/atheism/ - Atheism

All that salt on /christian/. Daily reminder that a huge chunk of the achievements, rights and freedoms that define the western world had to be acquired by fighting off religious institutions and their pawns. Christian West, my ass.

I would've never imagined that the US legalized gay marriage before my European home country. But thanks for modeling our surpreme court after yours because it might soon follow the American example.

>>9155

you should see the butthurt on /christian/ for legalizing gay marriage, it's the funniest shit

>tfw atheist but oppose gay marriage

>>9187

>marriage tailored towards heterosexuals is more keen in aesthetic

How so? Supposing someone mandated that all art galleries should be carry the theme developed by Jackson Pollock, you'd probably say his aesthetics were shit. Art 100 says beauty is subjective, and frequently culturally defined. Here's to those elongated Thai necks, African piercings, genitalia mutilation, and Chinese foot-binding.

>Marriage shifts from championing a man and woman who have chosen each other over to

championing two people that have chosen each other.

Fixed that for you.

>I don't see anything to gain by handing it out to everybody for the sake of equality.

Happiness for certain individuals, and the reduction of conflict and stress in the larger society. It means encountering fewer pissed off gay neighbors, friends, and keyboard warriors. And if you ever develop an attraction to a gay friend, you have the same liberties.

>>9190

I didn't write that hetero-normative marriage is objectively better in its beauty value. You probably misinterpreted my usage of the word "keen", which can mean excellent, but can also be synonymous with "honed". That was the sense I used it in.

I wrote that since (as you yourself wrote) beauty is culturally defined, sacrificing cultural hegemony, by charitably expanding the perimeter of the marriageable to the inclusion of all, dilutes the input which straight folk have in the character of a culture which is already formatted in their favor.

And perhaps I'm mistaken by this, but it seems like the LGBT crowd of past generations (until the last couple decades) had to put up with a hetero-normative environment (even concealing their identity) or risk absolute mockery and ostracism from their peers and neighbors.

The kind of "conflict" that existed between the straight majority and the LGBT minorities was the kind of "conflict" which exists between a swatter and a housefly. It was only as we became more accepting that they became more brazen and determined in their activism.

The LGBT movement would be nothing in terms of influence if it were not for a "progressive" faction of heteros actively fighting alongside them. As for potentially becoming attracted to gay folk and in turn finding myself under the boot, that's a risk I feel pretty good and safe in taking.

>>9231

You're correct that, in terms of technical ability, straight folk are not threatened by gay marriage. My real concern is with how it can change culture, and whether heteros can continue to walk around in a society which is still theirs.

For nearly all of American history, the notion of romantic love was inseparable from the presumption that it was something which occurred between woman and man. Love within the sexes was seen as a retardation or sickness. Sure, there was a Protestant (and later, general Christian) informant behind this. Yet it is nonetheless true that, irrespective of its theological background, heteronormative love was not simply a permissible option, but the only conceivable way and culture reconfirmed it at every step in a hermeneutic circle.

With every poem, every novel, every painting or sculpture or film or song, straight folk have been entreated to the identification of their love (or potential for love) as love itself. This is still the dominant approach, as anyone can see that matters of love are still artistically embodied between male and female characters in the supermajority of instances.

But what happens now that marriage within the sexes is now recognized by the state? How will the parlance of "love" or "marriage" change? Will straight kids, teens and college students be instilled with a conception of these notions in which their feelings are just another beast in the jungle? I really believe that the state recognition of gay marriage will serve to reduce heteros feeling of belonging at some deeper level in the long term.

>>9237

What I found weird and stupid was that, back when I used to be a libertarian years ago, I had cohorts who didn't like the idea that gays might come to qualify as marriageable, yet felt compelled to support it against their liking due to "liberty" and all that junk. This issue wasn't what made me stop being a libertarian, but it was certainly the first chink in the armor. I wondered what societal features I enjoyed would change if individual liberty was seen to be the sole guiding principle, and questioned whether my advocacy of maximal liberty would injure aspects of life I valued.

It is true that the ban was founded on religious principles. I believe it is unfortunate that those seeking to secularize society (and in doing so, end the theocratic prohibition) see the humanist position as the only possible alternative to succeed the throne.

Clearly, the greatest buttress for the humanist alternative stems from the humanist fixation of the Constitution. It would be technically possible to amend it so that an exclusively hetero definition of marriage became enshrined, but I realize that our society is currently trending ever further away from that potential.

