Same-sex marriages in Sweden

[Blakut]

The discourse of Soviet communism's specific atheism is as much "a wrong of atheism" as the opposite insanity of Muslims would be "a wrong of religion".

If all communists are atheists id doesn't mean that all atheists are communists. Atheism existed long before communism. Atheism means the inexistence of faith, it doens't mean kill the faithful. I am an atheist and an anticommunist, can you believe that? But i also believe that people should have the right to believe what they want, something which no religion can guarantee: if you don't belong to a certain religion, its followers will assume that you are inherently flawed. I don't believe that religious people are flawed. Just believing in something which does not exist.

But for some reason, procreation is a "right" rather than something you should earn, let alone a "duty". Typical idiocracy.

I agree with you on this one, there one should prove he is able to raise children and take care of them in order to have the right to have one. Alchoholics, murderes, rapists, insane people... these guys should have to find it more difficult to have children.

I know, I know, in one case you can speak of religious motivations while in the other case the motivations lie outside any religious or non-religious matters wholesale. Except that's not really true, is it? The discourse of Soviet communism's specific atheism is as much "a wrong of atheism" as the opposite insanity of Muslims would be "a wrong of religion".

No it isn't. Atheism does not have a docttrine. There is no atheist church. Each atheist has it's own belief, the only thing that is common to all is not believing in God (denying its existence - i won't discuss the types of atheism now).

If Muslim extremism is an example of the flaws of religion, why aren't the Soviet horrors an example of the flaws of atheism?

Because Muslim extremism is based on religion, while Soviet horrors are not. Communism is not the result of atheism and its horrors had no antireligious motive, that is, they were not the cause of a certain belief or nonbelief in god.

 

[Brother None]

Ok, tried to skip over, but...

If all communists are atheists id doesn't mean that all atheists are communists.

If all Religious Extremists are religious it doesn't mean all religious people are Religious Extremists. That was the whole point, duh friggin' gypsy.

But i also believe that people should have the right to believe what they want, something which no religion can guarantee:

I'm sorry? A number of religions, including certain Christian denominations, Sikhism and forms of Hinduism, do guarantee your right to believe what you want. In fact, I'd say they're a lot more tolerant of atheism than a number of atheists are of them, including you, Mr Heap All Religions Into One Pile.

Just believing in something which does not exist.

Oh yeah, that's totally not a flaw. Durr?

Atheism does not have a docttrine. There is no atheist church. Each atheist has it's own belief, the only thing that is common to all is not believing in God.

Are you paying attention to the original argument I posited, i.e. it is no more fair to heap all religions into one pile than it is to do the same with atheism's subsets? Thanks for affirming my point.

Here's a hint, like a , "religion" does not have "a doctrine" either.

Communism is not the result of atheism and its horrors had no antireligious motive, that is, they were not the cause of a certain belief or nonbelief in god.

You really believe that? Maybe you should brush up on where Marxism comes from in humanist and rationalist traditions before making bold assumptions like that. The most striking part of your bit there is this:

its horrors had no antireligious motive.

You're seriously going to tell me you don't know anything about communism's persecution of religions?

 

[Blakut]

You really believe that? Maybe you should brush up on where Marxism comes from in humanist and rationalist traditions before making bold assumptions like that. The most striking part of your bit there is this:

I was talking about Communism, not Marxism. Even if one is origin of the other. I know of the flaws of communism, and why it is a defectuous ideology.

You're seriously going to tell me you don't know anything about communism's persecution of religions?

Exactly, communism persecution of religions, not atheist persecution of religions. In my country, the official view of the Communist party was pro-atheist. However, most high ranking party members celebrated religious hollidays, behind closed doors. This happened in other countries too. Does that mean that it wasn't the communists that killed people and dissidents in my country?

A number of religions, including certain Christian denominations, Sikhism and forms of Hinduism, do guarantee your right to believe what you want. In fact, I'd say they're a lot more tolerant of atheism than a number of atheists are of them, including you, Mr Heap All Religions Into One Pile.

They let you believe what you want, as long as you believe in a God. How many of those let you be an atheist?They may say they guarantee the right, but they still consider one to be flawed unless they belong to a certain religion.

