Back in 2010, I attended the Prop 8 Federal Trial in SF, in front of Judge Vaughn White. On one occasion, after a trial day, there was a guy outside the court holding a sign saying Marriage is only between 1 man and 1 woman.
I approached this guy, who was wearing religious garb, and asked the following:
1) Do we agree that God makes no mistakes and everyone is as God intended them to be? (He agreed)
2) It is a fact of biology that some people are neither typical xx female, nor typical xy male. These people are not “men” or “women”. God has been making these people throughout history, so there must be a reason, that is not a mistake.
3) If God keeps making these people who are neither man nor woman, what is the ethical or moral basis to deny them from getting married?
4) But before you answer, have you considered that perhaps the reason God keeps making intersex folks, is to show us that bigotry about man vs women is contrary to God's demonstrated will?
He literally put down his sign, held up his hands in surrender and said “I have no answers for you.”, then backed away.
I replied “I think God already gave to the answer. You just don't want to let go of the bigotry”
I've Built The Solution to Reddit's AI Bot Problem. It's Live Now Read here
Reminder for OP: /u/WoodElf_Tiassa
Have a suggestion for us? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Sure, Jan.
Put his hands up and walked away. At no instance did that part happen.
Should have stopped before that.
This sub has really gone down the drain.
tbh, Yeah, it’s a bummer. But I guess some wild stories still slip through the cracks.
You spelled reddit wrong.
yeah all these posts clearly made by are all "verified humans", just unsubbed I'm fucking sick of it
And everyone stood up and clapped?
The slow clap that begins with one person.
I was waiting for the clapping part of the story.
I have responded to this straw man several times.
There was no audience. It was not a performance, it was a conversation. On the street, specifically Golden Gate, in front of the Federal Courthouse, in San Francisco.
People saying “And then everyone stood up in clapped” don’t mean it literally. It means your story was so unrealistic that you saying “And then everyone stood up in clapped” wouldn’t be surprising. I like the anti homophobic sentiment, but maybe try to do something real to help out
Girl we know it didn't happen bc guys who hold up signs like that don't listen or think critically. They aren't there to debate they're there to be hateful.
Don't project your failures to successfully engage on me.
1) he wasn't shouting, so I believed conversation was probably possible. 2) I also didn't shout at him, but rather said "I have a question".
3) My question supported a stance he had, which allowed me to continue to my point about intersex folk
4) I doubt this information had ever been presented to him before, and none of his otherwise easy canned responses would apply.
5) I agree he was not there to debate, but that does not mean a solid ethical/moral question can't shut down his posture.
Also, folks like seem to imply he should have had "some kind of response", but are unable, as he was, to articulate what they response would be.
So, I don't think you actually know, what you think you know. You just spun up a straw man version of what you think happened, which is fallacious.
Ps not sure why you address me as "Girl", it comes across as an effort at ad hominem (another fallacy)
.... ur either the most obnoxious person who had ever lived or a bot. Either way god speed
Definitely the former. That's a neck-bearded, fedora-wearing, "M'lady"-saying, walking WAREHOUSE of cringe. No claim too grandiose, guys like this asshat always have some story or other where they're undoubtedly the hero. It usually involves said hero saying or doing something so utterly amazing that the opposing party has no real comeback.
See, this happens because, when WoodEdge_Lord up there makes up the story in his head, he spends all the real time and effort on his side of the story. So, rather than a full, realistic story, we get shit like this. "There was something super not-ok happening but then I went and did this awesome thing that only I could have possibly accomplished. Then the other guy just left/gave up/shook my hand/bought me a beer/[insert equally implausible and ridiculous conclusion here]."
Right, but family helps family and he muttered under his breath.
Lololola
And that man? He was actually the Loch Ness Monster.
Don’t bring Nesse into this mess of a conversation. She is real…
Yeah, from experience bigots just insist that exceptions don't disprove their rules and they're still right.
I get irritated at these and then take a minute to remember it’s just like the old beloved phenomenon of tumblr fake stories. It warms my 27 year old heart. It just needed “and then everyone clapped” and it would’ve been perfect 💔
I died a little at the 'old beloved tumblr fake'.
I don't know what that is.
I am old enough for the 'old and beloved AOL email and the fun new MySpace' .
Ha! Well if you ever miss the 2010s for some ungodly reason and want a laugh, a girl called strange æons on YouTube covered it - basically teenagers relentlessly telling stories that were 100% made up in their heads but told like it played out like a quippy sitcom. My personal favourites have to be the ‘down with cis bus’ story and ‘oppa homeless style’. You’re welcome 🫡
That sign's name? Albert Enstein
We are relatives!
My very first thought when I was reading this, was "I'll take Things That Never Happened for a hundred, Alex."
"and everybody clapped"
But they said "literally"! That means it definitely happened.
And then everyone who read your comment clapped.
And no one that reads your comment pays any attention at all to you
Except you, the intended recipient. So....🤷♂️
Oh, my bad. Here's your slow clap
Wrong. Your disbelief is a poor substitute for fact or evidence. On what basis (other than your feelings), did you determine that "it didn't happen"?
Feel free to ask me anything about the trial. I attended most of the witness testimony.
Not everyone is well suited to debate, much less street debate. However, some of us are. And in this instance, I knew the facts & used them.
Don't care about the trial. I am referring to this specific retelling.