>>9247

>Will straight kids, teens and college students be instilled with a conception of these notions in which their feelings are just another beast in the jungle?

Once mankind can take an honest look in the mirror and compare the face to a chimpanzee we'll be better off. We can't progress if we keep telling ourselves we are better than the beasts in the jungle that fuck on instinct (via lordosis behavior). We have to look at objective reality, and we evolved from animals, and have similar processes, and our attractions and morality are often driven by very flawed biology.

Unfortunately, we are still insecure about the idea that we are not in full control of our thoughts and because of our animal origins. Contemporary Puritans therefore try to mask our attraction to super stimulus with fancy terms. “Classical art,” or “classical aesthetics” often describes the paintings of nympos, virgins, prostitutes, and other nudes with come hither expressions. The adolescents who skip the still lifes to gawk in lewd admiration at risque paintings and statues, freely share honest vulgar jokes with one another. Euphemism throwing adults use their intelligence to confuse themselves over the purpose of the first pornographic paintings.

The more your rely on feelings, the more you enter your own little world of make believe. (It's an alternate reality where adolescents learn about perfect couples, and unconditional everlasting love. These ideals also create painfully unrealistic expectations for teenagers, that result in harsh breakups.)

>back when I used to be a libertarian years ago, I had cohorts who didn't like the idea that gays might come to qualify as marriageable, yet felt compelled to support it against their liking due to "liberty" and all that junk. This issue wasn't what made me stop being a libertarian, but it was certainly the first chink in the armor.

You stopped being a libertarian (right-wing) because you didn't like gay marriage? Or rather, you didn't like that your libertarian friends supported gay rights? Then I don't see how you could ever call yourself a libertarian to begin with? You do know that both liberal and libertarian are etymologically derived from the word “liberty?” and their parties often have similar positions? Perhaps you should have just called yourself a traditional conservative from the beginning, because your position doesn't appear to have ever shifted. Only your affiliation has shifted and that was due to a misunderstanding of a certain word.

For the record, here's what the (once growing) Libertarian party supported in the USA. They were pro-gay, and pro-prostitution until the Republicans co-opted the Libertarians, and assimilated their most popular positions. The Republicans effectively killed the Libertarian party and their more controversial positions. Republicans have little leeway on gay marriage because the actual Libertarians are outnumbered by a voting base of religious nuts who prefer to pat themselves on the back and call themselves sexy Libertarians rather than learning what the word actually means. It's ironic that the Liberals and Libertarians actually had a lot of common ground, when you use a stricter definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LGBT_rights#United_States

You should be careful not to be swept up into identity politics. If you find a party that perfectly represents all of your values, that's a warning that you're a partisan hack. Parties (especially large ones) make compromises all the time to entice new voters.

>>9247

(cont.)

>I really believe that the state recognition of gay marriage will serve to reduce heteros feeling of belonging at some deeper level in the long term.

How so? Because a partner can leave you and become a bisexual? Then let's pull in the arguments used for divorce. Any child of a divorce can tell you that forcing people who don't get along to remain together doesn't work. Presuming people belong together is the problem. Marriage can just make people complacent, until they take each other for granted. An unhappy marriage is also a tumultuous environment for the parents, their kids, and their friends and neighbors who have to put up with the shouting.

Or is this a variant of the argument the "white power" arguments, that certain privileges shouldn't be extended to the colored, or that a boy's club shouldn't allow girls? I left that that "tribal" tree house mentality in primary school after my friend locked out my crush because of "cooties." If you mean something else, you'll have to rephrase it because I'm not following the reasoning.

All I've gotten from what you've said is that gays make you feel icky on a gut level. It's a conclusion that doesn't come from logic or any ideology and it rests on a foundation of thin ice that could melt tomorrow.

The day might come that you go to the cinema and are inspired by a heartwarming Academy Award winning film that glorified gay love. If that doesn't happen, your views could evolve if you happen to take some psychedelic drugs at a party, and discover the next morning you find yourself in a smelly bed with someone of the same sex, with a memory of a fun night.

>>9252

You don't get it. /pol/ is willing to put a little romantic light on things if it protects whatever.

This whole thing is still not a change. A change would be banning marriage. It's still a small change, albeit a small one.

