Implications for Atheists
> Posted: 27 May 2009 03:22 AM PDT
> Posted: 27 May 2009 03:22 AM PDT
> On May 26, 2009, California's Supreme Court made history by voting 6-1 to uphold Proposition 8, a voter approved amendment the state constitution to define marriage an an exclusively heterosexual act. One may wonder how such a thing could be possible in a state with such a liberal reputation. In brief, the initial passage of Proposition 8 was made possible by the massive financial support of the Mormon church and other Christian groups. And based on state law, it appears that the Supreme Court had little recourse but to uphold the law. I am optimistic that California will legalize same-sex marriage in 2010 when this issue is before the voters again, but that does not take away the sting of the latest ruling. There are lessons here for the fledgling atheist movement too, and we would be remiss to neglect them.
>
> Proposition 8 should be a nightmare scenario for any atheist because it shows us that well-funded religious groups can essentially mold the law to enforce their bigotry. They believed that same-sex marriage is immoral on the basis of their religion, and they effectively banned it.
>
> History provides numerous examples of where privileged Christians have legislated their view of morality. Whether we think of prohibition, anti-miscegenation laws, or efforts to censor certain forms of music in the 1980s and 1990s, we see a common theme emerging. These groups want to force their religion on others through theocratic means. They threaten everything that makes America worthwhile.
>
> We have recently learned that at least one high-profile Christian extremist opposes marriage between atheists and Christians. Who is to say that this will not be the next measure to appear on the ballot? And who is to say that they might not achieve their desired outcome by pouring enough money into it?
>
> I have recently grown frustrated with some heterosexual atheists talking about how they oppose Proposition 8 as some sort of gift to their gay friends even though it is "irrelevant" to them. If you are truly convinced that gay rights is irrelevant to those of us who are not gay, then I'm not sure why you would expect anyone to give a damn about our rights as atheists. How can the civil rights of any group be irrelevant?
>
> I have reached the unpleasant conclusion that some sort of vaguely articulated atheist movement is simply insufficient. We need an atheist rights movement in order to protect those liberties we currently have from encroachment by Christian extremists and other religious fanatics. We need true atheist activism to raise awareness among atheists and other groups, to cultivate effective power, and to respond to religiously-motivated attacks. We need to build atheist community to provide support to those who are desperate for a kind word or a willing ear.
>
> The forces of bigotry have learned a great deal about how to influence the political and legal processes. If we refuse to learn from our experience, we risk giving up our basic rights. That is one risk I am simply not willing to take.
>
> (photo by Tony the Misfit)
>
>
> Proposition 8 should be a nightmare scenario for any atheist because it shows us that well-funded religious groups can essentially mold the law to enforce their bigotry. They believed that same-sex marriage is immoral on the basis of their religion, and they effectively banned it.
>
> History provides numerous examples of where privileged Christians have legislated their view of morality. Whether we think of prohibition, anti-miscegenation laws, or efforts to censor certain forms of music in the 1980s and 1990s, we see a common theme emerging. These groups want to force their religion on others through theocratic means. They threaten everything that makes America worthwhile.
>
> We have recently learned that at least one high-profile Christian extremist opposes marriage between atheists and Christians. Who is to say that this will not be the next measure to appear on the ballot? And who is to say that they might not achieve their desired outcome by pouring enough money into it?
>
> I have recently grown frustrated with some heterosexual atheists talking about how they oppose Proposition 8 as some sort of gift to their gay friends even though it is "irrelevant" to them. If you are truly convinced that gay rights is irrelevant to those of us who are not gay, then I'm not sure why you would expect anyone to give a damn about our rights as atheists. How can the civil rights of any group be irrelevant?
>
> I have reached the unpleasant conclusion that some sort of vaguely articulated atheist movement is simply insufficient. We need an atheist rights movement in order to protect those liberties we currently have from encroachment by Christian extremists and other religious fanatics. We need true atheist activism to raise awareness among atheists and other groups, to cultivate effective power, and to respond to religiously-motivated attacks. We need to build atheist community to provide support to those who are desperate for a kind word or a willing ear.
>
> The forces of bigotry have learned a great deal about how to influence the political and legal processes. If we refuse to learn from our experience, we risk giving up our basic rights. That is one risk I am simply not willing to take.
>
> (photo by Tony the Misfit)
>
> Subscribe to Atheist Revolution
>
> Tags: California, Proposition 8, Mormon, Christian, Supreme Court, atheist, religion, bigotry, Christian extremist, gay, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, atheists, civil rights, activism
>
>
> Tags: California, Proposition 8, Mormon, Christian, Supreme Court, atheist, religion, bigotry, Christian extremist, gay, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, atheists, civil rights, activism
>
> Copyright © 2008 Atheist Revolution. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement.
>
>
> California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8
> Posted: 26 May 2009 11:09 AM PDT
>
> Image by Jamison via FlickrCalifornia's Supreme Court voted today to uphold Proposition 8, maintaining the ban on same-sex marriage in the state. Today is a sad day for civil rights, but this one is not over. It is high time that we in the U.S. wake up to the fact that we have given religiously-motivated bigotry way too much power.
> Posted: 26 May 2009 11:09 AM PDT
>
>
> For more, see Atheists and Gays: Time For An Alliance.
>
> For more, see Atheists and Gays: Time For An Alliance.
>
> Subscribe to Atheist Revolution
>
> Tags: California, Proposition 8, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, law, court
>
>
> Tags: California, Proposition 8, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, law, court
>
> Copyright © 2008 Atheist Revolution. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement.
>
>
> You are subscribed to email updates from Atheist Revolution
> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
> Email delivery powered by Google
>
> Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Atheist Revolution in a feed reader.
> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
> Email delivery powered by Google
>
>
> If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Atheist Revolution, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
> _________________________________________________________________
> If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Atheist Revolution, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
> Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits.http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_...
Orson Zedd
May 27, 2009, 5:21:23 PM5/27/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
How the Hell can you say that Clogtower? The function of a civil
union and marriage are essentially the same. Why do you need to
define homosexual marriage is something else? What is your problem
with it? Homosexual couples deserve all the rights and privileges of
heterosexual couples. If reproduction is your argument, let me remind
you that most marriages end without sex.
OZ
union and marriage are essentially the same. Why do you need to
define homosexual marriage is something else? What is your problem
with it? Homosexual couples deserve all the rights and privileges of
heterosexual couples. If reproduction is your argument, let me remind
you that most marriages end without sex.
OZ
Clogtowner
May 27, 2009, 6:00:37 PM5/27/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - "most marriages end without sex" - that's quite a statement
- source please.
A marriage, until the recent debate, has been between a man and a
woman usually (but not always) to create a family. I married a female
for that purpose, and I was happy for our union to be called a
marriage. Now we have a different scenario where two men or two women
form a "lifetime" partnership. I totally agree with it and feel they
should be granted equal rights to married childless couples. The only
part I don't agree with is giving it the same name - marriage. If we
don't change labels, how do we introduce each other? The terms Mr.
and Mrs. become redundant.
I can find no sensible reason for labeling a gay union as a marriage.
Call it a civil union or whatever you choose but marriage has a
traditional definition that is not based on religion imho.
From the "Life of Brian" - "OK he's not got a womb so he can't have
babies, it's nobody's fault, not even the Romans, but we can vote for
his right to have babies."
On May 27, 4:21 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How the Hell can you say that Clogtower? The function of a civil
> union and marriage are essentially the same. Why do you need to
> define homosexual marriage is something else? What is your problem
> with it? Homosexual couples deserve all the rights and privileges of
> heterosexual couples. If reproduction is your argument, let me remind
> you that most marriages end without sex.
>
> OZ
>
- source please.
A marriage, until the recent debate, has been between a man and a
woman usually (but not always) to create a family. I married a female
for that purpose, and I was happy for our union to be called a
marriage. Now we have a different scenario where two men or two women
form a "lifetime" partnership. I totally agree with it and feel they
should be granted equal rights to married childless couples. The only
part I don't agree with is giving it the same name - marriage. If we
don't change labels, how do we introduce each other? The terms Mr.
and Mrs. become redundant.
I can find no sensible reason for labeling a gay union as a marriage.
Call it a civil union or whatever you choose but marriage has a
traditional definition that is not based on religion imho.
From the "Life of Brian" - "OK he's not got a womb so he can't have
babies, it's nobody's fault, not even the Romans, but we can vote for
his right to have babies."
On May 27, 4:21 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How the Hell can you say that Clogtower? The function of a civil
> union and marriage are essentially the same. Why do you need to
> define homosexual marriage is something else? What is your problem
> with it? Homosexual couples deserve all the rights and privileges of
> heterosexual couples. If reproduction is your argument, let me remind
> you that most marriages end without sex.
>
> OZ
>
Jason
May 27, 2009, 6:13:38 PM5/27/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Yes, Clogtowner, let's hear your argument. Why can't homosexuals get
married?
My stance:
1. Marriage is a religious thing so it should be left to the church.
If a church wants to marry a couple, it should.
2. Civil unions, divorces and legal benefits of that union are civic
matters so the government should only grant that permit to two people
who want to LIVE together (same sex, opposite sex or friends). I've
known some old farts (75+) who got married and never fucked just for
the legal benefits and so forth.
3. These civic contracts for co-habitats (intimate, same sex,
opposite sex or platonic) should automatically be dissolved after 5
years if the contract is not renewed for a $200 fee. If the 5 year
contract is breached or the couple wants to get out of it early, the
couple should be fined or pay a penalty of, say, $10,000 because
society is taking up the cost of this civil union in the form of (a)
paying more taxes to make up for the tax breaks, (b) higher insurance
premiums because the other person gets it at a discount or free, (3)
etc.
What is the purpose of the civic unions? Legal benefits for
inheritance & asset control & insurance? Raising children? Those
parameters of the civic union should be spelled out in the legal
contract. Marriage should be left entirely to the church....
Jason
On May 27, 3:21 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How the Hell can you say that Clogtower? The function of a civil
> union and marriage are essentially the same. Why do you need to
> define homosexual marriage is something else? What is your problem
> with it? Homosexual couples deserve all the rights and privileges of
> heterosexual couples. If reproduction is your argument, let me remind
> you that most marriages end without sex.
>
> OZ
>
married?
My stance:
1. Marriage is a religious thing so it should be left to the church.
If a church wants to marry a couple, it should.
2. Civil unions, divorces and legal benefits of that union are civic
matters so the government should only grant that permit to two people
who want to LIVE together (same sex, opposite sex or friends). I've
known some old farts (75+) who got married and never fucked just for
the legal benefits and so forth.
3. These civic contracts for co-habitats (intimate, same sex,
opposite sex or platonic) should automatically be dissolved after 5
years if the contract is not renewed for a $200 fee. If the 5 year
contract is breached or the couple wants to get out of it early, the
couple should be fined or pay a penalty of, say, $10,000 because
society is taking up the cost of this civil union in the form of (a)
paying more taxes to make up for the tax breaks, (b) higher insurance
premiums because the other person gets it at a discount or free, (3)
etc.