If all Religious Extremists are religious it doesn't mean all religious people are Religious Extremists. That was the whole point, duh friggin' gypsy.

I cannot help but to notice that Religious Extremists are people that have taken their religion too far, while communists are not people who took atheism too far. In fact, one could not justify murder or genocide just through atheism alone. The fact that most religious texts have no clear meaning, but are powerfull motivating factors makes me think that many religions are dangerous.

ust believing in something which does not exist.

Oh yeah, that's totally not a flaw. Durr?

It becomes a flaw when you confuse belief with fact. Fore example i don't find it a flaw when some one tells me "I believe in god". It is a flaw when it becomes "I know God exists, i base my opinion on these facts!".

 

[Brother None]

In fact, one could not justify murder or genocide just through atheism alone.

Oh...Oh wow...you...you actually believe that?

Anyway, I'm going to stop you right there, it looks to me like you completely missed the point I was trying to make - and I was just making a point, not starting an argument - instead misinterpreting this as some kind of atheism vs religion ho-down. I'm not really interested in explaining it to you or having some futile atheism vs religion debate. No loss.

 

[Blakut]

Oh...Oh wow...you...you actually believe that?

Well. I just don't see how. I can't for one.

Anyway, I'm going to stop you right there, it looks to me like you completely missed the point I was trying to make, instead misinterpreting this as some kind of atheism vs religion ho-down. I'm not really interested in explaining it to you. No loss.

I don't think i totally missed the point. Funny thing is that this is exactly how i see things too. Anyway, enough with the atheism and religion, i'll get back on topic.

Same sex marriages:
Normally, i should not oppose them. However, the same sex marriages lead to gay couples wanting to adopt/have and raise children. I don't really believe that a child growing up in such a family would become a normal individual. I mean, i've seen how people grow out without a parent, or within a conflicting family. How would a kid with two dads kissing grow up?

Honestly, why the hell would you mind same-sex marriages? It's this backwards protection of traditional institutions, that ceased to have any real meaning with the death of feudalism, I really don't get.

If it's so backwards and meaningless, why do they want it so bad? (i mean, i understand why they do, that only proves that marriage is not meaningless).

 

[Brother None]

Ok, I admit, I'm really bad at not replying.

Well. I just don't see how. I can't for one.

Atheism isn't just lack of belief in God, it's also something you can build a new life philosophy structure on. Atheism in that sense isn't an umbrella definition of "a lot of people", it is something new socio-political systems are built on, from principles directly or indirectly related to the abandoning of religious systems. This goes for communism just as much as liberal democracy.

I don't think i totally missed the point. Funny thing is that this is exactly how i see things too.

See what things? What point do you think I was trying to make?

 

[xdarkyrex]

You two would make a terrible couple.

 

[Brother None]

I make a terrible couple, period.

This is all going to be split-vatted sometimes soon, by the way

 

[xdarkyrex]

I assumed as much, thats why I didn't think too much ofd adding in some off-topic.

 

[Brother None]

STOP SPAMMING OR BE TERMINATED

 

[victor]

RIGHT!


Before this thread derails completely into religious nutjobs (that means anyone who adheres to an organized religion) versus hardcore press-my-wisdom-onto-you atheists (who, despite not wanting to acknowledge it, also "believe" and hence, form organized religion), let's stay on the topic of same-sex marriages.

Can someone explain to me in detail the advantages of marriage? Isn't it just an outdated institution we could do without? What perks are there except common bank accounts (which can probably be formed between two non-married people?), and the obvious 50% loss of all funds if (when) a divorce happens?

 

[Ah-Teen]

Oh fuck bank accounts. If I were allowed to marry I'd probably still have my own.

I want to be legally recognized as spouse to my mate.

I want to have a say in what happens should my mate become unable to let known his wishes.

I want my mate to have the same.

I want exactly the same rights as everyone else.

What is so fucking wrong with that?

 

[Mettle]

Can someone explain to me in detail the advantages of marriage? Isn't it just an outdated institution we could do without? What perks are there except common bank accounts (which can probably be formed between two non-married people?), and the obvious 50% loss of all funds if (when) a divorce happens?