No one presenting the way he did walks away. He would at least try to counter some of your points.
But to tuck tail and leave as a zealot, that didn't happen.
How? What points are there?
I hold that he, like me was unable to find a coherent response that would provide an ethical or moral justification for denying marriage to people who are neither men nor women, just as God created them.
Usually they go with Bible quotes, and given that most people getting married aren't intersex I don't think this is an argument that is going to convince a bigot. Since the kind of people who attend these protests usually have the same handful of arguments, it seems wildly unlikely that this person would have tried none of them. It may be the way you tell it, but this doesn't read as a natural conversation at all, it sounds like someone who thinks they came up with a clever argument to checkmate a homophone that wouldn't work at all in real life.
I wish this was real.
But bigotry is not rooted in logic, so bigots aren't swayed by logic. Religious bigots even less so.
Former religious bigot here. For years, I "argued" against lgbtq and other progressive causes, but really I was just parroting memorized lines. I was about 24 when I really started interacting with kind, intelligent, patient people who helped guide me into critical thinking. Didn't change my mind the first time I was challenged.... Or second, third, fourth, or 40th. But I did start to use those critical thinking skills when listening to other bigots in my echo chamber.
I remember the day the wall cracked for the first time ... I had known I was supporting a lie for a few months, but that evening after work, I started to read, research, listen. It clicked, and I knew I believed the argument against that particular fundamentalist religious doctrine (ridiculous strict women's dress standards)
Someone like that has known for a while that they are in the wrong, but they risk losing their church and their entire support system if they even ask questions. They go through the motions. When forced to hear their own inner doubts being spoken by another person, they might back off as they try to guilt themselves into ignoring your logic. It's such an awkward feeling, hard to describe. Living in fear, drowning in guilt if you think for yourself
The conversation was real. He did back away. Frankly, I don't think bigots expect to be confronted with ethical & moral questions, and so have no response. Then again what possible response could he have given?
Who knows if he later changed his mind. Using epistemology works just fine on bigots who are willing to engage in the conversation. It might not change their mind in the end, but it can easily defeat "talking points", that are based on bad logic or bad evidence. Can you give examples of when you have used epistemology with a bigot who was willing to engage in a conversation with you? Or is your view anecdotal?
My point was to hold his bigotry up to the light.
I really did attend the Prop 8 trial. Rob Reiner attended, and during a break after one witness, came over to some of us citizen trial observers with a funny comment. The witness had been asked if they could name a time when a minority vote had oppressed a majority.. the answer wandered around a lot, but said nothing of substance. Rob Reiner's comment was "It's like when Chico Marx told Groucho 'Minority Claus? You can't fool me, I know there is no such thing as a Minority Claus!".
Hey, if I was able to get a religious bigot to back down, I'd be posting it in here too! Can't stand when people use their beliefs to constitute their bigotry.
Street Epistemology is a wonderful thing. I didn't know about it at the time.
One of the things that led me to talk to the guy, was that not even once before or during the trial or since, did I hear or read a single actual good reason to oppose gender neutral marriage. All the opposition boiled down to feelings not based on relevant facts. So I introduced some new facts to the guy.
It’s not true that God makes no mistakes. Most Christians would agree with that statement.
I personally don't think there is evidence to support the hypothesis, that there is ANYTHING supernatural, including but not limited to ghosts, fairies, merfolk, dragons, elves, magic or gawds.
No gawds, no "mistakes". I was just approaching it within his (in my view deeply flawed) paradigm.
But, whether or not you believe there is a God (whatever that means), can you do better than the guy? Unlike him, you have had time to ponder the question.
"If marriage is to be only between one woman and one man, on what moral or ethical basis should intersex people be denied the right to marry?"
I'm gonna use your mention of Rob Reiner's name as an excuse to some memorable dialogue from an episode of All In The Family, where Edith is responding to Archie's outrage at the revelation that his beloved daughter Gloria was cheating on Mike. The dialogue went like this:
Edith: No matter what she done, it's none of your business!
Archie: Whaddya talkin' about, it's the world's business!
Edith: No, it ain't the world's business, neither!
Archie: Well, it's certainly God's business!
Edith: Then you let God tend to it.
I dunno, I think sometimes they can be surprised and knocked off balance if they genuinely believe you want to hear their answer.
Not saying it's definitely real, just saying it's not outside the scope of belief, which I think are different things.
It was real. The somewhat unexpected outcome is why it is worth recounting. I had no idea how it would go, when I approached him.
You would not believe how many times I have wanted to say that to a bigot
What has stopped you?
My inability to voice my opinions in a quick fashion
If you want to be able to do it in the future, practice banter. It is a skill that can be improved. Even via text or chat.
I don’t doubt this is real. Happened to my father years ago. We were at park in NYC and a young Moonie (followers of Sun Yung Moon), although conservatively dressed in a sport coat and tie, approached Dad. Started telling him all kinds of crap about if follows the “teaching” he’ll have a good life and a good family, etc.
Dad said: “Excuse me young man, are you married?”
Moonie: “no”
Dad: “Do you have any children?”
Moonie: “no”
Dad: “Well, I’m married to a wonderful woman, and have two wonderful children who are now wonderful adults. When you can say the same things, THEN you can approach me again.”
Moonie mumbling: “Yes sir. Sorry to bother you, sir.”
Boy did we have a great laugh over that one.
