Comments for The Humanist

Comment on Overcoming Hidden Biases by Ted Fautz

Ted Fautz — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:57:00 +0000

Good article! Is that the entire article, or just a preview?

Comment on Stop Saying “Same-Sex” Marriage by Lew

Lew — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:04:00 +0000

As a gay man, I don’t understand the insistence is on appropriating the term “marriage”. I’d be quite happy to settle for the same guarantees in law as marriage and just call it a “civil union” – a marriage in all but name. I agree with Brandon above in asserting that, to religious people at least, marriage is a religious institution. Bedrock of the family and all that. Whatever of the quasi-intellectual responses we might be tempted to make about that – that the family (households) happens to be a very convenient and productive economic unit and generally makes people behave better – I think religious people should be left well alone with their understanding of their institution of marriage.

I have two main reasons for this. The first is pretty obvious. It’s that any campaign by or on behalf of gay people to have their partnerships called “marriages” is grist to the mill of religious types who revel in being able to portray gay people as having some anti-family agenda to bring down the family and civilisation with it. It gives them an excuse to spout all sorts of hyperbole.

The second is that it suggests to me a certain lack of self-confidence in gay people. The idea that by not calling civil partnerships “marriage” relegates gay people to second-class citizenship seems largely self-ascribed. It assumes that marriage is some sort of ideal union. Plainly, on the evidence, it is not. It’s a hard slog for even the most loving couple. Those who manage a life-time together are in an ever shrinking minority. I absolutely do not understand why gay people feel the need to ape this institution. To be honest, I quite liked the Stonewall spirit of rebellion, and all the possibility of living a more creative kind of life on my terms. Why do I want an even whiter picket fence than the family of hypocrites next door?

If two people make a commitment to each other, and affirm that in law, and that legal contract is marriage in all but name, then that should be enough. This pandering to a faulty straight model, and this picket-fence aspirationism, is petty, it’s needlessly provocative, and to put it bluntly, it looks a lot like a failure of the imagination and any notion that it makes one second-class is self-imposed.

Just a thought!

Comment on Stop Saying “Same-Sex” Marriage by brandonj73

brandonj73 — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:19:00 +0000

Marriage is traditionally a religious institution. Marriage was recognized within religious circles long before any government recognized it, and civil marriage is often confused with religious marriage. The two are very distinct (just ask any legally married couple who was refused marriage by the Catholic Church because one of the parties was divorced for example). You are confusing “marriage” with civil marriage. Atheist and Agnostic people don’t believe in religion, therefore they cannot be “married” in the traditonal religous sense. They can be “married” in the governmental sense however, as there is no religious litmous test for civil marriage. Currently gay people are denied civil marriage in most states, mainly for religious reasons which is unconstitutional in my opinion. Gays for the most part are not asking for religious marriage, they’re asking for civil ones. My argument was why have civil marriage at all? It gives special protections to the parties that single persons do not have. If we’re going to have marriage in the civil sense, gay people should be able to participate in it, but really what is the point of the government regulating relationships? Let it be a religious or personal affair, which traditionally it has always been and get the government out of the marriage business, treating all citizens the same and living up to the equal protection clause of the constitution. Just because you don’t agree with it, or didn’t understand it, doesn’t make my argument false. But thanks for the one sentence flippant response-it was really helpful. Does it make you feel better? Do you feel superior when you post responses alleging that someone’s argument is invalid just because you didn’t comprehend it or didn’t like it.

Comment on Stop Saying “Same-Sex” Marriage by William Hart

William Hart — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:29:00 +0000

If marriage is a religious institution, than atheist and agnostic people would not quality for marriage so your argument is false.

Comment on Tents or Tea? by Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:37:00 +0000

Underlying all problems caused by religion is the idea that faith is a valid method of arriving at conclusions. In fact, faith is the worst of all possible decision-making techniques. Nobody ever calls on faith if some better method of decision-making (such as logic, reason, confidence, or trust) is available. It is the tool of last resort for the desperately insecure, when they can’t arrive at their desired conclusion any other way.

Comment on Real to Reel by Rene McGuire

Rene McGuire — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:32:00 +0000

Just wanted to bring attention to a character in Denzel Washington’s new movie, Safe House. I saw him on Letterman describing his character as a really bad guy. The first word out of his mouth to describe this unethical, guy without a conscience was “atheist”. Based on that, I have no interest in seeing this movie. Unfortunately, despite low ratings by movie critics, loyal Denzel Washington fans are flocking to see it. I hope my fellow atheists, agnostics and freethinkers don’t. We should not be encouraging this negative and untruthful sterotyping of atheists.

Comment on Heaven for Atheists by Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:18:00 +0000

Humanists who bring this up as an objection to cryonics apparently consider the humanist project futile, a brief historical flash ending in failure and followed by yet more ages of darkness and violence. It makes you wonder why they even bother to publish their books and magazines and hold conferences. If you really believe that, you should mock humanist speakers like Steven Pinker until they leave the stage in shame.

Comment on Heaven for Atheists by Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:00:00 +0000

I’ve met Kennita. Not many African-American women like her have shown interest in cryonics, so I don’t know what that does to your stereotype.

BTW, mainstream science has started to approach to what cryonicists have advocated for decades. Google:

Organ Cryopreservation X PRIZE

and,

The Brain Preservation Technology Prize

Apparently neuroscientist Sebastian Seung’s book,
Connectome: How the Brain’s Wiring Makes Us Who We Are, also discusses cryonics. I have the ebook on order from Amazon.

Comment on Heaven for Atheists by Jerry T. Searcy

Jerry T. Searcy — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:50:00 +0000

Atholandy: Dickheads such as…??

Comment on What Exactly Does the Occupy Movement Want? by Jimbob

Jimbob — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:28:00 +0000

The OWS group might consider renaming itself the SEA party — as in Stupidity Enough Already! The points above can be condensed into the first of three major SEA party manifesto items:

1. End of the golden rule (those who have the gold make all the rules).

2. Evidence and rationality instead of ideology and superstition (or as Fareed Zacharia put it “the theocratic approach to politics”)

3. A limit on filibusters (both sides have used them to exert the “tyranny of the minority.” Maybe the Senate could learn from line call challenge limits in tennis!).