Someone to find your socks for you?

Jokes aside, it differs from country to country. I don't know this for a fact, since a law-student told me this, but in Sweden you can't write a will to someone you're not married with or related by blood to. So if you want to leave your partner some money incase of acute lead poisoning for instance, you'll have to get married.

Same sex marriages:
Normally, i should not oppose them. However, the same sex marriages lead to gay couples wanting to adopt/have and raise children. I don't really believe that a child growing up in such a family would become a normal individual. I mean, i've seen how people grow out without a parent, or within a conflicting family. How would a kid with two dads kissing grow up?

Tolerant?
I doubt that they'd end up being any different from others really, there's no sence in that statement.

 

[Brother None]

Can someone explain to me in detail the advantages of marriage?

In detail? No, because it varies per country. But generally:

- There are tax reductions offered to married couples, as well as the possibility of doing an income combination which can move you into a lower tier in progressive tax systems
- you are handled as family for the sake of delicate matters (hospitalization, inheritance, etc.)
- you can usually choose whether you wish to combine property or not
- in some systems, married couples share any debt obligations

Oh yeah, and if you have sex out of wedlock you GO TO HELL.

 

[xdarkyrex]

RIGHT!


Before this thread derails completely into religious nutjobs (that means anyone who adheres to an organized religion) versus hardcore press-my-wisdom-onto-you atheists (who, despite not wanting to acknowledge it, also "believe" and hence, form organized religion), let's stay on the topic of same-sex marriages.

Can someone explain to me in detail the advantages of marriage? Isn't it just an outdated institution we could do without? What perks are there except common bank accounts (which can probably be formed between two non-married people?), and the obvious 50% loss of all funds if (when) a divorce happens?

It largely has to do with religious tradition and the parents of a child raising it... or so I assume. The rest of the legal benefits BN said, also. Those to me though, are essentially pointless, and the only legitimate thing is the handling of delicate matters and debts, which I think should be handled by a will anyways. Everyone should be forced to create a will on their 18th birthday, to be updated whenever they feel inclined, then marriage will be truly and utterly pointless in a legal context. Most of the remaining benefits of marriage are totally arbitrary or ritualistic. Well, then there are a large portion of people who basically get married as a contract because they have no self esteem and need the promise of security to think a relationship is worthwhile. That is more a case amongst men than women in my experience. People think that if they do not get married, their significant other may leave them any day. As if it somehow makes a difference? People are idiots.

 

[Zaij]

I don't care one way or another in gay marriage, if they want to ruin their life by it go ahead. That said, I don't think that this is the right time for gay couples to be having kids. Too much homophobia, just think of the poor kid when he/she gets to school.

 

[xdarkyrex]

I don't care one way or another in gay marriage, if they want to ruin their life by it go ahead. That said, I don't think that this is the right time for gay couples to be having kids. Too much homophobia, just think of the poor kid when he/she gets to school.

...same could be said about just about any minority group.

 

[Ashmo]

Oh yeah, and if you have sex out of wedlock you GO TO HELL.

Maybe that's why conservatives don't want gay people to be allowed to marry? Fear of gaying up heaven?

But seriously, if a gay couple abstains from sex until marriage, are they less doomed? Will they go to "Hell Light" or something? Only be smoten a wee bit rather than totally?

I know, I know, the church only deals with absolutes, so you're either doomed or not. Spoilsports.

 

[Sorrow]

I don't care one way or another in gay marriage, if they want to ruin their life by it go ahead. That said, I don't think that this is the right time for gay couples to be having kids. Too much homophobia, just think of the poor kid when he/she gets to school.

...same could be said about just about any minority group.

...same could be said just about any kid.

 

[Zaij]

I don't see how the same could be said of a minority group. And with your hetero-parent kid, the only ammunition kids at school are going to use on them is what they give to their peers (unless they're fugly). Gay-marriage kid has already got ammunition to be used against them because of the choice their parent made. At least when it comes to ugliness it's a lottery and not chosen by your parents.