What is the purpose of the civic unions? Legal benefits for
inheritance & asset control & insurance? Raising children? Those
parameters of the civic union should be spelled out in the legal
contract. Marriage should be left entirely to the church....
Jason
On May 27, 3:21 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How the Hell can you say that Clogtower? The function of a civil
> union and marriage are essentially the same. Why do you need to
> define homosexual marriage is something else? What is your problem
> with it? Homosexual couples deserve all the rights and privileges of
> heterosexual couples. If reproduction is your argument, let me remind
> you that most marriages end without sex.
>
> OZ
>
Orson Zedd
May 27, 2009, 6:18:58 PM5/27/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
That's called a joke, Clog. I'm talking, of course, about sexless marriages.
But the concept applies. What about sterile couples? What about
women who have hit menopause?
Life of Brian aside, your major problem is one with semantics. I don't
know why you, or anyone else, really, seem to think you can dictate
what words mean. You can't. You can give gays something called the
glooptada82fortgarrpl, and give them all the rights of a married
couple, and they'll call it a marriage, no matter what the state does.
Definitions change. Words change. If they didn't you'd still be
speaking in Old English. An argument from semantics is a futile
argument, because it's an argument predicated upon nothing. Give gay
people marriages, if that's what they want to call it, because that's
what they're going to call it anyway. And when they flaunt their
marriages, as they call them, just tell them, "Sócn æcyrf mín geard."
OZ
But the concept applies. What about sterile couples? What about
women who have hit menopause?
Life of Brian aside, your major problem is one with semantics. I don't
know why you, or anyone else, really, seem to think you can dictate
what words mean. You can't. You can give gays something called the
glooptada82fortgarrpl, and give them all the rights of a married
couple, and they'll call it a marriage, no matter what the state does.
Definitions change. Words change. If they didn't you'd still be
speaking in Old English. An argument from semantics is a futile
argument, because it's an argument predicated upon nothing. Give gay
people marriages, if that's what they want to call it, because that's
what they're going to call it anyway. And when they flaunt their
marriages, as they call them, just tell them, "Sócn æcyrf mín geard."
OZ
Clogtowner
May 27, 2009, 7:42:52 PM5/27/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all -
1)My marriage was not in church.
2)Agreed
3)I disagree as this takes the lifetime commitment out of it, and puts
a financial burden on it.
You will have to ask those involved what is the purpose of the civil
union. Perhaps they have a love of chocolate in common.
1)My marriage was not in church.
2)Agreed
3)I disagree as this takes the lifetime commitment out of it, and puts
a financial burden on it.
You will have to ask those involved what is the purpose of the civil
union. Perhaps they have a love of chocolate in common.
Orson Zedd
May 27, 2009, 7:47:27 PM5/27/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Thing is, Clog, if gays can't get married, atheists can't either.
Because if the state won't sanction marriage, what makes you think the
First Church of Reason will? Did you civilly union your wife, or did
you marry her? You're an atheist; you tell me.
OZ
Because if the state won't sanction marriage, what makes you think the
First Church of Reason will? Did you civilly union your wife, or did
you marry her? You're an atheist; you tell me.
OZ
Clogtowner
May 27, 2009, 7:56:18 PM5/27/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - you are quite right my problem is with semantics. I didn't
define the word marriage - tradition did it. Let me make this a little
more personal so that you see where I come from.
When I got married the Govt. didn't ask whether we planned to
reproduce or not (neither did the church.) Many couples don't know
whether they can reproduce and the one's who have hit menopause (see
66 year old pregnant in UK last week) shouldn't be denied the right
that they had when they were younger. This has been the situation for
centuries and has been taken for granted in the marriage ceremony, but
wait...........
Now we have a new phenomenon. We have a situation where the Govt. the
church and everyone else knows without asking that a couple cannot
reproduce. It is a fact. As this is such a new phenomenon, (it was
unheard of when I got married) should we tag it with the same name as
the above. I see no reason to. I go no further than that.
Using the term marriage to describe a lifetime partnership between
beavers, swans or eagles seems senseless to me.
I like things described accurately and thus my stance.
On May 27, 5:18 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's called a joke, Clog. I'm talking, of course, about sexless marriages.
>
> But the concept applies. What about sterile couples? What about
> women who have hit menopause?
>
> Life of Brian aside, your major problem is one with semantics. I don't
> know why you, or anyone else, really, seem to think you can dictate
> what words mean. You can't. You can give gays something called the
> glooptada82fortgarrpl, and give them all the rights of a married
> couple, and they'll call it a marriage, no matter what the state does.
>
> Definitions change. Words change. If they didn't you'd still be
> speaking in Old English. An argument from semantics is a futile
> argument, because it's an argument predicated upon nothing. Give gay
> people marriages, if that's what they want to call it, because that's
> what they're going to call it anyway. And when they flaunt their
> marriages, as they call them, just tell them, "Sócn æcyrf mín geard."
>
> OZ
>
define the word marriage - tradition did it. Let me make this a little
more personal so that you see where I come from.
When I got married the Govt. didn't ask whether we planned to
reproduce or not (neither did the church.) Many couples don't know
whether they can reproduce and the one's who have hit menopause (see
66 year old pregnant in UK last week) shouldn't be denied the right
that they had when they were younger. This has been the situation for
centuries and has been taken for granted in the marriage ceremony, but
wait...........
Now we have a new phenomenon. We have a situation where the Govt. the
church and everyone else knows without asking that a couple cannot
reproduce. It is a fact. As this is such a new phenomenon, (it was
unheard of when I got married) should we tag it with the same name as
the above. I see no reason to. I go no further than that.
Using the term marriage to describe a lifetime partnership between
beavers, swans or eagles seems senseless to me.
I like things described accurately and thus my stance.
On May 27, 5:18 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's called a joke, Clog. I'm talking, of course, about sexless marriages.
>
> But the concept applies. What about sterile couples? What about
> women who have hit menopause?
>
> Life of Brian aside, your major problem is one with semantics. I don't
> know why you, or anyone else, really, seem to think you can dictate
> what words mean. You can't. You can give gays something called the
> glooptada82fortgarrpl, and give them all the rights of a married
> couple, and they'll call it a marriage, no matter what the state does.
>
> Definitions change. Words change. If they didn't you'd still be
> speaking in Old English. An argument from semantics is a futile
> argument, because it's an argument predicated upon nothing. Give gay
> people marriages, if that's what they want to call it, because that's
> what they're going to call it anyway. And when they flaunt their
> marriages, as they call them, just tell them, "Sócn æcyrf mín geard."
>
> OZ
>
Orson Zedd
May 27, 2009, 8:10:17 PM5/27/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Well it's a damn shame that you aren't writing the definitive
dictionary of the universe.
OZ
dictionary of the universe.
OZ
Clogtowner
May 27, 2009, 9:05:19 PM5/27/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - I think you are missing my point here. Atheists marry in
exactly the same way as the religious, except not in a church. The
license is the same, as reproduction is a possibility.
FYI I did get married in a church 42 years ago. I have since seen the
light and married, at a cost of $10, in a courthouse in Colorado.
On May 27, 6:47 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thing is, Clog, if gays can't get married, atheists can't either.
> Because if the state won't sanction marriage, what makes you think the
> First Church of Reason will? Did you civilly union your wife, or did
> you marry her? You're an atheist; you tell me.
>
> OZ
>
> ...
>
> read more »
exactly the same way as the religious, except not in a church. The
license is the same, as reproduction is a possibility.
FYI I did get married in a church 42 years ago. I have since seen the
light and married, at a cost of $10, in a courthouse in Colorado.
On May 27, 6:47 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thing is, Clog, if gays can't get married, atheists can't either.
> Because if the state won't sanction marriage, what makes you think the
> First Church of Reason will? Did you civilly union your wife, or did
> you marry her? You're an atheist; you tell me.
>
> OZ
>
>
> read more »
Orson Zedd
May 27, 2009, 9:23:38 PM5/27/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
I don't understand how you can say marriage is predicated upon
reproduction when, in fact, reproduction may not be a possibility for
some people. Why do you hate semantics? Why are you a prescriptivist
rather than a descriptivist. We can describe what language does. We
don't tell language what it does.
OZ
reproduction when, in fact, reproduction may not be a possibility for
some people. Why do you hate semantics? Why are you a prescriptivist
rather than a descriptivist. We can describe what language does. We
don't tell language what it does.
OZ
Clogtowner
May 27, 2009, 10:14:44 PM5/27/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - I don't say marriage is predicated upon reproduction. I say
that reproduction is a possibility in marriages and for many the
deciding factor. It is not a possibility in gay unions.
I accept the language that has been used for centuries to describe a
particular event. When I learn of a new and different event I would
like to see it given a new name.
I don't know why so many find this a difficult concept. If we discover
a new species, we don't name it the same as an existing one.
I wouldn't label a chocolate cake - doughnut. Some people would
misunderstand.
If gay people describe themselves a "married," which is the husband
and which the wife?
On May 27, 8:23 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand how you can say marriage is predicated upon
> reproduction when, in fact, reproduction may not be a possibility for
> some people. Why do you hate semantics? Why are you a prescriptivist
> rather than a descriptivist. We can describe what language does. We
> don't tell language what it does.
>
> OZ
>
> ...
>
> read more »
that reproduction is a possibility in marriages and for many the
deciding factor. It is not a possibility in gay unions.
I accept the language that has been used for centuries to describe a
particular event. When I learn of a new and different event I would
like to see it given a new name.
I don't know why so many find this a difficult concept. If we discover
a new species, we don't name it the same as an existing one.
I wouldn't label a chocolate cake - doughnut. Some people would
misunderstand.
If gay people describe themselves a "married," which is the husband
and which the wife?
On May 27, 8:23 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand how you can say marriage is predicated upon
> reproduction when, in fact, reproduction may not be a possibility for
> some people. Why do you hate semantics? Why are you a prescriptivist
> rather than a descriptivist. We can describe what language does. We
> don't tell language what it does.
>
> OZ
>
>
> read more »
Jason
May 27, 2009, 10:30:23 PM5/27/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
There are a number of gay couples that get pregnant--just go to a
sperm bank or get some guy to lay you for the females. Some gay guys
put up with females just to have kids. IN other words, I don't think
that reproduction is out of the question for gay couples. Many married
couples raise kids that are from someone else or only one member of
the couple. Plus, some people get married and then change sexes and
some females are genetically males (XY chromosomes). What is a same
sex marriage anyway? By chromosomes; by looks; that is, by genotype
or phenotype or both? What if you are a female and don't know that
you are genetically a male until you can't get pregnant (xy "females"
are sterile)? Does that mean that your marriage is voided?