I used to LOVE talking to Moonies.. and to Scientologists. Still love when the JWs knock on my door. Sometimes I open with "I was just masturbating, but we can talk", offering to shake hands...
A Mindfuck is a terrible thing to waste.
Good for you have been making/using this argument, for years. Some people will actually engage but those who are feel that faith can only be used as a weapon, just go on throwing around the same BS that basically contradicts everything they are saying.
The Bible is very loosely translated from the actual original but yet people use it to pick and chose, parts of it just as a way to tear people down.
I have not read a great deal of the Bible, what I have read was contradictory or horrid or both. I briefly (1.5 semesters) attended a religious school. My wife is convinced the teachers had meetings to talk about the questions or comments I made.
obligatory Christian apologist here to explain the disconnect between your statements and the reality of Christianity. 1&2) I agree God’s creation is perfect, but what you’re not realizing in making your statement is that in this earth we are living separate from God. God relinquished complete control over the earth and our lives when he created humans with free will, and allowed Eve to be tempted by Satan in the GoE. Eve knew that eating the forbidden fruit was a sin, and chose to do it anyways, because we have free will and it was her choice. Because she and Adam ate the fruit, we were removed from God’s perfect creation and (paraphrasing here) doomed to live in a sinful world and work for everything we get in this life. Just like intersex people, or children with cancer, or babies who are stillborn or die in childbirth, this is not God’s will, but the consequences (not punishment) we face as mankind for being born in a sinful world.
3) there is no ethical or moral justification in this world to deny any two of age, consenting people getting married. However, as Christians we are called to spread the gospel, lead others to redemption, and encourage them to pursue a life free from sin. Unfortunately, that means some Christians choose persecuting others, while living their own lives riddled with sin.
4) No (see answer to 1&2)
I would like to expand on my beliefs by saying my personal and religious convictions do not make me a bigot. Much like how I can’t force you to respect or follow my beliefs and do what’s best for me, you can’t force me to respect your beliefs, or what you believe is best for you.
In fact, in the Bible it says “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3 NIV)
I myself believe that if, as a Christian, you go out and tell people “hey your lifestyle is sin, and you will go to hell if you continue living this way” is probably not the best way to get the conversation started. But I see a lot of these people going out in the name of Christ and being downright disrespectful and hateful towards people for their beliefs or opinions, and that’s not what we are called to do. My currently relevant example is that dude going around Dearborn Michigan with a bullhorn yelling at Muslims while they pray and saying hateful things about their religion, that is only dividing two religions, which at their core, believe in the same God.
You can’t take every single person who says “im a Christian” and assume they speak on behalf of all Christians. Even me, I know a decent bit about the Bible, and I still wouldn’t say I’m the right guy to sit down and have a serious, philosophical conversation with about a great deal of the issues in today’s world, or even a lot of historical controversies for that matter, but I’m confident to say I know enough to hopefully point some people back to the direction of at least having a conversation about what the message of Christ, and the Bible was really about.
I just can't get past the genocide, rape, slavery and all manner of brutality. And I never was able to suspend my disbelief enough to actually believe in anything supernatural. Neither the values, nor the "magic" make coherent sense to me.
1) the destruction of the canaanites doesn’t qualify as a genocide because it was not ethnically or racially motivated 2) every mention of rape in the Bible is in the context of condemning rape 3) while slavery was common during those times, God commanded (in the OT) slave owners to free their slaves after a set period of time, and commanded they be given certain rights and freedoms even as slaves. In the NT Paul the Apostle commanded slave owners to treat their slaves with fairness and justice, and slaves to obey their masters as if they were obeying Christ. Indentured servitude (slavery) was a common form of punishment or reconciliation for crimes against the slave owners at the time.
Nowadays we have modern approaches to justice for crime, and slavery is morally and ethically wrong in the modern world.
I haven't yet read the bible so i can't really argue against you, but it's funny that the "epistemologist" OP didn't engage (which is fair, no obligation to do so) with the one commenter who is actually knowledgeable.
1) the fuck are you even saying? Semantics because it wasn't a specific type of mass killing is some wild goal post moving.
Op called it a genocide, it wasn’t a genocide. That’s all I said.
Pretty obvious it's a genocide.
A genocide is ethnically or racially motivated, the destruction of the canaanites was neither. Not really the same thing but this is why we were at war with Nazi Germany and not committing a genocide against Nazi Germany, because we weren’t killing them because they were Germans we were killing them because they were evil people.
Genocide, legally defined by the UN, is acts (like killing, serious harm, preventing births) committed with the
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as codified in the 1948 Genocide Convention and later legal frameworks like the Rome Statute.
You lose the semantics argument too.
If I could recommend the book "separation of church and hate " OP I think you would enjoy some of the points the author makes when it comes to calling out religious bigots.
Your explanation contains both theological inconsistencies and logical issues, and examining both together may help clarify where the reasoning becomes difficult to sustain.
First, the idea that God “relinquished control” when granting free will does not appear in Christian Scripture. In both Old and New Testaments, God remains sovereign over creation even after the Fall. For example, Psalms 103:19 says that God “rules over all,” and Matthew 10:29 affirms that not even a sparrow falls outside God’s oversight. Free will does not logically require God to withdraw from preventing suffering, and such a claim is not grounded in the biblical text.