>>9250

Going by your ID, I can tell you are the same person who misinterpreted my use of the word "keen", and it seems you have also misinterpreted my use of "just another beast in the jungle".

My intent with that phrase was not to suggest an objectively existing metaphysical hierarchy in which traditional love is human and novel love inhuman. It was to denote a potential existential alienation I believe is in the cards. I think of Lord Byron's "I stood among them, but not of them."

Regarding my history, you'll recall that the word "libertarian" was the original title which left-wing anarchists gave themselves. This is what I was; participated in a Food Not Bombs collective, would print out little designs I liked from AdBusters and tape them on my school locker, etc. So in the late 00's, I was an enthusiastic advocate of LGBT rights (among other things), as is typical for that political persuasion.

The first rip in my tearing away from this persuasion happened when a few like-minded fellows and I were discussing the future of LGBT folk under the newly elected Obama. I could tell that though they were (like me) advocates for gay folk, they personally were grossed out by them (whether in real life or by representations in media). They confirmed that they supported them reluctantly only because of their beliefs in individual liberty.

I was intrigued by the concept that the libertarian/anarchist goals they supported could at the same time undermine their idea of community. I saw that their advocacy of individual liberty was more of an abstract and self-induced obligation rather than sheer expression of concern for themselves and those that they cared about. It made my question why I supported liberty for all and, as you can tell, I've actually abandoned a number of the causes I used to identify with and have taken up the adversarial positions instead.

>>9252

My objection is not based on any legal scenario like the kind you exemplified. As I elaborated, it is all about the cultural ramifications, and I feel a bit flummoxed that you didn't get that.

Given that I used to be an LGBT supporter due to the apparently firm bases of logic and ideology, and arrived at my hetero identity views from philosophical introspection, I'll have to disagree with you and contend that it was the former which was thin ice in my experience.

And I don't know which advice of yours to take, since you urged me not to rely on my feelings in >>9250, but are now suggesting that it may be constructive to find bliss in a gay romance or by screwing a homo, leading me to thus change my view. Maybe you just see convincing me to be like all other atheists and support gay marriage to be a laudable goal and it doesn't matter how it's achieved.

>>9260

>"I stood among them, but not of them."

How does remaining apart from a popular consensus, like a party-pooper loner in a crowd imply Lord Bryon's thoughts are more worthy than any others?

>I was intrigued by the concept that the libertarian/anarchist goals they supported could at the same time undermine their idea of community.

In what manner do libertarian goals undermine a community? I don't think most libertarians go far enough to advocate anarchy, in the same way most liberals/socialists do not go so far as to advocate Communism.

>I saw that their advocacy of individual liberty was more of an abstract and self-induced obligation rather than sheer expression of concern for themselves and those that they cared about.

I think I know where you're coming from, and the hypocrisy of charity is a big part of why I can't consider myself a Republican. I don't believe in voluntary charity for those that can afford it anymore than I would believe in voluntary taxes. I'm uncomfortable with only caring about your closest neighbors, or the people that are nice to you. I don't like living like a caveman with a bird brain that only gives because giving pleases him, or because it maximize his chances of survival by protecting his genes and allies. It's an even more terrible fate to be surrounded by the spoiled offspring of those cavemen. Humanity has to evolve beyond merely preserving survival of the fittest, if we are to create a great society we can take pride in.

(Inb4 someone calls me a Communist and derails this thread, I think a balance of cooperation and friendly competition offers the best of both worlds.)

> It made me question why I supported liberty for all

I don't follow. If you were talking about economics I might agree as I have hinted above. I'm for reducing the liberties of the bourgeoisie, and sharing their wealth to reduce the power imbalances. I favor controls that will create a more egalitarian society. But I don't see a correlation between a desire to provide opportunities and second chances to more people, and wanting to restrict gay liberties.

>and, as you can tell, I've actually abandoned a number of the causes I used to identify with and have taken up the adversarial positions instead.

I think you're in danger of yo-yoing between extremes.

>you urged me not to rely on my feelings

That's for objectivity, but I haven't discouraged empathy.

>>9190

>>9181

>mfw utter apathy towards the issue

feels good

>>9273

This. It's really a non-issue.

Though I wonder if the whole fiasco is there to bait the public so that they take their eyes off of what seems to be an encroaching tyranny. It could be coincidence that TPP shenanigans are going on at the same time as this but there is reason to doubt that.