Gay Rights

[Umbran]

Even when I asked how religion meddles, everyone's response is to point out how government meddles.

The mastermind of the crime gets convicted, even if he wasn't present when the bank was robbed, you know. One is not absolved of responsibility by putting a middle man between you and the victim.

If religion works through government to get a thing done, religion is still responsible for it happening.

 

[Janx]

This is odd statement to me. Religion doesn't meddle in my life, at all. And even if it did, it doesn't have any real power to make do or not do anything. And isn't religion's involvement in marriage only with those who specifically want a religions ceremony? I mean, you can get married at the courthouse, right?

Now, I do agree that many religious people would like to convince/control government to meddle in people's lives according to their own beliefs, but that is true of many institutions.

Bullgrit

Except that here in Texas, religion is meddling in people's lives. They've shut down most of the abortion clinics which helps cut down on really unprepared pregnancies (given that CPS will not give anybody a kid under 8, because they have too much surplus in the 8+ range), yeah, religion meddles in peoples lives in Texas. We have to adopt a baby out of state because of the contradictory religious views running the show down here. Abortion's blocked, supporting low income mothers is bad, adopting babies is bad. No wonder the crime rate sucks down here, all three factors lead to higher crime.

Gays are still likely to have some issues getting married down here thanks to the Texas AG telling county clerks to refuse service on religious grounds.

 

[Bullgrit]

Still, you're not taking the entire statement that I quoted into context.

The mastermind of the crime gets convicted, even if he wasn't present when the bank was robbed, you know. One is not absolved of responsibility by putting a middle man between you and the victim.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page10#ixzz3eTvUizQr

"I don't like thieves robbing banks."

"I'm the exact opposite. I don't like masterminds robbing banks."

The phrasing, "the exact opposite," implies the thieves were not involved, and the mastermind is the one directly robbing. *Taking the whole quote and context.* So I ask how does a mastermind rob banks. If "by using thieves" is the answer, well, that agrees with the first statement of "I don't like thieves robbing banks."

The meddling of which most of us a speaking is, indeed, of the via-government or legislation variety.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page10#ixzz3eTygFc18

OK and sure. Then the original statement that I questioned is actually in agreement with the original statement it was contradicting. This was all a circular argument that wouldn't have come up if one of the links in the chain had not been added.

Bullgrit

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Yeah, I know how religion meddles in other countries. I'm discussing things from a US (and possibly UK, or even "western") perspective.

What prompted me to ask the question was how the original statement was made in response to another statement.


In response was said:
One says, government shouldn't meddle in one's life. The response is, "I have the exact opposite view," and religion shouldn't meddle in one's life. Then I ask how does religion meddle in one's life? And everyone points out how religion meddles in government. Well, that's not the exact opposite -- that is actually nearly the same. Both are lamenting government meddling in lives.

Even when I asked how religion meddles, everyone's response is to point out how government meddles. See? I agree that government meddles in lives (as you've given examples). And I agree that religion meddles in government.

If government pokes you with a stick, even at the direction of religion, it is *government* poking you with a stick. When someone says, "I don't like government poking me with a stick," it doesn't make sense to say, "I feel the exact opposite; I don't like religion poking me with a stick." That's not "the exact opposite".

Bullgrit

I get three types of door-to-door people on a weekly basis.

1. Folks offering "free" carpet cleaning.

2. College students duped in to trying to sell something for scholarships.

3. Religious folks trying to get me to go to their church.

I give them all a semi-polite no thank you. The church folks and the carpet folks are the most persistent, never taking no for an answer. And the general spiel is the same...its a sales pitch in both cases.

Sometimes, I ask the church folks their opinions on marriage equality and transgender rights. They either can't answer and stammer, or they offer the standard, "love the sinner, not the sin" line.

It seems to be a written rule for many denominations to "spread the gospel." That sounds like meddling to me.

 

[Bullgrit]

That's probably what he was speaking about.

Actually, she, unless I've lost track of who said what.

Bullgrit

 

[Bullgrit]

It seems to be a written rule for many denominations to "spread the gospel." That sounds like meddling to me.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page10#ixzz3eU1nDQLH

We have a different threshold for what is meddling. With your definition, Google ads is far more meddling in my life than any religion

Bullgrit

 

[Morrus]

Still, you're not taking the entire statement that I quoted into context. "I don't like thieves robbing banks."

"I'm the exact opposite. I don't like masterminds robbing banks."

Wait, this entire line of conversation is about whether someone was grammatically correct to use the words "exact opposite"? Yikes, Bullgrit!

You are right. Those are not exact opposites.

 

[Umbran]

The phrasing, "the exact opposite,"

Is just phrasing. We are in casual conversation, not writing legal documents. Maybe you shouldn't read too much into it, hm?

 

[Umbran]

Actually, she, unless I've lost track of who said what.

I am sure I have lost track, largely because who said it isn't the most relevant bit.

 

[Bullgrit]

Wait, this entire line of conversation is about whether someone was grammatically correct to use the words "exact opposite"? Yikes, Bullgrit!

You are right. Those are not exact opposites.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page10#ixzz3eU3YMkEs

Well, I assume the grammar was correct and intended by the person making the statement. I asked for examples. Then lots of other people piped in with their answers seemingly without looking at the context I was originally responding to. So it wasn't me calling out a grammatical mistake, it was everyone else ignoring the original context in full. Everyone responded to my post, but ignoring the post I quoted, and the post that quote, quoted. Basically, my question was third post deep, and everyone just read my post out of context.

Bullgrit