Second, describing all suffering as a natural “consequence” of the Fall goes beyond the Genesis narrative. Genesis 3 lists specific outcomes: increased pain in childbirth, difficulty in laboring the ground, and mortality. It does not attribute every illness, genetic condition, or natural disaster to Adam and Eve’s action. Using an expanded explanation and then treating it as biblical creates a circular argument, because the explanation is not actually in the text.
Third, the distinction you draw between “consequence” and “punishment” is not supported by Scripture. Genesis 3:16–24 frames the exile from Eden as an explicit punitive act. The language used is judicial and deliberate. Recasting this as something other than punishment softens the doctrine in a way that is understandable emotionally but not aligned with the biblical narrative.
Fourth, your position on marriage aligns more closely with a personal ethical view than with traditional Christian teaching. Most Christian interpretations reference Genesis 2:24 to define marriage in a specific theological form. Whether one agrees with those traditions or not, it is important to distinguish personal conviction from what Christianity has historically taught.
Fifth, separating yourself from Christians who act harmfully is reasonable, but saying they do not represent Christianity creates a shifting definition. Jesus acknowledges in Matthew 7:21–23 that many who act in his name may act wrongly, yet they still fall within the scope of those calling themselves disciples. Their behavior may not reflect the teachings of Christ, but they cannot simply be removed from consideration when discussing Christianity as a whole.
Finally, your use of the word “respect” shifts between two different meanings. In one sense, it refers to acknowledging differing beliefs. In another, it refers to denying recognition of someone’s identity or relationship. These represent different moral concepts, and blending them makes the argument difficult to follow logically.
These points are not meant to diminish your sincerity. Rather, they highlight how combining personal interpretation with selective doctrinal claims creates inconsistencies both logically and theologically. A clearer separation between personal belief, biblical teaching, and logical argumentation would strengthen the discussion and make the reasoning more coherent.
Then everybody clapped
[removed]
I genuinely wish this were true, as I also hate mosquitoes. Unfortunately, there actually are major factors in ecosystems, as they are a food source.
Oh, I personally think all supernatural claims are utter nonsense. I was just trying to reason within the rather silly paradigm. And the Guinea Worm is far worse than mosquitoes. There are many horrid things that don't fit "all powerful loving gawd" concept. See also: New World Screw Worm (horrible things currently working their way north through Mexico).
The people getting downvoted on this post are the ones with functioning bullshit meters.
I love the sentiment, but this is the kind of stuff you say in your mind when you’re imagining a hypothetical argument.
No. It was not hypothetical. It was a conversation I had.
Significantly, not one person has made an actual coherent suggestion of what the other guy even could have said.
Also don't project your imaginary hypothetical arguments on me. I say stuff the same in person as I do online.
My sister is one of these religious people. Her whole friend group is these religious people. They don’t throw their hands up in surrender when confronted with a logical argument lol. They genuinely believe that things don’t have to make sense.
They believe the Bible is real and if “facts” contradict it, those facts are just wrong. I’ve heard some go so far as to say that science is the devil manipulating reality to trick us into straying from God. Any time my parents challenged my sister’s beliefs, she simply said, “Well, that’s what the Bible says.”
So no, I don’t believe your conversation with this religious protestor went the way you described, that he stood there silently while you calmly and coolly made your points, and then admitted sound defeat like the logic blew his mind🤷🏻♂️
Ok. What should the guy have said? It was not the logic per se that defeated him, it was an aspect he had never considered. He certainly was not the first religious type I have spoken with. Epistemology is a powerfully effective tool. Maybe you have never used it, but that does not mean, much less imply that I did not use it effectively. People who don't think fast, do in fact tend to shut down when they can't refute you.
Indeed, while most religious types cling dogmatically to utterly crazy and morally bankrupt ideas, this was a case where the guy had no response. And other than "Nuh uh", you also have no response. Not you or anyone has cited actual Bible verses that address my question to him.
As far as I can tell, you are responding with your feelings, but no actual argument, much less coherent biblical response. Aka all you have is bullshit and whining. Shrug.
If you said anything to him - which I doubt - then he responded with, "The Lord is my teacher, not Man! Cease your blasphemies, witch!" Or, you know, something like that. If he were capable of processing logic, he wouldn't be an evangelical Christian.
I feel sorry for you as self-identified as one of throng who can't even imagine a person like me directly confronting public bullshit.
He did not say ANY of that. I don't know what specific sect of Christianity he followed, so I don't assign him to being evangelical.
And I have responses to that kind of garbage, when it is trotted out, which it was not in this case.
Significantly, but not surprisingly, nothing you wrote remotely addresses what I brought up to him.
How about "God's word is indisputable and these rare exception you raise are merely people who have been given their own cross to bear"
"God's word" means less than the "Word of Bugs Bunny" until you can demonstrate with actual, specific, falsifiable unambiguous evidence that there actually is a "God".
And all the AI stood up and clapped.
And then a singular person began to slow clap and slowly the rest or the room joined in to roaring cheers.
Yeah, this didn’t happen.
And then everybody clapped.
No. There was no audience. It was just me & him, in front of the Court Building on Golden Gate, in SF. I was not performing for an audience. I called out his nonsense, using his own paradigm.
My guy, everyone saying this isn’t saying there was an actual audience that stood and clapped. It’s sarcasm and they’re calling your story bullshit.