Husband or wife? A lesbian couple that I know just calls each other
"wife"...another couple calls the other a "partner".
> ...
>
> read more »
sperm bank or get some guy to lay you for the females. Some gay guys
put up with females just to have kids. IN other words, I don't think
that reproduction is out of the question for gay couples. Many married
couples raise kids that are from someone else or only one member of
the couple. Plus, some people get married and then change sexes and
some females are genetically males (XY chromosomes). What is a same
sex marriage anyway? By chromosomes; by looks; that is, by genotype
or phenotype or both? What if you are a female and don't know that
you are genetically a male until you can't get pregnant (xy "females"
are sterile)? Does that mean that your marriage is voided?
Husband or wife? A lesbian couple that I know just calls each other
"wife"...another couple calls the other a "partner".
>
> read more »
Orson Zedd
May 28, 2009, 12:59:19 AM5/28/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Who says marriage needs a husband AND a wife? If that's your
definition, it can be changed, because, again, definitions are not
static. A husband and a wife, even if both are necessary for the word
marriage to be used, aren't if you decided that those words aren't
necessary. We aren't talking Cakes and donuts here, were just talking
cakes. They're two different flavors of cakes, not two different
pastries.
Marriage, classically, was a contract between families. I assume
that, since this definition isn't used anymore, it won't hurt your
head to change your current definition, because apparently, people
more ignorant and less informed than you were able to do it just as
well 800 years ago.
As for reproduction, I defer to Jason, who has basically said what I
would have better than I could have. Some married couples never have
children. Some married couples can't have children. Hell, if gays
could get married, they could ADOPT. That's essentially the same
thing as having a kid.
Clog, I don't think you're stupid or ignorant, but you do seem very
uneasy with the idea of, say, being progressive.
OZ
definition, it can be changed, because, again, definitions are not
static. A husband and a wife, even if both are necessary for the word
marriage to be used, aren't if you decided that those words aren't
necessary. We aren't talking Cakes and donuts here, were just talking
cakes. They're two different flavors of cakes, not two different
pastries.
Marriage, classically, was a contract between families. I assume
that, since this definition isn't used anymore, it won't hurt your
head to change your current definition, because apparently, people
more ignorant and less informed than you were able to do it just as
well 800 years ago.
As for reproduction, I defer to Jason, who has basically said what I
would have better than I could have. Some married couples never have
children. Some married couples can't have children. Hell, if gays
could get married, they could ADOPT. That's essentially the same
thing as having a kid.
Clog, I don't think you're stupid or ignorant, but you do seem very
uneasy with the idea of, say, being progressive.
OZ
Orson Zedd
May 28, 2009, 1:03:51 AM5/28/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Addendum:
Words are just symbols. Without something to symbolize, they mean
nothing. What they symbolize changes on an individual and group
basis. It changes with the zeitgeist. Words HAVE to change. And his
is one instance where it HAS to change. If your argument isn't one
from religion, then you really have no argument. "Semantics is cold
comfort when it comes to humanity."
OZ
Words are just symbols. Without something to symbolize, they mean
nothing. What they symbolize changes on an individual and group
basis. It changes with the zeitgeist. Words HAVE to change. And his
is one instance where it HAS to change. If your argument isn't one
from religion, then you really have no argument. "Semantics is cold
comfort when it comes to humanity."
OZ
Orson Zedd
May 28, 2009, 1:18:12 AM5/28/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Double Addendumty:
And what about people who have kids but don't marry? They seem pretty
well and able to have kids without being in a marriage. Reproduction
and marriage are, really, two diverse concepts. I don't even know why
it should factor in at all.
And what about people who have kids but don't marry? They seem pretty
well and able to have kids without being in a marriage. Reproduction
and marriage are, really, two diverse concepts. I don't even know why
it should factor in at all.
Clogtowner
May 28, 2009, 10:42:40 AM5/28/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - both are building features into this argument that are not
there. I have the patience, so I'll spell it out. I am well aware of
all the cases of sperm donations, (relatively new event) adoptions
etc. but I stick to my point that two men or two women cannot
reproduce together without the involvement of someone else in the
partnership, therefore I submit that this is not the same partnership
as a marriage, using the ages old definition. If we bring someone else
into the equation we no longer have a marriage in the traditional
sense. Let us just take one phrase from my marriage vows "forsaking
all others." Of course, marriage vows are flexible these days - but
not when I took them.
We are left with an option - change the meaning of the marriage
partnership to include those who cannot reproduce together, or give
the new phenomenon a new name. I prefer the new name. I well realize
that I am on a loser here. The only ones who agree with me on this are
the religious, and for the wrong reasons. There are some traditions
that I like.
Perhaps future generations will abandon marriage altogether - it seems
to be heading that way. I would be sad to see that in my lifetime.
I'm off for my morning shot of chocolate oozing from its dish.
PS and to make my stance absolutely clear, as some know, I was
involved in the March in Jackson in favor of "gay marriage" during the
proposition 8 vote in California.
On May 28, 12:18 am, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Double Addendumty:
>
> And what about people who have kids but don't marry? They seem pretty
> well and able to have kids without being in a marriage. Reproduction
> and marriage are, really, two diverse concepts. I don't even know why
> it should factor in at all.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
there. I have the patience, so I'll spell it out. I am well aware of
all the cases of sperm donations, (relatively new event) adoptions
etc. but I stick to my point that two men or two women cannot
reproduce together without the involvement of someone else in the
partnership, therefore I submit that this is not the same partnership
as a marriage, using the ages old definition. If we bring someone else
into the equation we no longer have a marriage in the traditional
sense. Let us just take one phrase from my marriage vows "forsaking
all others." Of course, marriage vows are flexible these days - but
not when I took them.
We are left with an option - change the meaning of the marriage
partnership to include those who cannot reproduce together, or give
the new phenomenon a new name. I prefer the new name. I well realize
that I am on a loser here. The only ones who agree with me on this are
the religious, and for the wrong reasons. There are some traditions
that I like.
Perhaps future generations will abandon marriage altogether - it seems
to be heading that way. I would be sad to see that in my lifetime.
I'm off for my morning shot of chocolate oozing from its dish.
PS and to make my stance absolutely clear, as some know, I was
involved in the March in Jackson in favor of "gay marriage" during the
proposition 8 vote in California.
On May 28, 12:18 am, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Double Addendumty:
>
> And what about people who have kids but don't marry? They seem pretty
> well and able to have kids without being in a marriage. Reproduction
> and marriage are, really, two diverse concepts. I don't even know why
> it should factor in at all.
>
> On 5/28/09, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Addendum:
>
> > Words are just symbols. Without something to symbolize, they mean
> > nothing. What they symbolize changes on an individual and group
> > basis. It changes with the zeitgeist. Words HAVE to change. And his
> > is one instance where it HAS to change. If your argument isn't one
> > from religion, then you really have no argument. "Semantics is cold
> > comfort when it comes to humanity."
>
> > OZ
>
>
>
>
> > Addendum:
>
> > Words are just symbols. Without something to symbolize, they mean
> > nothing. What they symbolize changes on an individual and group
> > basis. It changes with the zeitgeist. Words HAVE to change. And his
> > is one instance where it HAS to change. If your argument isn't one
> > from religion, then you really have no argument. "Semantics is cold
> > comfort when it comes to humanity."
>
> > OZ
>
> > On 5/27/09, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Who says marriage needs a husband AND a wife? If that's your
> >> definition, it can be changed, because, again, definitions are not
> >> static. A husband and a wife, even if both are necessary for the word
> >> marriage to be used, aren't if you decided that those words aren't
> >> necessary. We aren't talking Cakes and donuts here, were just talking
> >> cakes. They're two different flavors of cakes, not two different
> >> pastries.
>
> >> Marriage, classically, was a contract between families. I assume
> >> that, since this definition isn't used anymore, it won't hurt your
> >> head to change your current definition, because apparently, people
> >> more ignorant and less informed than you were able to do it just as
> >> well 800 years ago.
>
> >> As for reproduction, I defer to Jason, who has basically said what I
> >> would have better than I could have. Some married couples never have
> >> children. Some married couples can't have children. Hell, if gays
> >> could get married, they could ADOPT. That's essentially the same
> >> thing as having a kid.
>
> >> Clog, I don't think you're stupid or ignorant, but you do seem very
> >> uneasy with the idea of, say, being progressive.
>
> >> OZ
>
> >> Who says marriage needs a husband AND a wife? If that's your
> >> definition, it can be changed, because, again, definitions are not
> >> static. A husband and a wife, even if both are necessary for the word
> >> marriage to be used, aren't if you decided that those words aren't
> >> necessary. We aren't talking Cakes and donuts here, were just talking
> >> cakes. They're two different flavors of cakes, not two different
> >> pastries.
>
> >> Marriage, classically, was a contract between families. I assume
> >> that, since this definition isn't used anymore, it won't hurt your
> >> head to change your current definition, because apparently, people
> >> more ignorant and less informed than you were able to do it just as
> >> well 800 years ago.
>
> >> As for reproduction, I defer to Jason, who has basically said what I
> >> would have better than I could have. Some married couples never have
> >> children. Some married couples can't have children. Hell, if gays
> >> could get married, they could ADOPT. That's essentially the same
> >> thing as having a kid.
>
> >> Clog, I don't think you're stupid or ignorant, but you do seem very
> >> uneasy with the idea of, say, being progressive.
>
> >> OZ
>
>
> read more »
Orson Zedd
May 28, 2009, 4:54:13 PM5/28/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Clog, understand that I'm saying tradition isn't an acceptable,
useful, or even successful reason for opposing what essentially boils
down to a semantic argument. If there was no such thing as gender,
would you still call it marriage?
OZ
useful, or even successful reason for opposing what essentially boils
down to a semantic argument. If there was no such thing as gender,
would you still call it marriage?
OZ
Clogtowner
May 28, 2009, 5:39:30 PM5/28/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - I think you mean "sex." If we didn't have different sexes,
of course marriage would not have evolved. In my opinion it has
evolved far enough. This is one of those cases where you need to walk
in my shoes to understand my view. It is semantics, but that is
needed to describe a new event.
When I was younger we had a "wireless set." As I got older we acquired
a "transistor radio". Now we have a "tuner." I have no problem with
the semantics here - each describes a new product with more or
different features.
What do you have against using the phrase "civil union,"
"partnership," "contractual relationship," etc.
On May 28, 3:54 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Clog, understand that I'm saying tradition isn't an acceptable,
> useful, or even successful reason for opposing what essentially boils
> down to a semantic argument. If there was no such thing as gender,
> would you still call it marriage?
>
> OZ
>
> ...
>
> read more »
of course marriage would not have evolved. In my opinion it has
evolved far enough. This is one of those cases where you need to walk
in my shoes to understand my view. It is semantics, but that is
needed to describe a new event.
