Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In this case you are disliking them for the heinious actions undertaken in the name of religion, not because they are religious. Your dislike is rational - hence not a bigot.

Actually, I dislike them for their beliefs regardless of whether they act on them or not. Just like I dislike someone who is a white supremicist regardless of whether they ever do anything to further their agenda. The simple fact that they hold that belief makes me dislike them. I am intolerant of that belief.

Same is true of the misogynistic religious beliefs. Regardless of whether they act on it or not, if they think that a woman should be shrouded in cloth from head to toe or stoned for comitting adultery, I don't like them and am intolerant of their beliefs. Their beliefs are heinous and hate-filled toward women. The fact that they label it a religious belief does not give it legitimacy.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not sure why you would dislike people for committing suicide.

It is not so much dislike as it is look down on them and won't associate with them. If you believe that at some point in time a space ship will be rendevousing with a comet to take you to heaven so you need to kill yourself to get onto that space ship, that is freakish and I won't associate with you. But I feel the same about those freaks in the philippines who nail themselves to crosses around easter time. I want nothing to do with the kind of wacked out thinking that inspires that. The haj is the same thing. It is just revolting to look at people so intoxicated with religious fevor that they behave like that.

But why is it that everyone feels free to mock those religions that have a small number of followers but those that are equally bizarre but have large numbers of believers are somehow legitimate. It is just stupid for people to legitimize a wacky belief simply because large numbers of people believe it.

BTW - at least when the Heaven's gate people killed themselves they only killed themselves.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Tougher question because you've essentially taken away any intent on the part of the alleged bigot, which is a cop-out for those people. I would say you are not a bigot but your religion is.

Religions cannot be bigots, only people can. You choose your religion so if your religion advocates bigotted ideas, are you a bigot?

Originally posted by sgtclub
Your point seems to be that we must prohibit gay marriage because if we don't we can't prohibit polygamy. That seems to be somewhat backwards to me. If there are not sound reasons for prohibiting either, then both should be permitted.

There are two different issues - criminalizing a behavior and rewarding it. You could decriminalize polygamy,* which would mean it is allowed, but yet not legally recognize it as a marriage with all the attendant benefits, which would be rewarding it.

I am talking about the case of legally recognizing it and actually rewarding it. That is what gay marriage is all about. They want the government and other benefits that go along with marriage. So do the polygamists.

*Technical point - It is my understanding that only bigamy is illegal, which is where you get a marriage license to marry one person while you are still married to or before you are officially divorced from another, for instance, if you lie to get the second marriage license and say that you are not already married. I believe that polygamy, in which there is no marriage license for the unions after the first, is not illegal.

Originally posted by sgtclub
This constant reliance on the marriage definition is a farce to begin with, given that 56% of all marriages end in divorce. Marriage in not the societal underpinning that its advocates make it out to be.

I agree that marriage as it is practiced by many in this country is not such a great thing. However, it does confer certain benefits on those who enage in it. And it does it at the expense of single people.