Why? Because most religious zealots don’t back down that easy, yet your story was wrapped up in a nice little bow that most of us don’t experience when dealing with these types.
So “then everyone clapped” means “I think your story is bullshit and you’re just looking for clout”
Not an actual straw-man argument either, as they’re not misrepresenting your story to better their argument, just saying they don’t believe it.
Hope this helps.
1) it IS a Strawman to say "everyone clapped", as it falsely implies my conversation was a performance for an audience.
2) If a person says "it didn't happen", they are calling me a liar. If they mean to say "I am not convinced it happened", that is different and perfectly fine, even if not correct. I very reasonably object to people saying I am a liar.
3) People keep saying "religious zealots don't back down", but fail to back that claim with anything. While not germane to this event, I have found the OPPOSITE to be the case. My experience with religious zealots is they totally collapse when someone has the actual temerity to question their claims. They truly don't have anything to back up their positions, they just never really get questioned. In my experience, they get flustered and totally back down.
If you don’t understand Reddit or sarcasm and just take everything literally, then I can’t help you buddy. Have a good night ✌🏻
You mistake understanding with agreeing. I guess in place a different value on truth than you do.
Funny how your original reply to this told me to simply “piss off”. 🤣 Then you changed it to try and imply that you’re standing on a higher moral ground than me. My values are just fine lol.
You’re absolutely right that understanding and agreeing are two different things, and you’re doing neither in this context. You’re purposely being obtuse over a sarcastic comment as literal just to argue with people.
Again I can’t help you buddy, have a good day 😀🤘🏻
r/thatHappened
And then everyone clapped...
..and then everyone started clapping
I like to remind them that when the bible was written, it was customary for men to have more than one wife.
And slaves as well
Point out to them that Marriage is secular because originally the church had no interest in the event or the institution. It wasn't until the Council of Trent in the 16th century that it was declared a Sacrament of God. And that Churches are only allowed to perform the marriage ceremony with the permission of the government.
And yet they still think that they have the absolute right to tell us what marriage is and is not.
Yes, the secular history of marriage was very well covered during the prop 8 trial briefings. And also in some of the witness testimony.
And then everyone applauds
No. People keep pushing that Strawman. There was no audience. It was not a performance. It was a conversation on the street, between myself and some religious guy.
Most people have an above average number of arms.
I’m not an apologist and don’t believe in any of this, but your argument is well-analyzed in theology and not exactly “a problem” in Christian theology. The bottom line is that some people, by virtue of how god made them, are just not meant for marriage. The “textbook” case would be Paul, who by virtue of his vocation as an apostle, said that he himself should not get married and that maybe its better that other people are single forever too. Theologians extrapolate that some people just shouldn’t get married and can and should live moral lives as a single person. In the case of homosexuality, the idea is that you should live a moral, single life, like Paul, and shouldn’t live a sexual life (which is exclusively reserved for marriage between men and women, because god said so.) again, I don’t believe or agree with any of this, but your argument has been analyzed to death in theology and is not taken “seriously.”
Which verse in the Bible address people who are neither men nor women?
Paul may well have made a personal choice, but that is a very different proposition from making a moral choice for others.
There isn’t, afaik, a verse that addresses people that are neither men nor women. However, for Christians (which I am not), the challenge of “living biblically” is analyzing what they should do or believe in situations that the Bible doesn’t explicitly spell out, and how they can continue to act “biblically” in a situation that the Bible doesn’t spell out. For example, the Bible doesn’t spell out whether you should leave behind your information if you accidentally hit someone’s parked car and they aren’t there. But the Bible does say you should pay restitution to someone if you accidentally damage their farmland, and should go seek them out and help them if you find their livestock injured in the field. So, the Christian puts 2 and 2 together about what they should do about a parked car. Analogously, Christians “ deduce” the morality of lgbtq+ marriage by reading that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that some people, by virtue of what god made them, just aren’t meant for marriage or a sexual life. In this sense, your argument doesn’t present a problem at all. There is a can of worms about biblical interpretation that the Bible itself addresses about itself (kind of recursive and interesting) but that’s technically a separate issue than the one we’re talking about. As to your second point, about how does Paul’s decisions about himself apply to others: Well, Paul does explicitly talk about that, and comes to a kind of conclusion where the believer’s sincere interpretation of what the bible “calls” them to do (should I be saying grace before meals? Should eat kosher? Should I live a sexless life?), is probably the main determinant for if something is sinful. But that requires sincere meditation on the the Bible, so it must be tied with the actual text of what it says (can’t be arbitrarily personal.) again, there are many schools of thought (none of which I’m a part of) but that’s the gist and hence why your argument isn’t a challenging one for theologians.
Frankly, while philosophers may well have discussed related points, I am neither impressed nor convinced by the moral reasoning of those who use a text that endorses genocide, rape and slavery, as their guidebook. Of course Paulists (conveniently), find bodily autonomy offensive.
As to what the "text says"... So many versions.. they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong.