When I was younger we had a "wireless set." As I got older we acquired
a "transistor radio". Now we have a "tuner." I have no problem with
the semantics here - each describes a new product with more or
different features.
What do you have against using the phrase "civil union,"
"partnership," "contractual relationship," etc.
On May 28, 3:54 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Clog, understand that I'm saying tradition isn't an acceptable,
> useful, or even successful reason for opposing what essentially boils
> down to a semantic argument. If there was no such thing as gender,
> would you still call it marriage?
>
> OZ
>
>
> read more »
Orson Zedd
May 28, 2009, 6:18:58 PM5/28/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
No, you can have sex with only one gender and still reproduce. See
flatworms. And as long as pairing up was mutually beneficial, we'd
still have evolved it. Nothing ever evolves enough. Evolution
doesn't stop. Not linguistic evolution, not social evolution, not
biological evolution. That's why it's called evolution.
What I have against calling gay marriages civil unions and
partnerships is that you're effectively giving them a second hand kind
of marriage. Replace gay with interracial and look at the argument.
I wouldn't be in favor of calling interracial marriage something else,
so I'm not in favor of calling gay marriage something else. More to
the point, it's an exercise in futility, because no matter what the
state sanctioned term is, people will ALWAYS call them marriages. The
word WILL be redefined, and the universe doesn't care if you think
it's evolved enough or not.
OZ
flatworms. And as long as pairing up was mutually beneficial, we'd
still have evolved it. Nothing ever evolves enough. Evolution
doesn't stop. Not linguistic evolution, not social evolution, not
biological evolution. That's why it's called evolution.
What I have against calling gay marriages civil unions and
partnerships is that you're effectively giving them a second hand kind
of marriage. Replace gay with interracial and look at the argument.
I wouldn't be in favor of calling interracial marriage something else,
so I'm not in favor of calling gay marriage something else. More to
the point, it's an exercise in futility, because no matter what the
state sanctioned term is, people will ALWAYS call them marriages. The
word WILL be redefined, and the universe doesn't care if you think
it's evolved enough or not.
OZ
Clogtowner
May 28, 2009, 6:36:43 PM5/28/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - yes Mr. & Mrs. Flatworm do coexist. I don't think the term
marriage is commonly used for the animal kingdom.
I even have a problem with the word "gender." When I went to school, I
was taught that gender is only used in the written word to define the
masculinity or femininity of a noun. I was taught that sex is the word
to use in defining humans. Of course, political correctness now means
we must use the word gender, and I'm sure marriage will go the same
way as you suggest. This doesn't make it correct, nor do I like it.
When I am introduced to a gay who is "married," I shall make a point
of asking about Mrs X, or in the case of a female Mr. X or I may
resort to the old Cockney Rhyming Slang - "how's the trouble and
strife?" An era has passed!
On May 28, 5:18 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, you can have sex with only one gender and still reproduce. See
> flatworms. And as long as pairing up was mutually beneficial, we'd
> still have evolved it. Nothing ever evolves enough. Evolution
> doesn't stop. Not linguistic evolution, not social evolution, not
> biological evolution. That's why it's called evolution.
>
> What I have against calling gay marriages civil unions and
> partnerships is that you're effectively giving them a second hand kind
> of marriage. Replace gay with interracial and look at the argument.
> I wouldn't be in favor of calling interracial marriage something else,
> so I'm not in favor of calling gay marriage something else. More to
> the point, it's an exercise in futility, because no matter what the
> state sanctioned term is, people will ALWAYS call them marriages. The
> word WILL be redefined, and the universe doesn't care if you think
> it's evolved enough or not.
>
> OZ
>
> ...
>
> read more »
marriage is commonly used for the animal kingdom.
I even have a problem with the word "gender." When I went to school, I
was taught that gender is only used in the written word to define the
masculinity or femininity of a noun. I was taught that sex is the word
to use in defining humans. Of course, political correctness now means
we must use the word gender, and I'm sure marriage will go the same
way as you suggest. This doesn't make it correct, nor do I like it.
When I am introduced to a gay who is "married," I shall make a point
of asking about Mrs X, or in the case of a female Mr. X or I may
resort to the old Cockney Rhyming Slang - "how's the trouble and
strife?" An era has passed!
On May 28, 5:18 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, you can have sex with only one gender and still reproduce. See
> flatworms. And as long as pairing up was mutually beneficial, we'd
> still have evolved it. Nothing ever evolves enough. Evolution
> doesn't stop. Not linguistic evolution, not social evolution, not
> biological evolution. That's why it's called evolution.
>
> What I have against calling gay marriages civil unions and
> partnerships is that you're effectively giving them a second hand kind
> of marriage. Replace gay with interracial and look at the argument.
> I wouldn't be in favor of calling interracial marriage something else,
> so I'm not in favor of calling gay marriage something else. More to
> the point, it's an exercise in futility, because no matter what the
> state sanctioned term is, people will ALWAYS call them marriages. The
> word WILL be redefined, and the universe doesn't care if you think
> it's evolved enough or not.
>
> OZ
>
>
> read more »
Orson Zedd
May 28, 2009, 6:55:08 PM5/28/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
What I'm saying is, you don't need sexes to have sex. And if humans
didn't have sexes, they could still have sex. You'd have neuter
pronouns and neuter titles, but they'd still be human, they'd still
fall in love, and they'd still marry, and they'd have sex without
regard to gender.
While I have no doubt that you don't like change, I'm interested as to
why you think there is a correct and incorrect as far as grammar goes,
when you really have no absolutes to make that assumption on. After
all, there is no objective right and wrong in the universe, just what
society agrees is right and wrong, and when society changes its mind
on how language should be used, so does what is right and what is
wrong. I'm no fan of political correctness, but that's how language
works: It's a total society workout.
OZ
didn't have sexes, they could still have sex. You'd have neuter
pronouns and neuter titles, but they'd still be human, they'd still
fall in love, and they'd still marry, and they'd have sex without
regard to gender.
While I have no doubt that you don't like change, I'm interested as to
why you think there is a correct and incorrect as far as grammar goes,
when you really have no absolutes to make that assumption on. After
all, there is no objective right and wrong in the universe, just what
society agrees is right and wrong, and when society changes its mind
on how language should be used, so does what is right and what is
wrong. I'm no fan of political correctness, but that's how language
works: It's a total society workout.
OZ
Clogtowner
May 28, 2009, 7:12:10 PM5/28/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - yes people would still have sex, but unless they became
Asexual they wouldn't be reproducing.
Had you been brought up in a school that enjoyed corporal punishment,
you may have turned out as picky as I am. What is the point in me
sweating and bruised, learning English Grammar etc. only to misuse or
dump it altogether when I leave school? I'm afraid they beat it into
me, and as the Jesuits say "give me a child to age 7 and I'll give you
the man."
On May 28, 5:55 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I'm saying is, you don't need sexes to have sex. And if humans
> didn't have sexes, they could still have sex. You'd have neuter
> pronouns and neuter titles, but they'd still be human, they'd still
> fall in love, and they'd still marry, and they'd have sex without
> regard to gender.
>
> While I have no doubt that you don't like change, I'm interested as to
> why you think there is a correct and incorrect as far as grammar goes,
> when you really have no absolutes to make that assumption on. After
> all, there is no objective right and wrong in the universe, just what
> society agrees is right and wrong, and when society changes its mind
> on how language should be used, so does what is right and what is
> wrong. I'm no fan of political correctness, but that's how language
> works: It's a total society workout.
>
> OZ
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Asexual they wouldn't be reproducing.
Had you been brought up in a school that enjoyed corporal punishment,
you may have turned out as picky as I am. What is the point in me
sweating and bruised, learning English Grammar etc. only to misuse or
dump it altogether when I leave school? I'm afraid they beat it into
me, and as the Jesuits say "give me a child to age 7 and I'll give you
the man."
On May 28, 5:55 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I'm saying is, you don't need sexes to have sex. And if humans
> didn't have sexes, they could still have sex. You'd have neuter
> pronouns and neuter titles, but they'd still be human, they'd still
> fall in love, and they'd still marry, and they'd have sex without
> regard to gender.
>
> While I have no doubt that you don't like change, I'm interested as to
> why you think there is a correct and incorrect as far as grammar goes,
> when you really have no absolutes to make that assumption on. After
> all, there is no objective right and wrong in the universe, just what
> society agrees is right and wrong, and when society changes its mind
> on how language should be used, so does what is right and what is
> wrong. I'm no fan of political correctness, but that's how language
> works: It's a total society workout.
>
> OZ
>
>
> read more »
Orson Zedd
May 28, 2009, 7:31:15 PM5/28/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Or unless they used contraceptives. Or unless they were sterile. Or
unless they were statistically unlucky. Or unless they did anal. So,
what I'm saying is, these kinds of androgynous beings are having just
as effective sex as homosexuals. And homosexuals are definitely
having sex, or else there wouldn't be an incentive to get married.
Reproducing with one's partner isn't a necessity in marriage, and
there ARE ALTERNATIVES. And a marriage is not a necessity for SEX.
These are independent concepts! Related though they may be, they're
still independent. Whether it offends your grammatical sensibilities
doesn't matter, but quite frankly if it came down to a vote, I
wouldn't withhold marriage from gays for purely semantic reasons.
OZ
unless they were statistically unlucky. Or unless they did anal. So,
what I'm saying is, these kinds of androgynous beings are having just
as effective sex as homosexuals. And homosexuals are definitely
having sex, or else there wouldn't be an incentive to get married.
Reproducing with one's partner isn't a necessity in marriage, and
there ARE ALTERNATIVES. And a marriage is not a necessity for SEX.
These are independent concepts! Related though they may be, they're
still independent. Whether it offends your grammatical sensibilities
doesn't matter, but quite frankly if it came down to a vote, I
wouldn't withhold marriage from gays for purely semantic reasons.
OZ
Clogtowner
May 28, 2009, 9:47:42 PM5/28/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - to be absolutely grammatically correct, I would not
withhold marriage from gays either.
I'm sure I've found something we can agree on. Gays should have
exactly the same rights as everyone else! Right? Agreed?
OK, if I were single I'd have the right to go out and marry any woman
daft enough to agree to it, right? Gays have exactly the same right!
The difference is that they don't want to marry a female - they want
something different. I have no problem with that either, they can have
that right, but don't call it marriage.
Rebuttal please.
On May 28, 6:31 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or unless they used contraceptives. Or unless they were sterile. Or
> unless they were statistically unlucky. Or unless they did anal. So,
> what I'm saying is, these kinds of androgynous beings are having just
> as effective sex as homosexuals. And homosexuals are definitely
> having sex, or else there wouldn't be an incentive to get married.
> Reproducing with one's partner isn't a necessity in marriage, and
> there ARE ALTERNATIVES. And a marriage is not a necessity for SEX.
> These are independent concepts! Related though they may be, they're
> still independent. Whether it offends your grammatical sensibilities
> doesn't matter, but quite frankly if it came down to a vote, I
> wouldn't withhold marriage from gays for purely semantic reasons.
