Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Poupou Escobar]

Not all. Some are people who've just made the choice to be religious, like some people choose to support the Bulldogs. But the others are brainwashed, others are morons, and others can't think for themselves.

Fair enough

Again you fail to address the scenario fo where the leaders move away from the views held by the followers, or fail to recognise the follows views "shifting with the times". When was the last time church "followers" effected change in their leadership?

I don't think most of them see their 'leaders' as having authority any more than they see their elected representatives having authority. These people are chosen to serve, not to rule.

OK, didn't see that post. You're admitting you find the thought of men having sex with men disgusting...

I'd say 'admitting' is a bit of a dramatisation. It's not something I ever felt the need to hide any more than I felt the need to tell merkins. It just never came up in conversation until today in this thread.

so I can now see the attraction to you of conservative-led hierarchical institutions (albeit led by men in frocks).

Except I don't feel drawn to hierarchical institutions. I'm actually a bit of a loner and only ever saw institutions as a resource, or a means to an end. I recognise their importance to society though. To paraphrase, I certainly don't think the forest would look better without the trees.

Men in frocks are pretty funny though.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

OK, doesn't seem like much of a difference though.

So instead of writing "Pou argues that relious people pick and choose which of the beliefs of their church's elders/ruling elite that they believe" I should have written "Pou argues that relious people pick and choose which of the doctrines of their church's elders/ruling elite that they believe"?

I think you're focusing too much on the hierarchical nature of religion. It is a personal choice, not a conscript military. Even the people who are born to it have the freedom to believe whatever they want.

 

[phantom eel]

Fair enough.

And did you say earlier in the threa that you were voting yes?

 

[phantom eel]

I think you're focusing too much on the hierarchical nature of religion. It is a personal choice, not a conscript military. Even the people who are born to it have the freedom to believe whatever they want.

Theoretical freedom, sure.

Are you disputing the hirarchical nature of the church/es as institutions, or ignoring the potential impacts of a hierarchical culture on willing followers, whose freedom of choice includes the belief that regious leaders have a valid role in their personal faith system?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

But marriage wasn't always a religious thing.

Was marriage religious in ancient Greece?
Was marriage religious in pre-Christian ancient Rome?
And was marriage religious in the European early Christian era?

Yes it was mate. Marriage was a way to ensure that somebody beyond just the mother took responsibility for turning a child from an economic liability to an economic asset.

In pre-modern times whatever was socially necessary became religiously mandated. Thus marriage became a sacred bond in the eyes of God. Because the alternative was fatherless children and social chaos.

If marriage wasn't always religious, then it doesn't need to always remain religious, and so we should support the right of people to equally access marriage under the law (the church can stay out of it, and continue their drift into irrelvance).

Given the people who are pro-SSM are generally the same ones who are anti-marriage anyway, they have less skin in the game. Government recognised interdependent relationships have replaced marriage for these people anyway. When it is 'merely' legal it is no longer sacred. So they get what they want and the people who still see marriage as sacred for religious reasons can have their traditions not shat upon, and there is no need for the government to discriminate. Everyone wins.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Fair enough.

And did you say earlier in the threa that you were voting yes?

I'll probably just tell people I did.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Theoretical freedom, sure.

Are you disputing the hirarchical nature of the church/es as institutions

Yep. Certainly the ones I've seen. I'm not too familiar with the big ones like the Catholic Church, but I suspect they are very different today to the monoliths we read about in The Name of the Rose. We have separation of church and state now. We've had it for generations.

or ignoring the potential impacts of a hierarchical culture on willing followers, whose freedom of choice includes the belief that regious leaders have a valid role in their personal faith system?

The point is that they're willing. Who are any of us to second guess somebody else's free will? Weak people will always exist and be susceptible to those with influence, whether religious or otherwise. It's not for us to stop them throwing their freedom away. Many people are filled with anxiety and depression at the world they're faced with, and more freedom is the last thing they want or even need. Merkins are desperate to be part of a howling mob enforcing morality on others. Look at Twitter.

 

[bartman]

Yes it was mate. Marriage was a way to ensure that somebody beyond just the mother took responsibility for turning a child from an economic liability to an economic asset.

No it wasn't mate. Marrriage pre-dates religion, even in the early Christian period in Europe - check the links.

I'll probably just tell people I did.

Yep, that'll do it.

Yep. Certainly the ones I've seen. I'm not too familiar with the big ones like the Catholic Church, but I suspect they are very different today to the monoliths we read about in The Name of the Rose. We have separation of church and state now. We've had it for generations.