Well, from the point of view of your “standard-issue” Christian, they’re also kind of aware that the genocide, rape, and slavery committed by characters in the Old Testament is kind of at odds with the text of the New Testament (the beatitudes, turn the other cheek, etc). but they’re aware that certain laws and commandments, for one reason or another don’t quite apply anymore to them (eating “unclean foods,” mixing fabrics, etc.) So you get this tension of Old Testament laws somewhat selectively being applied (which is often criticized as “cherry picking”), because it’s not often clear how those Old Testament laws are applied to a Christian. the text says they all apply (and strictly!), but the text also says that some have to be…interpreted. and also the “heroes” of the Old Testament that are committing the murder and rape are also all “sinners,” to different degrees. So the story of the Old Testament, to the New Testament believer, is the story of their god using terrible sinners to fulfill a certain grand purpose. in that sense, the genocide and evil done by those characters isn’t outright condoned, but it does all serve that grand purpose. the general picture is that the Bible is about and for terrible “sinners” (with one exception) still being used for “god’s purpose” despite their deeply problematic lives. that’s how the evil things being done by those characters is still coherent with the Christian world view; they themselves as Christians are also sinners can but can still be part of their God’s plan.
That response seems to pretend that "all the bad stuff was in the old book", without acknowledging the slavery and rape/rape culture, and of course the rampant misogyny in "the new book". I get that you are not a Christian, but you seem to be parroting the same sophistry.
There is a very clear divide in that kind of content between the two collection of texts. New Testament is of the flavor “women shouldn’t give instructions to men/ should cover their heads/ etc.” while the Old Testament is more violent and explicit. There is no pretending about it. It’s not unfair to point out the misogyny and rape culture of the New Testament, but it would be incorrect to say it’s not a totally different species than the Old. That isn’t sophistry. It’s what happens on the page.
As for the different versions: during the life of Paul and the early Christian leadership, there is already “heresy” and infighting about canonical beliefs to a certain extent, only getting worse from there. The “in-universe” explanation is that the Bible is perfect, relevant, divinely inspired, and “mysterious.” In the technical sense, that means for a believer, the correct meaning is put into you by the Holy Spirit, kind of independent of the language or text you’re reading. God makes sure that “you get the point” when you’re reading about oxen being allowed to eat while they plow the field. There’s nothing scientific or falsifiable about that, so it doesn’t quite stand up to the kind of scrutiny I’d like to apply to literary exegesis. But that’s the idea
Did everyone clap after?
That man was Albert Einstein.
God doesn't make people. People make people. If you disagree, just ask anyone's parent.
The gnostic answer to this is that the God who makes mistakes isn't really God, just a fool who thinks he is.
Anyone else still clapping?
There is a difference between a God that makes no mistakes and one that allows mistakes to happen.
There are people who are genetically prone to violence.
And everyone clapped
I am a religious person and agree with you completely.
move this to /thathappened
My eyes are rolling down the street
Right... and then everyone on the bus stood up and clapped.
No. Not every clear or clever comment is produced by TV writers. Some of us can actually do it in person, at the moment. Lawyers even don't professionally.
It was not a performance, it was a conversation. The guy had no answer. And neither has anyone on this post, only underscoring why the guy was able to respond in the moment.
r/thatHappened
is full of people who've never had anything unusual happen to them in their entire lives
You really can’t see that this is either bad AI, or a bad creative writing exercise?
This is absolutely fantastic writing
Try harder, OP
So sorry you never confronted a bigot, and can only baselessly attack others who do.
Unless of course, you want to present some actual factual basis for your claim.
Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed just as easily. That's why everybody is dismissing your wild claim.
It's like the time I went to Vegas to see Ali fight Godzilla. Nobody believes me when I say that happened, and they never have any claims regarding what I did see, if not that.
No. You misunderstand how claims and evidence work. If your position was correct, a person who said "I have an allergy to peanuts", should not be believed unless they have test results proving it. Which is not how the world works.
Your "example" is fallacious. While on the one hand, Godzilla is known to be a fictional monster, conversely religious protesters are known to exist. Also known to exist, are people who disagree with religious protestors.
On the one hand, the reason the story is worth telling is because it had an uncommon outcome. On the other hand, you heard the question I posed to the guy.. unlike him you have had time to ponder it. Can you provide a better answer?
Did they stand and applaud afterwards
No.. there was no audience. It was a discussion on the street. Specifically on Golden Gate, in front of the Federal Courthouse
Cool story.
Did everyone clap?
EVERYONE CLAPPED I WAS HERE
SO MUCH CLAPPING
There’s so much clapping going on in the thread, I think I need to remind everyone to get checked for STI’s. Clap back people, for those in the back!
I once thought I'd made similar degrees of progress with one such asshat.
A decade later, I see him waving the same signs in the background at some hate event.
I felt so fucking defeated.
I don't bother anymore.
I fight for blood, and to show other confused and hurting queer people that there is another path.
And I wait for the haters to all die of old age, with their children or grandchildren fighting alongside us instead.
It is easy to feel defeated. I never saw that guy again. But now, armed with Street Epistemology, I suspect he would have enjoyed the conversation even less than the 1st one
To me, intersex, while often grouped with LGBT, is actually an issue more of purely physical biology, rather than sexual or gender orientation per se.
Except that being intersex strongly affects how they fit (and don't) into the gender roles of society. It also seriously impacts the very definition of sexual orientation.
Not to mention how parents and doctors often force a binary gender on them, including non-medically necessary surgical procedures. And so many intersex people are also trans, because they were forcibly assigned a sex and a gender contrary to their biology (let alone their cognitive relationship to gender).
The existence of intersex folks reveals the myth inherent in sex-is-binary people were taught when they were young. But intersex is very well known in biology. Yes, children are initially taught simplistic models. As we learn more, the models become more complicated to better describe things. All models are wrong, but some are useful.