>
> OZ
>
> ...
>
> read more »
withhold marriage from gays either.
I'm sure I've found something we can agree on. Gays should have
exactly the same rights as everyone else! Right? Agreed?
OK, if I were single I'd have the right to go out and marry any woman
daft enough to agree to it, right? Gays have exactly the same right!
The difference is that they don't want to marry a female - they want
something different. I have no problem with that either, they can have
that right, but don't call it marriage.
Rebuttal please.
On May 28, 6:31 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or unless they used contraceptives. Or unless they were sterile. Or
> unless they were statistically unlucky. Or unless they did anal. So,
> what I'm saying is, these kinds of androgynous beings are having just
> as effective sex as homosexuals. And homosexuals are definitely
> having sex, or else there wouldn't be an incentive to get married.
> Reproducing with one's partner isn't a necessity in marriage, and
> there ARE ALTERNATIVES. And a marriage is not a necessity for SEX.
> These are independent concepts! Related though they may be, they're
> still independent. Whether it offends your grammatical sensibilities
> doesn't matter, but quite frankly if it came down to a vote, I
> wouldn't withhold marriage from gays for purely semantic reasons.
>
> OZ
>
>
> read more »
Orson Zedd
May 29, 2009, 12:31:55 AM5/29/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Thing is, you can't dictate what they will or won't call it. Because
in the world, its evolution, and all its little nuances, very little
of it can be dictated by the whims of a single individual
OZ
in the world, its evolution, and all its little nuances, very little
of it can be dictated by the whims of a single individual
OZ
Clogtowner
May 29, 2009, 9:05:52 AM5/29/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - yes evolution does play a part. Let's take it a stage
further. Your definition of marriage does not require the possibility
of reproduction, yet you advocate sex etc in it. I am not a Muslim.
I wonder if you would like to extend the right of marriage to me if I
was considering a relationship with my sweet little female goat?
On May 28, 11:31 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thing is, you can't dictate what they will or won't call it. Because
> in the world, its evolution, and all its little nuances, very little
> of it can be dictated by the whims of a single individual
>
> OZ
>
> ...
>
> read more »
further. Your definition of marriage does not require the possibility
of reproduction, yet you advocate sex etc in it. I am not a Muslim.
I wonder if you would like to extend the right of marriage to me if I
was considering a relationship with my sweet little female goat?
On May 28, 11:31 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thing is, you can't dictate what they will or won't call it. Because
> in the world, its evolution, and all its little nuances, very little
> of it can be dictated by the whims of a single individual
>
> OZ
>
>
> read more »
Orson Zedd
May 29, 2009, 6:22:50 PM5/29/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
I would grant marriage to two consenting, mentally and legally,
sapient creatures. If you'd chosen a dolphin, maybe, but since a goat
isn't sapient, at least as far as I know, I would say no.
And of course, dolphins don't have personhood, but if a nonhuman
creature, an android or whatever, were granted personhood, I'd
advocate interwhatever marriage for that.
OZ
sapient creatures. If you'd chosen a dolphin, maybe, but since a goat
isn't sapient, at least as far as I know, I would say no.
And of course, dolphins don't have personhood, but if a nonhuman
creature, an android or whatever, were granted personhood, I'd
advocate interwhatever marriage for that.
OZ
Jason
May 29, 2009, 6:50:49 PM5/29/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
OZ,
Make sure you give Clogtowner a hard time. He gives atheists a hard
time about celebrating Christmas with the family and listening to Rock-
n-Roll, which he refers to (most of it) as "noise". Oh, then there is
the American "English" thing of which he dislike too!!!!
Jason
On May 29, 4:22 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would grant marriage to two consenting, mentally and legally,
> sapient creatures. If you'd chosen a dolphin, maybe, but since a goat
> isn't sapient, at least as far as I know, I would say no.
>
> And of course, dolphins don't have personhood, but if a nonhuman
> creature, an android or whatever, were granted personhood, I'd
> advocate interwhatever marriage for that.
>
> OZ
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Make sure you give Clogtowner a hard time. He gives atheists a hard
time about celebrating Christmas with the family and listening to Rock-
n-Roll, which he refers to (most of it) as "noise". Oh, then there is
the American "English" thing of which he dislike too!!!!
Jason
On May 29, 4:22 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would grant marriage to two consenting, mentally and legally,
> sapient creatures. If you'd chosen a dolphin, maybe, but since a goat
> isn't sapient, at least as far as I know, I would say no.
>
> And of course, dolphins don't have personhood, but if a nonhuman
> creature, an android or whatever, were granted personhood, I'd
> advocate interwhatever marriage for that.
>
> OZ
>
>
> read more »
Jason
May 29, 2009, 6:52:47 PM5/29/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
oh...then there is the references to desserts to people who are
fasting!!!!
> ...
>
> read more »
fasting!!!!
>
> read more »
Orson Zedd
May 29, 2009, 8:10:44 PM5/29/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
haha, I celebrate all holidays equally, because I'm an equal
opportunity slacker.
opportunity slacker.
Clogtowner
May 30, 2009, 9:54:12 AM5/30/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - now you have defined marriage - semantics! We get back to
square one - I already had a definition. We disagree on the
definition. I take the traditional and you take the renaissance. Let
us see what emerges. Remember, all my Christian friends are on my
side!
On May 29, 5:22 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would grant marriage to two consenting, mentally and legally,
> sapient creatures. If you'd chosen a dolphin, maybe, but since a goat
> isn't sapient, at least as far as I know, I would say no.
>
> And of course, dolphins don't have personhood, but if a nonhuman
> creature, an android or whatever, were granted personhood, I'd
> advocate interwhatever marriage for that.
>
> OZ
>
> ...
>
> read more »
square one - I already had a definition. We disagree on the
definition. I take the traditional and you take the renaissance. Let
us see what emerges. Remember, all my Christian friends are on my
side!
On May 29, 5:22 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would grant marriage to two consenting, mentally and legally,
> sapient creatures. If you'd chosen a dolphin, maybe, but since a goat
> isn't sapient, at least as far as I know, I would say no.
>
> And of course, dolphins don't have personhood, but if a nonhuman
> creature, an android or whatever, were granted personhood, I'd
> advocate interwhatever marriage for that.
>
> OZ
>
>
> read more »
epurk...@comcast.net
May 30, 2009, 11:49:57 AM5/30/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
I think it might be okay if a male animal is a willing participant in a sexual relationship with a human. A male animal will show its willing interest, so to speak. A female animal cannot grant clear consent, so I don't think people should be having sex with them.
I can't imaine being excited over animal penises. Especially dog penises and other naked weiners. Animals "showing lipstick" is gross.
Orson Zedd
May 30, 2009, 12:23:55 PM5/30/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Clog, I'm sure your Christian friends, a lot of them around here
anyway, but certainly not all Christians, would take up your side.
But if they're as absolutely wrong about how the universe came to be,
what does that say about their judgment of basic human rights, which,
I presume, would be question on a similar scale to the God one.
Besides, you don't get any more traditional than Renaissance.
OZ
P.S. Dogs getting married, haha. If dogs could get married that'd
really lower the divorce rate. They're so loyal.
anyway, but certainly not all Christians, would take up your side.
But if they're as absolutely wrong about how the universe came to be,
what does that say about their judgment of basic human rights, which,
I presume, would be question on a similar scale to the God one.
Besides, you don't get any more traditional than Renaissance.
OZ
P.S. Dogs getting married, haha. If dogs could get married that'd
really lower the divorce rate. They're so loyal.
Human...@aol.com
May 30, 2009, 12:34:03 PM5/30/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
If I tell someone that I am married, I prefer that the
word means that I am married to a woman, not a goat a dolphin or a dog. Or
a man for that matter. If Ms. Jones wants to marry her Shetland Pony, I'm
happy for her, but use a new word for a new legal concept. Or at least hyphenate
the word. Pony-marriage maybe.
J.
I would grant marriage to two consenting, mentally and legally,
sapient creatures. If you'd chosen a dolphin, maybe, but since a goat
isn't sapient, at least as far as I know, I would say no.
And of course, dolphins don't have personhood, but if a nonhuman
creature, an android or whatever, were granted personhood, I'd
advocate interwhatever marriage for that.
OZ
We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.
Orson Zedd
May 30, 2009, 12:43:01 PM5/30/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Okay, listen, I'm really not sure where you guys get off equating
animal marriage with gay marriage. The thing is, gays have
personhood, and as such deserve the right to marry the individual of
their choosing. You can call it whatever you want, but it won't
change what it is. And if you're so insecure in your own sexuality
that you think it'll prove a problem for you, then perhaps you need to
re-examine your priorities a bit. Would you rather have sexual
security over someone else's fundamental human rights?
OZ
On 5/30/09, Human...@aol.com <Human...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> If I tell someone that I am married, I prefer that the word means that I
> am married to a woman, not a goat a dolphin or a dog. Or a man for that
> matter. If Ms. Jones wants to marry her Shetland Pony, I'm happy for her,
> but
> use a new word for a new legal concept. Or at least hyphenate the word.
> Pony-marriage maybe.
>
> J.
>
> I would grant marriage to two consenting, mentally and legally,
> sapient creatures. If you'd chosen a dolphin, maybe, but since a goat
> isn't sapient, at least as far as I know, I would say no.
>
> And of course, dolphins don't have personhood, but if a nonhuman
> creature, an android or whatever, were granted personhood, I'd
> advocate interwhatever marriage for that.
>
> OZ
>
> **************We found the real ‘Hotel California’ and the ‘Seinfeld’
> cntnew00000007)
>
> >
>
animal marriage with gay marriage. The thing is, gays have
personhood, and as such deserve the right to marry the individual of
their choosing. You can call it whatever you want, but it won't
change what it is. And if you're so insecure in your own sexuality
that you think it'll prove a problem for you, then perhaps you need to
re-examine your priorities a bit. Would you rather have sexual
security over someone else's fundamental human rights?
OZ
On 5/30/09, Human...@aol.com <Human...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> If I tell someone that I am married, I prefer that the word means that I
> am married to a woman, not a goat a dolphin or a dog. Or a man for that
> matter. If Ms. Jones wants to marry her Shetland Pony, I'm happy for her,
> but
> use a new word for a new legal concept. Or at least hyphenate the word.
> Pony-marriage maybe.
>
> J.
>
> I would grant marriage to two consenting, mentally and legally,
> sapient creatures. If you'd chosen a dolphin, maybe, but since a goat
> isn't sapient, at least as far as I know, I would say no.
>
> And of course, dolphins don't have personhood, but if a nonhuman
> creature, an android or whatever, were granted personhood, I'd
> advocate interwhatever marriage for that.
>
> OZ
>
> diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.
