"I Hate Internet Forums" or "Has Rational Discourse Died?"
So, being the computer geek that I am, I browse a number of internet forums. I believe I do so because I have a deep seeded need to piss myself off. That or I'm secretly masochistic - even to myself. Hmmm... that's one well kept secret. Anyway, I go to many forums and try to spread the joy and light that is the experience I like to call "Me". Often I never comment because doing so would only further cause me pain. Remember, it's browsing forums that fullfill my secret masochistic desires. Knowingly hurting myself is no fun.
So, I'm messing around with this cool web games called NationStates. It's a big ball of fun and I suggest everyone check it out. Anyway, after legislating my subjects my eye did wander about the page the same way it might wander about Monica Bellucci, so pleased I am with this game. And what did my eyes behold? A link to the forum talking about "12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is "Bad"". It then proceeds to link to a site that shoots these reasons down one at a time, or so the author of the thread states. I didn't look. I didn't have to. But, since I was already there I decided to look about. I had already decided not to post a though of my own because the number of comments had already exceeded 125 and I new a storm when I saw it. But, like clockwork, someone brings up God and the Old Testament for gay marriage being a bad idea. This happens to be a reason I agree with but I can come up with secular reasons as well if I have to (which I shouldn't have to... more later). The came the people saying "He's not my god" and so on and on. But I realized the conversation was doomed when someone called God a bigot. I mean, how can you have a thoughtful discussion after that? He called God a bigot. That doesn't make sense! God, any god, sets the ethical code His people live by. He is the final arbiter on what is ethical because, hey, He wrote moral law. So, how can the writer of ultimate moral law be a bigot? Don't we judge people as bigoted when they fail that moral law? Now, not just those who follow that law, but the Author Himself is a bigot. Seriously, where does the conversation go after that? Do you talk about puppies or something because any meaningful debate that could have been had is dead.
However, let's also talk about this whole Bible thing as a reason to object to gay marriage. I'm not going to debate what the Bible actually says about homosexuality but the idea that one cannot cite Scripture as reason for forming an opinion that one wishes to legislate. Often the reason cited by uninformed idiots (I suppose that redundant) is, as above, "I don't believe in the Bible or God" or some variation thereof. Well, Spanky, good for you! You can have the discussion with your Creator when you die. However, in this instance, your acknoledgement of God is not required. That right, a Christian is allowed to seek legisation on a moral issue derived from the Bible. Why? Because everyone else can regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof. And because you don't believe in my particular deity isn't a reason to object to me exercising my rights. That the Bible rejects homosexuality and as a Christian I reject gay marriage is just as good a reason as any secular one. Why? Because the Constitution says so. Can someone please show me where in any of our Founding Documents is it stated that a political ideal is only relevant if it's secular?
So, if Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, and cannot prohibit free speech why is religious speech less relevant than secular speech when it comes to politics? Why must Christians convert their religiously rooted political beliefs into secular terms to be accepted? They don't have to! If someone disagrees with a Christian's beliefs, well, too bad. They are allowed to express and seek legislation upon them as any other American. So, in the future, if you reject someone's idea because they're rooted in religion you, sir, are a bigot and are infringing upon thier protected First Amendment rights. So, if the arguement is gay marriage a religious reason for being against it is just as relevant as a secular one for it. It's called debate and when you start telling people what is and is not a relevant belief to base an opinion on you risk that same thing happening to you.
So, I'm messing around with this cool web games called NationStates. It's a big ball of fun and I suggest everyone check it out. Anyway, after legislating my subjects my eye did wander about the page the same way it might wander about Monica Bellucci, so pleased I am with this game. And what did my eyes behold? A link to the forum talking about "12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is "Bad"". It then proceeds to link to a site that shoots these reasons down one at a time, or so the author of the thread states. I didn't look. I didn't have to. But, since I was already there I decided to look about. I had already decided not to post a though of my own because the number of comments had already exceeded 125 and I new a storm when I saw it. But, like clockwork, someone brings up God and the Old Testament for gay marriage being a bad idea. This happens to be a reason I agree with but I can come up with secular reasons as well if I have to (which I shouldn't have to... more later). The came the people saying "He's not my god" and so on and on. But I realized the conversation was doomed when someone called God a bigot. I mean, how can you have a thoughtful discussion after that? He called God a bigot. That doesn't make sense! God, any god, sets the ethical code His people live by. He is the final arbiter on what is ethical because, hey, He wrote moral law. So, how can the writer of ultimate moral law be a bigot? Don't we judge people as bigoted when they fail that moral law? Now, not just those who follow that law, but the Author Himself is a bigot. Seriously, where does the conversation go after that? Do you talk about puppies or something because any meaningful debate that could have been had is dead.
However, let's also talk about this whole Bible thing as a reason to object to gay marriage. I'm not going to debate what the Bible actually says about homosexuality but the idea that one cannot cite Scripture as reason for forming an opinion that one wishes to legislate. Often the reason cited by uninformed idiots (I suppose that redundant) is, as above, "I don't believe in the Bible or God" or some variation thereof. Well, Spanky, good for you! You can have the discussion with your Creator when you die. However, in this instance, your acknoledgement of God is not required. That right, a Christian is allowed to seek legisation on a moral issue derived from the Bible. Why? Because everyone else can regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof. And because you don't believe in my particular deity isn't a reason to object to me exercising my rights. That the Bible rejects homosexuality and as a Christian I reject gay marriage is just as good a reason as any secular one. Why? Because the Constitution says so. Can someone please show me where in any of our Founding Documents is it stated that a political ideal is only relevant if it's secular?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...
So, if Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, and cannot prohibit free speech why is religious speech less relevant than secular speech when it comes to politics? Why must Christians convert their religiously rooted political beliefs into secular terms to be accepted? They don't have to! If someone disagrees with a Christian's beliefs, well, too bad. They are allowed to express and seek legislation upon them as any other American. So, in the future, if you reject someone's idea because they're rooted in religion you, sir, are a bigot and are infringing upon thier protected First Amendment rights. So, if the arguement is gay marriage a religious reason for being against it is just as relevant as a secular one for it. It's called debate and when you start telling people what is and is not a relevant belief to base an opinion on you risk that same thing happening to you.