If a person were to cling to the myth that sexual orientation is binary, the reality of intersex folks also falsifies that.
Intersex may, not must effect how some people do or don't fit into prospective or proposed gender roles.
Not remotely sure what "So many intersex people are also trans" means or is supposed to convey, much less what percentage of intersex folks identify as trans. I don't consider intersex to be the same as trans. While they may line up in certain aspects of a venn diagram, it is by no means a circle.
Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
There really is not anything inherent in intersex, that ties it to LGBT. I have no hostility to LGBT, but it's not the same.
Yup, that surely happened.
This made me think of the other day when curiosity got the best of me and i looked up metoidioplasty. It really got me thinking. I dont even know my own opinion. Just that the world amazes me everyday.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼💗
Yeah right. It’s called free choice. Even if you make the stupid ones
Did the crowd clap? Asking for my imaginary friends
And then everyone clapped
And then everyone clapped?
When I've tried that argument, they always counter with "God made them perfect at birth, but they decided to be sinful." My next comment is usually turn the other cheek or grab that plank from your eye or judge not lest ye etc
Greatest logical fallacy there is, if God is all powerful than he must have capacity to make mistakes or else he is not all powerful. But if he is capable of making a mistake then he is not omnipotent
Therefore to maintain the illusion, God makes no mistakes
Wait wut- it’s not an illusion. I’m confused at ur point low-key. Ik this was yesterday but I’m just reading thisnow
And then everyone clapped.
This reminds me of every other story my friend tells. It always ends up with him shutting down his opponent so thoroughly, that they can’t say anything and just walk away. I don’t believe him, either.
Reminds me of this strange phenomena I tend to hear where somebody unprompted begins to tell me some story about them preaching to some rando on the street, and invariably the storyteller puts in this exact line-
"That man died the next day."
...yeah, and? The fact that this exact phase pops up in these stories leads me to believe it is a rehearsed anecdote from a church gathering and not an actual true story.
If he didn’t want to let go of the bigotry, isn’t that also what God intended and designed? So why was God right to do that, presuming God to always be right?
And everybody clapped.
It wasn't God that corrupted the DNA and minds of people.
Yuh ^
I’m going to probably get downvoted for this but. I believe you could have had this encounter, even if the details aren’t perfect. Except maybe the last line? My mother is one of the types that touts this stuff but when you come at her with evidence she shuts down entirely. I’ve got personal experience with an intersex friend as well. In a lot of cases the exact kind of people who would tout this stuff but truly sees themselves as the good guys are the ones that will back away when you prick their ego. That doesn’t mean they won’t go back and do it again though, theres limited chances of convincing them. To convince them would be to cause a complete collapse in their sense of identity as the good guy. If they admit they were wrong in one place they have to admit their entire self is formed around an abusive premise instead of being the good guys and they most often cannot survive that loss.
If this happened, which I doubt, #2 is wrong. All humans (even people born with a difference of sexual development, or DSD) are either male or female. In the case of people born with DSDs, sometimes it can take more time to figure out their sex, but they each are either female or male. DSDs are disorders that can threaten a child’s life and development, so need treatment. The first step to figuring out the most appropriate treatment is to ascertain the child’s sex. It’s wildly offensive to act like people with a DSD are less of a man or less of a woman than people without a DSD.
Where were the people clapping? I assume everyone within a 5 mile radius clapped?
They were pulling their dicks out of your ass.
And everyone one clapped, as the Santorum ran down the toys leg!
I just held up my hands in surrender and said “I have no answers for you.”, and am backing away. Well done.
If he read the bible he would know that statement 1 is completely incorrect and literally the opposite of christianity.
And then everyone clapped.
Bravo!
Plus, in the christian bible, one of the most revered characters had 700 wives and concubines, so the whole "biblical marriage" is one of the biggest lines of crap they push.
Who?
King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, but in the book of 1st kings it says that resulted in his heart being led away from God.
The god loved him while he had those 1,000 women in his life.
Were they all free or "property"?
Many of the wives and concubines he had were a direct result of political alliances, there’s not really a specific verse that I am aware of that would declare them as either being free or being “property” as you put it, and there isn’t a spot in the bible that names each of his wives and how he ended up married to them. But we can see in the verses about this part of king Solomon’s life that he had erected idols for his wives to worship, and the book mentions that his wives led his heart away from God.
God loves all of us, even if we live lives of sin. Like what king Solomon was doing by worshipping idols and having multiple wives, was sin. God still loves Solomon because he is one of God’s “children.” We can see an example of this in the parable of the lost sheep. “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way, your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.” Matthew 20: 10-14 NIV
Interesting.
My point stands.
The god of the bible is a fictional character, so it can't love us.
I can’t really find an example in your comments of you making a single point in general that I would consider to be still standing. But, you do you.
If the Bible is fiction, then so is King Solomon, which would debase your entire argument to begin with
First, I called him a character; I didn't refer to him as a real person.
Second, OP told the story of a christian saying christian marriage is between one man and one woman. I pointed out one example of biblical marriage that was not.
And I pointed out the fact that, as a direct result of King Solomon’s sin, he was led away from God in that very same story. You tried to flip it and say your point still stands because you believe God is a fictional character. You can’t have it both ways.