> (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/355/47.796964/-66.374711/2/Youve-Found-Where-Its-At?ncid=eml
> cntnew00000007)
>
> >
>
Clogtowner
May 30, 2009, 2:15:59 PM5/30/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - why would you suggest that we may be insecure in our
sexuality? I think it is irrelevant to the discussion and if I was
insecure, I wouldn't have been married 42 years. I think Humanis
agrees with me and for the same reasons. As I've said before
Christians agree with me, but for the wrong reasons. When I pick up a
phone book to call someone called Mr.& Mrs. Bloggs I would like to
know that they are male and female. If we have a different label for
gay unions, this is achieved, there is no need to read any more into
it than that. I'll be at the civil rights demonstration tomorrow in
support of gay rights!!!
On May 30, 11:43 am, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, listen, I'm really not sure where you guys get off equating
> animal marriage with gay marriage. The thing is, gays have
> personhood, and as such deserve the right to marry the individual of
> their choosing. You can call it whatever you want, but it won't
> change what it is. And if you're so insecure in your own sexuality
> that you think it'll prove a problem for you, then perhaps you need to
> re-examine your priorities a bit. Would you rather have sexual
> security over someone else's fundamental human rights?
>
> OZ
>
> > cntnew00000007)
sexuality? I think it is irrelevant to the discussion and if I was
insecure, I wouldn't have been married 42 years. I think Humanis
agrees with me and for the same reasons. As I've said before
Christians agree with me, but for the wrong reasons. When I pick up a
phone book to call someone called Mr.& Mrs. Bloggs I would like to
know that they are male and female. If we have a different label for
gay unions, this is achieved, there is no need to read any more into
it than that. I'll be at the civil rights demonstration tomorrow in
support of gay rights!!!
On May 30, 11:43 am, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, listen, I'm really not sure where you guys get off equating
> animal marriage with gay marriage. The thing is, gays have
> personhood, and as such deserve the right to marry the individual of
> their choosing. You can call it whatever you want, but it won't
> change what it is. And if you're so insecure in your own sexuality
> that you think it'll prove a problem for you, then perhaps you need to
> re-examine your priorities a bit. Would you rather have sexual
> security over someone else's fundamental human rights?
>
> OZ
>
> On 5/30/09, Humanis...@aol.com <Humanis...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > If I tell someone that I am married, I prefer that the word means that I
> > am married to a woman, not a goat a dolphin or a dog. Or a man for that
> > matter. If Ms. Jones wants to marry her Shetland Pony, I'm happy for her,
> > but
> > use a new word for a new legal concept. Or at least hyphenate the word.
> > Pony-marriage maybe.
>
> > J.
>
> > I would grant marriage to two consenting, mentally and legally,
> > sapient creatures. If you'd chosen a dolphin, maybe, but since a goat
> > isn't sapient, at least as far as I know, I would say no.
>
> > And of course, dolphins don't have personhood, but if a nonhuman
> > creature, an android or whatever, were granted personhood, I'd
> > advocate interwhatever marriage for that.
>
> > OZ
>
> > **************We found the real ‘Hotel California’ and the ‘Seinfeld’
> > diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.
> > (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/355/47.796964/-66.374711/...
>
>
>
>
>
> > If I tell someone that I am married, I prefer that the word means that I
> > am married to a woman, not a goat a dolphin or a dog. Or a man for that
> > matter. If Ms. Jones wants to marry her Shetland Pony, I'm happy for her,
> > but
> > use a new word for a new legal concept. Or at least hyphenate the word.
> > Pony-marriage maybe.
>
> > J.
>
> > I would grant marriage to two consenting, mentally and legally,
> > sapient creatures. If you'd chosen a dolphin, maybe, but since a goat
> > isn't sapient, at least as far as I know, I would say no.
>
> > And of course, dolphins don't have personhood, but if a nonhuman
> > creature, an android or whatever, were granted personhood, I'd
> > advocate interwhatever marriage for that.
>
> > OZ
>
> > **************We found the real ‘Hotel California’ and the ‘Seinfeld’
> > diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.
> > cntnew00000007)
Orson Zedd
May 30, 2009, 3:33:18 PM5/30/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
I say you're insecure, because you're worried about what people will
call you. Or at least Humanist21 is. Why does gay marriage need a
different label? Unless you're worried about what others call YOU, it
doesn't make any sense why you'd advocate what is tantamount to a
separate but equal policy.
I'm sure those coloreds have a nice water fountain, I just don't want
them drinking from the same one as me.
OZ
call you. Or at least Humanist21 is. Why does gay marriage need a
different label? Unless you're worried about what others call YOU, it
doesn't make any sense why you'd advocate what is tantamount to a
separate but equal policy.
I'm sure those coloreds have a nice water fountain, I just don't want
them drinking from the same one as me.
OZ
Clogtowner
May 30, 2009, 4:54:12 PM5/30/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - you chose the phrase "worried about" not I. Believe me I'm
long past caring what people think of me or call me. I'm simply trying
to describe a new situation. I seek knowledge and information.
Different labels would give me that. It could also save embarrassment
for those who are easily offended. Racism has nothing to do with it.
I'm not advocating separate but equal, I'm acknowledging equal but
different by choice.
On May 30, 2:33 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I say you're insecure, because you're worried about what people will
> call you. Or at least Humanist21 is. Why does gay marriage need a
> different label? Unless you're worried about what others call YOU, it
> doesn't make any sense why you'd advocate what is tantamount to a
> separate but equal policy.
>
> I'm sure those coloreds have a nice water fountain, I just don't want
> them drinking from the same one as me.
>
> OZ
>
long past caring what people think of me or call me. I'm simply trying
to describe a new situation. I seek knowledge and information.
Different labels would give me that. It could also save embarrassment
for those who are easily offended. Racism has nothing to do with it.
I'm not advocating separate but equal, I'm acknowledging equal but
different by choice.
On May 30, 2:33 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I say you're insecure, because you're worried about what people will
> call you. Or at least Humanist21 is. Why does gay marriage need a
> different label? Unless you're worried about what others call YOU, it
> doesn't make any sense why you'd advocate what is tantamount to a
> separate but equal policy.
>
> I'm sure those coloreds have a nice water fountain, I just don't want
> them drinking from the same one as me.
>
> OZ
>
Orson Zedd
May 30, 2009, 5:02:17 PM5/30/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Call me young, idealistic, naïve, ignorant, whatever, but I really
can't see the difference.
OZ
can't see the difference.
OZ
Tom
May 30, 2009, 10:59:31 PM5/30/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Very similar in MN, very liberal Minneapolis/St. Paul , conservative almost everywhere else.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Jason Grosser <jason_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't agree with the author. I don't think California is that liberal except in cities that also have pockets of fundamentalism. There are many mega-churches near San Francisco (e.g., well funded pockets of fundamentalism). When I used to drive in the country for consulting in the San Joaquin and Napa Valley in California during the Gore/Bush election, I do not recall seeing many supporter signs for Al Gore but plenty, plenty for George Bush.
Jason
The Proposition 8 Ruling: Implications for Atheists
Posted: 27 May 2009 03:22 AM PDT
On May 26, 2009, California's Supreme Court made history by voting 6-1 to uphold Proposition 8, a voter approved amendment the state constitution to define marriage an an exclusively heterosexual act. One may wonder how such a thing could be possible in a state with such a liberal reputation. In brief, the initial passage of Proposition 8 was made possible by the massive financial support of the Mormon church and other Christian groups. And based on state law, it appears that the Supreme Court had little recourse but to uphold the law. I am optimistic that California will legalize same-sex marriage in 2010 when this issue is before the voters again, but that does not take away the sting of the latest ruling. There are lessons here for the fledgling atheist movement too, and we would be remiss to neglect them.
History provides numerous examples of where privileged Christians have legislated their view of morality. Whether we think of prohibition, anti-miscegenation laws, or efforts to censor certain forms of music in the 1980s and 1990s, we see a common theme emerging. These groups want to force their religion on others through theocratic means. They threaten everything that makes America worthwhile.
We have recently learned that at least one high-profile Christian extremist opposes marriage between atheists and Christians. Who is to say that this will not be the next measure to appear on the ballot? And who is to say that they might not achieve their desired outcome by pouring enough money into it?
I have recently grown frustrated with some heterosexual atheists talking about how they oppose Proposition 8 as some sort of gift to their gay friends even though it is "irrelevant" to them. If you are truly convinced that gay rights is irrelevant to those of us who are not gay, then I'm not sure why you would expect anyone to give a damn about our rights as atheists. How can the civil rights of any group be irrelevant?
The forces of bigotry have learned a great deal about how to influence the political and legal processes. If we refuse to learn from our experience, we risk giving up our basic rights. That is one risk I am simply not willing to take.
(photo by Tony the Misfit)Subscribe to Atheist Revolution
Copyright © 2008 Atheist Revolution. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement.![]()
![]()
![]()
California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8
Posted: 26 May 2009 11:09 AM PDT
California's Supreme Court voted today to uphold Proposition 8, maintaining the ban on same-sex marriage in the state. Today is a sad day for civil rights, but this one is not over. It is high time that we in the U.S. wake up to the fact that we have given religiously-motivated bigotry way too much power.
Image by Jamison via Flickr
For more, see Atheists and Gays: Time For An Alliance.Subscribe to Atheist Revolution
Tags: California, Proposition 8, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, law, court
Copyright © 2008 Atheist Revolution. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement.![]()
![]()
![]()
You are subscribed to email updates from Atheist Revolution
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.Email delivery powered by Google Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Atheist Revolution in a feed reader.
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Atheist Revolution, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out.
Human...@aol.com
May 31, 2009, 12:10:05 AM5/31/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
First of all I am not insecure at least not sexually.
I have plenty of references and letters of recommendation. Secondly, I am
not overly concerned about what people call me. As to the subject at hand
I am only interested in effective communication. If you dilute a word you
dilute it's meaning. Why would someone be afraid to use a word that serves to
elucidate the form of "marriage" that they have. If I were gay, I would
not be ashamed to say that I have a gay-marriage. In my situation I am not
ashamed to say that I have a hetero-marriage. It is hard for me to see how
being in favor of elucidating our modern terminology translates into
insecurity and bigotry. On the contrary, gay couples having the same legal
rights as legally married hetro couples is long overdue in my
view.
Perhaps we should avoid confusion by throwing out the
word marriage and create new, specific terminology that more accurately reflects
the type of relationships and commitments that humans have in the twenty first
century.
I don't agree with the Christians and they don't agree
with me. They are against gay rights, I am not. I am just in favor of
clarity of terminology.
J.
I say you're insecure, because you're worried about what people will
call you. Or at least Humanist21 is. Why does gay marriage need a
different label? Unless you're worried about what others call YOU, it
doesn't make any sense why you'd advocate what is tantamount to a
separate but equal policy.
I'm sure those coloreds have a nice water fountain, I just don't want
them drinking from the same one as me.