Wow, so hierarchical institutions aren't hierarchical? Even the happy clappy ones don't have a bunch of geezers out back pulling the strings? I suppose Murdoch has no influence of editorial policy at his newspapers either...

Merkins are desperate to be part of a howling mob enforcing morality on others. Look at Twitter.

I'd rather not... The point is that no-one is trying to take away anyone's free will. A yes vote will merely recognise the basis for people who have been denied their free will regarding access to marriage to be granted that free will equally.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

No it wasn't mate. Marrriage pre-dates religion, even in the early Christian period in Europe - check the links.

You think there was no religion before Christianity? Atheism is a very new idea, and the ideologies that have replaced religion for these people are embraced with the same religious fervour.

Yep, that'll do it.

Wow, so hierarchical institutions aren't hierarchical? Even the happy clappy ones don't have a bunch of geezers out back pulling the strings? I suppose Murdoch has no influence of editorial policy at his newspapers either...

Not insofar as the people who consume the product (religion) are under the control of the people administrating the organisations. Think of them as Murdoch's readership rather than his employees.

And we are all free to read a different newspaper.

I'd rather not... The point is that no-one is trying to take away anyone's free will. A yes vote will merely recognise the basis for people who have been denied their free will regarding access to marriage to be granted that free will equally.

I completely understand the yes vote. I'm explaining why I also understand the no vote, and framing it as if-you-vote-no-you're-a-merkin completely misses the point and alienates people. Gays do have the same marriage rights as everyone else already - they have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Just like everyone else.

But if they think marriage is about love or even about sex then they're getting some very shitty advice about marriage.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I find 150kg hairy back lebanese chicks having sex disgusting. Is it too late to include them in the plebiscite ?

Edit: Also disgusting

What the f**k is that?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Stop forcing this shit down every merkin's throat FFS!

I didn't say that I approved of fellatio.

 

[Gronk]

That's my Orthodox Christian interpretation. We have many. For example in my religion, our priests must be married or they cannot become priests. We believe you need to have some experience when giving advice to people and married people seem to have plenty. The Catholics have a different view.

Orthodox Christianity differs to Catholicism. Different views, different interpretations of the Lord's work. A bit like yours and mine.

Yes the Orthodox view same sex as a sin, so same sex marriage is never going to happen.

Each to their own and you deserve the right to vote based on your religious beliefs.

I'd be interested to hear your views on the recent orthodox / Putin decriminalisation of domestic violence.

BTW SSM was made legal in Greece in 2015.

 

[strider]

Yeah but we all know about those crazy greeks

 

[eels81236]

We are also no longer allowed to let our dogs swim in the lagoons on Saturdays. Only Saturdays. Strange town.

 

[Gronk]

Yeah but we all know about those crazy greeks

I know right. It seems that there are modern Orthodox views and some not so.

In June Ana Brnabić was elected as Serbia's first female and gay PM.

 

[Gronk]

Meanwhile in America

 

[Gronk]

Ch7/Ch9 are showing vision of the car ploughing into anti white supremacy protesters, but bleeped out swear words.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

In Australia, which people that are of legal age do not have the right to get married in the eyes of the law apart from same sex couples?

Of course it's a basic right. Literally everyone else has the legal right to do it. f**king murderers have the right to do it. But gay folk don't?

It's not "moral hijacking" to suggest that people deserve the same basic rights and it's not "victim generation" to suggest that the right to get married is a basic one that everyone else should have. This is not left VS right political bullshit. I wouldn't be involved if it was. Stop pulling buzz words out of your arse, you sound like Paul Murray.

You keep using the term "right". I'm not sure you understand what it means. Marriage is not a right. Just because someone else can do something or have something doesn't mean you automatically have the right to do it or have it. That's the eptiome of entitlement.

In Australia, which people that are of legal age do not have the right to get married in the eyes of the law apart from same sex couples?

Polygamists.

 

[Bazal]

You keep using the term "right". I'm not sure you understand what it means. Marriage is not a right. Just because someone else can do something or have something doesn't mean you automatically have the right to do it or have it. That's the eptiome of entitlement.



Polygamists.

Polygamists have the right to get married. Only once, but there is nothing saying they can't marry at all like same sex couples. They just can't marry five people. Which I also disagree with btw. Of someone wants five wives or five husbands and everyone involved is happy, who am I to say they shouldn't?

 

[Twizzle]

Ch7/Ch9 are showing vision of the car ploughing into anti white supremacy protesters, but bleeped out swear words.

merkins