King Solomon was led away from god not by having many wives. This god said to not intermarry and the women were from surrounding nations. He then began to worship their gods and built places for them to worship.
You are wrong god was upset about the number of wives. They led him astray and he was jealous the other gods got his attention.
Let me clarify: it doesn't matter if god is fictional or not, so no flip flop both ways here.
If OP's guy is a christian, the fictional god he believes in is okay with multiple wives.
If OP's guy is a christian, and the christian god is real, that god is okay with multiple wives.
Birthday card pish
Fake as hell. No MAGA ever admits they have no answers
MAGA didn't exist in 2010.
Bigotry, yes. Religious zealots, yes. MAGA, no.
Different sides of the same coin. They just didn’t have the name
adam and eve , not adam and steve
And then the whole Train clapped
The error is in your first proposition, it’s a naturalistic fallacy, conflating that which is with that which ought to be. Leading into your second premise, no, people are not “supposed” to be intersex. It is fallout from sin, which is basic theology. Your argument is simply a reapplication of the question in theodicy, which has been answered multiple times over by various theistic leanings (greater good argument, soul-building argument, free will argument). Congratulations, you caught a simpleton who doesn’t know what they believe, even if they are correct.
@tungstoniron
1) I don't agree with the paradigm he was using, but I worked within it. I did not make the error, he made the error by agreeing to the offered term.
2) How did you determine that people are "Not supposed to be intersex"? That is a strong claim, but currently just bald assertion which is contrary to what we see in biology all over the place.
3) Personally, I am not convinced ANYTHING supernatural including but not limited to gawds, dragons, ghosts, fairies or merfolk are real. There is a stunning lack of actual clear, specific , testable, unambiguous evidence to the contrary... But there sure is a lot of tap dancing to pretend otherwise
4) I also am convinced that "Sin" is just a bullshit con job used to control simpletons.
5) Lastly, you wanted to focus on the wrong thing, and like everyone, did not address the question at the heart of my interaction. Specifically
"If marriage is to be only between one woman and one man, on what moral or ethical basis should intersex people be denied the right to marry?"
See, OP? I told you. These people are crazy😆 They don’t use logic and they don’t believe in science. The foundation of their reality is mythology.
Here, this guy just argued away your science with the bonkers assertion that people are born intersex due to “the fallout of sin”, whatever the fuck that means. That’s how I know your conversation with the protestor didn’t really happen. These people are mentally ill to the point of being impervious to reason.
@scallopedtatoes Nah. The guy above did NOT argue. He merely made several bald assertions. Not surprisingly, he naturally dodged the moral/ethical question at the heart of the exchange.
But the bad faith of the guy above is in no way proof that I did not have the conversation with the guy. If you prefer to believe bad evidence and bad reasoning, that is on you.
I’m game. Your argument, OP: 1a. God makes no mistakes. 1b. 1a implies everyone is as God intended them to be. 2a. People exist that are neither XX nor XY, which has occurred throughout history. 2b. Per 1b and 2a, God makes non-XX/XY people intentionally. 3. 2b implies God has intentionality for the aforementioned people in 2a to marry. 4. 3 implies bigotry is against God’s will. Is that correct?
Your entire argument hinges on two assertions, 1a and 2a. The definitions of terms are vague, but not immediately relevant. 1a to 1b is a non-sequitur that specifically ignores the historic Christian concept of sin, and the entire remainder of 2b-4 rests upon 1b. How’s that for bad faith?
The “ethical / moral argument at the heart of the exchange” rests on faulty logical leaps and an equivocal definition of “bigotry.” I can affirm that we shouldn’t hate other humans if you can affirm that’s based on a moral standard that God holds that exists outside of and above natural norms like observable biology.
Otherwise, you have no basis for saying something is wrong as long as it’s observable in the natural world. “Intersex people exist therefore we shouldn’t hate them” is logically equally valid with “short people exist therefore we should feed them to the sharks.”
You have a serious lack of understanding of biology lol
Nicely vague & quite meaningless absent specificity
We are taught we have ten toes and ten fingers, we are taught people have a weiner or vagina this is the norm
Yes, you learned these things at about the same time that you learned what a triangle & a square were. And that to draw a house you drew a triangle on top of a square. Some people, apparently including you, never grow past the simplest childish explanations and understanding of the world.
But the biology of sexual reproduction fits poorly and very inaccurately into the overly simplistic model you want to cling to. Rather than the simple sexual binary you seem to think to be correct, is actually filled with exceptions. So much so, that the more far accurate biology model is a bimodal distribution of traits.
Ps "Weiner" is culinary term, not a biology term. The word is penis.
You know it's crazy that people like you actually exist.
I love how offended you are that people have an understanding of biology beyond what you learned in kindergarten. "Crazy". Lol
Yeah we will just medical school didn't get.
As coherent sentences seem beyond you, i am a bit impressed that you managed to correctly spell biology... and your functional knowledge of which seems to end there.
Why argue about gender in marriage. Who made it absolute to be married? Religion and beliefs all all mental illnesses. This is proven by the existence of lawyers. So till death do us part makes us all lying bigots. Not to mention if I want to screw the neighbors wife I'm going to risk getting caught rather than getting my wife's and her husband's permission. Fools continue to make rules to be broken. That makes them popular. And when they become popular enough, they can go to congress where they can use the rules to become rich and famous by breaking more rules. And rule us into submission.