OZ
Orson Zedd
May 31, 2009, 2:09:20 AM5/31/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
see, this goes back to the semantics thing. Words only mean what
people decide they mean. There is no implicit meaning, and you all
know this. You might have this overly specific PC term for whatever
the hell you want, but at the end of the day, like kool-aid and
band-aids, and xeroxes and kleenexes, people are going to use a
language that no one determines through prescriptive rules.
> (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/355/47.796964/-66.374711/2/Youve-Found-Where-Its-At?ncid=eml
> cntnew00000007)
>
> >
>
people decide they mean. There is no implicit meaning, and you all
know this. You might have this overly specific PC term for whatever
the hell you want, but at the end of the day, like kool-aid and
band-aids, and xeroxes and kleenexes, people are going to use a
language that no one determines through prescriptive rules.
> cntnew00000007)
>
> >
>
Clogtowner
May 31, 2009, 10:20:41 AM5/31/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - perhaps the solution will present itself. If gays start
calling themselves "married" and this causes confusion with strangers
and documentation, perhaps a new word will evolve to describe the
relationship and distinguish it from a traditional marriage. I don't
even like the word gay! I like its traditional meaning. If the
homosexual community had not chosen the word themselves, I would not
use it. It sounds demeaning to me even if it is an acronym for "good
as you" which doesn't make sense to me logically.
I'm leaving for the gay rights rally now - I have no problem with
that.
On May 31, 1:09 am, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> see, this goes back to the semantics thing. Words only mean what
> people decide they mean. There is no implicit meaning, and you all
> know this. You might have this overly specific PC term for whatever
> the hell you want, but at the end of the day, like kool-aid and
> band-aids, and xeroxes and kleenexes, people are going to use a
> language that no one determines through prescriptive rules.
>
> OZ
>
> > On 5/30/09, Clogtowner <clogtow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/355/47.796964/-66.374711/...
> > cntnew00000007)
calling themselves "married" and this causes confusion with strangers
and documentation, perhaps a new word will evolve to describe the
relationship and distinguish it from a traditional marriage. I don't
even like the word gay! I like its traditional meaning. If the
homosexual community had not chosen the word themselves, I would not
use it. It sounds demeaning to me even if it is an acronym for "good
as you" which doesn't make sense to me logically.
I'm leaving for the gay rights rally now - I have no problem with
that.
On May 31, 1:09 am, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> see, this goes back to the semantics thing. Words only mean what
> people decide they mean. There is no implicit meaning, and you all
> know this. You might have this overly specific PC term for whatever
> the hell you want, but at the end of the day, like kool-aid and
> band-aids, and xeroxes and kleenexes, people are going to use a
> language that no one determines through prescriptive rules.
>
> OZ
>
> > cntnew00000007)
ornamentalmind
May 31, 2009, 12:23:57 PM5/31/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
OK, new terms to suit the situation....
married-f = 2 married females
married-m = 2 married males]
married-b = both genders, married
QED
Oh, and as to what one calles the people....IF a male wishes to be
called a wife and a female wishes to be called a husband, I don't have
trouble keeping track of that. . . even though the often obvious
physical characteristics currently make this decision easier. Of
course, with the onset of sex change operations.... we need to advance
in both language and action to meet the scientific advancement!
> > > cntnew00000007)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
married-f = 2 married females
married-m = 2 married males]
married-b = both genders, married
QED
Oh, and as to what one calles the people....IF a male wishes to be
called a wife and a female wishes to be called a husband, I don't have
trouble keeping track of that. . . even though the often obvious
physical characteristics currently make this decision easier. Of
course, with the onset of sex change operations.... we need to advance
in both language and action to meet the scientific advancement!
>
> - Show quoted text -
Orson Zedd
May 31, 2009, 5:23:45 PM5/31/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
And I'll just call them all married, and not use a hyphenated word,
because new terms aren't any good when old terms work just fine, if
evolved.
OZ
because new terms aren't any good when old terms work just fine, if
evolved.
OZ
Human...@aol.com
May 31, 2009, 8:16:42 PM5/31/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Now that that's settled, what will we do about the
problem of merging 2 last names? It is not fair to expect one partner to do a
name change. If neither change their name what do you name the kids?
Name the girls after the mutha and the boys after the fatha? Do you
acknowledge the surrogate mother and the sperm donor in some way? How many
hyphens in a name are too many? Should everyone change their name when they get
married, hyphenated marriage or not?
I suppose there are growing pains that have to be
worked out with any social advancement. I'm just glad that I don't have kids and
am out of the loop. Speaking of which, if marriage is for reproduction, should I
have been allowed to marry since I had long before had a
vasectomy?
If none of this makes sense, keep in mind that it is
near the end of happy hour.
J.
Clogtowner
May 31, 2009, 8:43:34 PM5/31/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - I'll bet the State didn't ask you if you were planning to
reproduce!
On May 31, 7:16 pm, Humanis...@aol.com wrote:
> Now that that's settled, what will we do about the problem of merging 2
> last names? It is not fair to expect one partner to do a name change. If
> neither change their name what do you name the kids? Name the girls after the
> mutha and the boys after the fatha? Do you acknowledge the surrogate
> mother and the sperm donor in some way? How many hyphens in a name are too
> many? Should everyone change their name when they get married, hyphenated
> marriage or not?
> I suppose there are growing pains that have to be worked out with any
> social advancement. I'm just glad that I don't have kids and am out of the
> loop. Speaking of which, if marriage is for reproduction, should I have been
> allowed to marry since I had long before had a vasectomy?
> If none of this makes sense, keep in mind that it is near the end of happy
> hour.
>
> J.
>
> And I'll just call them all married, and not use a hyphenated word,
> because new terms aren't any good when old terms work just fine, if
> evolved.
>
> OZ
>
reproduce!
On May 31, 7:16 pm, Humanis...@aol.com wrote:
> Now that that's settled, what will we do about the problem of merging 2
> last names? It is not fair to expect one partner to do a name change. If
> neither change their name what do you name the kids? Name the girls after the
> mutha and the boys after the fatha? Do you acknowledge the surrogate
> mother and the sperm donor in some way? How many hyphens in a name are too
> many? Should everyone change their name when they get married, hyphenated
> marriage or not?
> I suppose there are growing pains that have to be worked out with any
> social advancement. I'm just glad that I don't have kids and am out of the
> loop. Speaking of which, if marriage is for reproduction, should I have been
> allowed to marry since I had long before had a vasectomy?
> If none of this makes sense, keep in mind that it is near the end of happy
> hour.
>
> J.
>
> And I'll just call them all married, and not use a hyphenated word,
> because new terms aren't any good when old terms work just fine, if
> evolved.
>
> OZ
>
Tom
May 31, 2009, 8:54:30 PM5/31/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
In many countries like Spain, no one changes their name, for children, the middle name is the mother's last and the last name is the father's last name I believe.
Orson Zedd
May 31, 2009, 8:56:07 PM5/31/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Like the other names, just have the parents determine the surname.
OZ
OZ
ornamentalmind
Jun 1, 2009, 11:46:43 AM6/1/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
"And I'll just call them all married,..." - oz
As would I OZ...merely offering options for the conceptually
impaired! :D
On May 31, 2:23 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I'll just call them all married, and not use a hyphenated word,
> because new terms aren't any good when old terms work just fine, if
> evolved.
>
> OZ
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
As would I OZ...merely offering options for the conceptually
impaired! :D
On May 31, 2:23 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I'll just call them all married, and not use a hyphenated word,
> because new terms aren't any good when old terms work just fine, if
> evolved.
>
> OZ
>
Orson Zedd
Jun 1, 2009, 1:12:04 PM6/1/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Aaaah, gotcha.
I dunno, I mean, really, my argument is just that it's very difficult
to dictate how language is used. I don't know how many people here
know much about 4chan, but forced memes never catch on.
OZ
I dunno, I mean, really, my argument is just that it's very difficult
to dictate how language is used. I don't know how many people here
know much about 4chan, but forced memes never catch on.
OZ
Nathan
Jun 1, 2009, 4:24:03 PM6/1/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Orson,
You keep accusing Clog of being a prescriptivist. (Note that such is
not necessarily a bad thing; prescriptivism versus descriptivism a
long-running debate among dictionary editors.) It seems to me,
however, that he's making a descriptivist argument: People have always
used marriage to mean a male-female lifelong partnership, so that is
how we should continue to use it. You, on the other hand, along with
much of the gay rights movement, are being prescriptivist by
deliberately forcing a new usage upon an old word. To say that
marriage means a union between a man and a woman is descriptive; to
say that marriage should now include the union between two men or two
women is prescriptive.
That's not to comment at all upon which one of you is right and which
is wrong; I merely wanted to clear up a false accusation against Clog.
// Nathan
On May 31, 1:09 am, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> see, this goes back to the semantics thing. Words only mean what
> people decide they mean. There is no implicit meaning, and you all
> know this. You might have this overly specific PC term for whatever
> the hell you want, but at the end of the day, like kool-aid and
> band-aids, and xeroxes and kleenexes, people are going to use a
> language that no one determines through prescriptive rules.
>
> OZ
>
> > On 5/30/09, Clogtowner <clogtow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/355/47.796964/-66.374711/...
> > cntnew00000007)
You keep accusing Clog of being a prescriptivist. (Note that such is
not necessarily a bad thing; prescriptivism versus descriptivism a
long-running debate among dictionary editors.) It seems to me,
however, that he's making a descriptivist argument: People have always
used marriage to mean a male-female lifelong partnership, so that is
how we should continue to use it. You, on the other hand, along with
much of the gay rights movement, are being prescriptivist by
deliberately forcing a new usage upon an old word. To say that
marriage means a union between a man and a woman is descriptive; to
say that marriage should now include the union between two men or two
women is prescriptive.
That's not to comment at all upon which one of you is right and which
is wrong; I merely wanted to clear up a false accusation against Clog.
// Nathan
On May 31, 1:09 am, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> see, this goes back to the semantics thing. Words only mean what
> people decide they mean. There is no implicit meaning, and you all
> know this. You might have this overly specific PC term for whatever
> the hell you want, but at the end of the day, like kool-aid and
> band-aids, and xeroxes and kleenexes, people are going to use a
> language that no one determines through prescriptive rules.
>
> OZ
>
> > cntnew00000007)
Orson Zedd
Jun 1, 2009, 5:02:42 PM6/1/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
No, here's what I'm saying. I'm saying that people will redefine
marriage to mean a union of two people. The reason they'll redefine
it is because language evolves.
"People have always
used marriage to mean a male-female lifelong partnership, so that is
how we should continue to use it. You"
That is not a descriptivist argument. That is a prescriptivist
argument. It's making the prescribed argument that marriage means a
male-female lifelong partnership. It's prescriptivist, because it
dictates how the language should be used and does not describe how it
is used (which is descriptivism). Indeed, BOTH definitions are
currently correct, because BOTH definitions are used by the population
at large.
OZ
marriage to mean a union of two people. The reason they'll redefine
it is because language evolves.
"People have always
used marriage to mean a male-female lifelong partnership, so that is
how we should continue to use it. You"
argument. It's making the prescribed argument that marriage means a
male-female lifelong partnership. It's prescriptivist, because it
dictates how the language should be used and does not describe how it
is used (which is descriptivism). Indeed, BOTH definitions are
currently correct, because BOTH definitions are used by the population
at large.
OZ
ornamentalmind
Jun 1, 2009, 6:03:11 PM6/1/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
...seems that the origin of the term isn't quite as "always" as
projected beliefs would have us accept.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=marry&searchmode=none
On Jun 1, 2:02 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, here's what I'm saying. I'm saying that people will redefine
> marriage to mean a union of two people. The reason they'll redefine
> it is because language evolves.
>
> "People have always
> used marriage to mean a male-female lifelong partnership, so that is
> how we should continue to use it. You"
>
> That is not a descriptivist argument. That is a prescriptivist
> argument. It's making the prescribed argument that marriage means a
> male-female lifelong partnership. It's prescriptivist, because it
> dictates how the language should be used and does not describe how it
> is used (which is descriptivism). Indeed, BOTH definitions are
> currently correct, because BOTH definitions are used by the population
> at large.
>
> OZ
>
projected beliefs would have us accept.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=marry&searchmode=none
On Jun 1, 2:02 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, here's what I'm saying. I'm saying that people will redefine
> marriage to mean a union of two people. The reason they'll redefine
> it is because language evolves.
>
> "People have always
> used marriage to mean a male-female lifelong partnership, so that is
> how we should continue to use it. You"
>
> That is not a descriptivist argument. That is a prescriptivist
> argument. It's making the prescribed argument that marriage means a
> male-female lifelong partnership. It's prescriptivist, because it
> dictates how the language should be used and does not describe how it
> is used (which is descriptivism). Indeed, BOTH definitions are
> currently correct, because BOTH definitions are used by the population
> at large.
>
> OZ
>
Jason
Jun 1, 2009, 7:11:14 PM6/1/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
I agree with Nathan on his prescriptive and descriptive point.
However, I think that the very definition of marriage will change once
again. In the South, marriage used to mean a union between a white
male and white female; or a black male and white female. Mixed unions
were not marriages and against the law until someone redefined a
marriage. Personally, I think that gay groups should just stick with
the "civil union" and government should get out of marriages all
together. If a couple wants to get married, they can do it through
some secular non-governmental organization or a church. Government is
getting to entangled in the definition of marriage and religion
involved in this definition. Instead, government should be focusing
on more important issues such as what legal rights should be granted
to various couples after a civil union occurs.
However, I think that the very definition of marriage will change once
again. In the South, marriage used to mean a union between a white
male and white female; or a black male and white female. Mixed unions
were not marriages and against the law until someone redefined a
marriage. Personally, I think that gay groups should just stick with
the "civil union" and government should get out of marriages all
together. If a couple wants to get married, they can do it through
some secular non-governmental organization or a church. Government is
getting to entangled in the definition of marriage and religion
involved in this definition. Instead, government should be focusing
on more important issues such as what legal rights should be granted
to various couples after a civil union occurs.
Jason
Jun 1, 2009, 7:12:23 PM6/1/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Orson,
Perhaps the definition of marriage is evolving in a direction that
will lead to extinction.
Jason
On Jun 1, 3:02 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, here's what I'm saying. I'm saying that people will redefine
> marriage to mean a union of two people. The reason they'll redefine
> it is because language evolves.
>
> "People have always
> used marriage to mean a male-female lifelong partnership, so that is
> how we should continue to use it. You"
>
> That is not a descriptivist argument. That is a prescriptivist
> argument. It's making the prescribed argument that marriage means a
> male-female lifelong partnership. It's prescriptivist, because it
> dictates how the language should be used and does not describe how it
> is used (which is descriptivism). Indeed, BOTH definitions are
> currently correct, because BOTH definitions are used by the population
> at large.
>
> OZ
>
Perhaps the definition of marriage is evolving in a direction that
will lead to extinction.
Jason
On Jun 1, 3:02 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, here's what I'm saying. I'm saying that people will redefine
> marriage to mean a union of two people. The reason they'll redefine
> it is because language evolves.
>
> "People have always
> used marriage to mean a male-female lifelong partnership, so that is
> how we should continue to use it. You"
>
> That is not a descriptivist argument. That is a prescriptivist
> argument. It's making the prescribed argument that marriage means a
> male-female lifelong partnership. It's prescriptivist, because it
> dictates how the language should be used and does not describe how it
> is used (which is descriptivism). Indeed, BOTH definitions are
> currently correct, because BOTH definitions are used by the population
> at large.
>
> OZ
>
Orson Zedd
Jun 1, 2009, 7:45:09 PM6/1/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
It's possible, but I wonder if the majority will stop using the word marriage?
OZ
OZ
Human...@aol.com
Jun 1, 2009, 8:55:51 PM6/1/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
When I was single I lived in sin with a couple of
women. I never did come up with a good term for the relationship. POSSLQ
never really caught on and no one knew what it meant when I used the term.
How do sinners refer to their live in relationship now?
From the 70's
- There's nothing that I wouldn't do
- If you would be my POSSLQ
- You live with me and I with you,
- And you will be my POSSLQ.
- I'll be your friend and so much more;
- That's what a POSSLQ is for.
- If you would be my POSSLQ
Orson Zedd
Jun 1, 2009, 10:38:18 PM6/1/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
freeloading.
> (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/355/47.796964/-66.374711/2/Youve-Found-Where-Its-At?ncid=eml
> cntnew00000007)
>
> >
>
> cntnew00000007)
>
> >
>
ornamentalmind
Jun 2, 2009, 12:22:40 PM6/2/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Perhaps the definition of atheism is evolving in the direction that
will lead to extinction....
On Jun 1, 7:38 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> freeloading.
will lead to extinction....
On Jun 1, 7:38 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> freeloading.
>
> On 6/1/09, Humanis...@aol.com <Humanis...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > When I was single I lived in sin with a couple of women. I never did come
> > up with a good term for the relationship. POSSLQ never really caught on
> > and no one knew what it meant when I used the term. How do sinners refer
> > to
> > their live in relationship now?
>
> > From the 70's
>
> > There's nothing that I wouldn't do
> > If you would be my POSSLQ
> > You live with me and I with you,
> > And you will be my POSSLQ.
> > I'll be your friend and so much more;
> > That's what a POSSLQ is for.
>
> > It's possible, but I wonder if the majority will stop using the word
> > marriage?
>
> > OZ
>
> > On 6/1/09, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/09, Humanis...@aol.com <Humanis...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > When I was single I lived in sin with a couple of women. I never did come
> > up with a good term for the relationship. POSSLQ never really caught on
> > and no one knew what it meant when I used the term. How do sinners refer
> > to
> > their live in relationship now?
>
> > From the 70's
>
> > There's nothing that I wouldn't do
> > If you would be my POSSLQ
> > You live with me and I with you,
> > And you will be my POSSLQ.
> > I'll be your friend and so much more;
> > That's what a POSSLQ is for.
>
> > It's possible, but I wonder if the majority will stop using the word
> > marriage?
>
> > OZ
>
bc_...@yahoo.com
Jun 2, 2009, 1:50:09 PM6/2/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Orson, lest you feel alone here in your position, you are not.
Just an FYI, though, as I don't currently have the time or interest to
get involved in this debate.
-BC-
Just an FYI, though, as I don't currently have the time or interest to
get involved in this debate.
-BC-
Jason
Jun 2, 2009, 4:41:01 PM6/2/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Atheists have always been a minority...but not extinct yet. The
definition of atheism (not believing in the supernatural such as gods,
afterlife, unicorns, reincarnation, fairies, etc). has been consistent
since I've heard of the definition of atheism. However, there may be
other definitions.
> ...
>
> read more »
definition of atheism (not believing in the supernatural such as gods,
afterlife, unicorns, reincarnation, fairies, etc). has been consistent
since I've heard of the definition of atheism. However, there may be
other definitions.
>
> read more »
ornamentalmind
Jun 2, 2009, 6:36:08 PM6/2/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
question: what do unicorns and fairies, etc. have to do with theism/
atheism?
>
> read more »
atheism?
> > > >>> >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
>
> read more »
Human...@aol.com
Jun 2, 2009, 7:01:56 PM6/2/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Are you sober?
J.
Clogtowner
Jun 2, 2009, 7:03:06 PM6/2/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Hi y'all - interesting how a good argument can create strange
bedfellows - especially in this context!!
bedfellows - especially in this context!!
stem cell
Jun 2, 2009, 11:43:17 PM6/2/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
Orn said"
non-theist , where theism is a creed and belief in God. I would say
that I am an A-santaclausus - A-mothergoose... I do not know if I
would say that I am A-fairie though. :-)
stem
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
"question: what do unicorns and fairies, etc. have to do with theism/
atheism?"
That is what I would like to know. A-theism = not really "theist" -
atheism?"
non-theist , where theism is a creed and belief in God. I would say
that I am an A-santaclausus - A-mothergoose... I do not know if I
would say that I am A-fairie though. :-)
stem
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Orson Zedd
Jun 2, 2009, 11:50:59 PM6/2/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
an atheist can believe in all sorts of unbelievable crap, as long as
they don't believe in gods. This presents a problem ,because people
who are atheists may not be rational.
OZ
they don't believe in gods. This presents a problem ,because people
who are atheists may not be rational.
OZ
stem cell
Jun 3, 2009, 12:01:47 AM6/3/09
to Memphis Freethought Alliance
So very true........That is one reason I find CFI, The Sceptical
Inquirer, The Skeptic Mag. and many books from Prometheus publishers
on my bookshelves...
stem
On Jun 2, 10:50 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> an atheist can believe in all sorts of unbelievable crap, as long as
> they don't believe in gods. This presents a problem ,because people
> who are atheists may not be rational.
>
> OZ
>
Inquirer, The Skeptic Mag. and many books from Prometheus publishers
on my bookshelves...
stem
On Jun 2, 10:50 pm, Orson Zedd <nintenfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> an atheist can believe in all sorts of unbelievable crap, as long as
> they don't believe in gods. This presents a problem ,because people
> who are atheists may not be rational.
>
> OZ
>
Liz Purkrabek
Jun 3, 2009, 12:13:07 AM6/3/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Liz Purkrabek
Jun 3, 2009, 12:13:29 AM6/3/09
to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
I am a proud, irrational atheist.
-----Original Message-----
From: memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Orson Zedd
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:51 PM
To: memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Atheist Revolution
-----Original Message-----
From: memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Orson Zedd
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:51 PM
To: memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Atheist Revolution
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages