>meet christian >talking about his views on marriage >he

A faggot. You met a faggot, OP.

>>3198816
>tells me the core christian view is a permanent bond between two people to allow them to have sex for procreation

So he's advocating that?

>>3198991
Thats what OP says

>>3198816
>he says he separates legal marriage from what the bible promotes
Sounds fine as long as he's teaching that both are valid and that it's in the context of 'What Christians Believe' which it seems he is. Religious freedom means he can believe whatever he wants so long as he doesn't impede others' belief.

>>3198999
But he'd be teaching anti-homosexuality by teaching anti-procreational sex to people. He seems bent on spreading that norm throughout my town. This magic nigga isn't even from this town but he's got a following.

>>3198991
Yea

All what he says is true. I would say the same thing even if I knew you were gay.

I mean, is that REALLY offensive to you? Just the very acknowledgement of Christian marriages are hurtful to you?

It's sad to be honest.

>>3199016
It's that he's actually persuading my small fucking town pretty well and anti-procreational sex would also mean promoting anti-homosexuality you fuck. I'm worried.

Well just stop fuckin dudes and this wouldn't be a problem

>>3199016

And yes, sodomy is a sin. If thats masturbation, gay sex, or straight anal/oral sex to completion, etc. its wrong. And so is birth control. It warps sex away from something that should be an act of generation of new life into just treating sex like a way to get off.

Not all gay folk do this, and in fact the Church has plenty of celibate gay folk or gay folk in mixed orientation marriages.

>>3199019

Freedom 17:76 baby.

People have rights, government gets to recognise marriages as it sees fit so long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

Christians can't obligate others to practice their religion, full stop.

>>3199019

Its promoting the truth and what honest open sexuality in accordance with God looks like.
Do you want him to lie or what? I don't understand at all.
I am very Catholic and a celibate lesbian. I'm baffled at what you want Christians to do. Lie? Abandon Christianity and start agreeing with your every action?

>>3199028

OP mentions the christian anti-gay marriage debate makes it sound like the guy is advocating making real marriage more constricted to "christian marriage".

>>3199044

Real marriage will always be Christian marriage as far as I am concerned.

What government definition changes with fashion you can only control so far as you are a citizen. I don't even know what the legal definition is supposed to be--"a commitment ceremony with cake?" But we allow divorce and remarriage, so it cannot be commitment. An "I wuv you" ceremony where you get to wear a tux/dress? Genuine love isn't a requirement either. Legal marriage often seems a hollow and empty thing that couples enter in for the tax benefits. What place does it have in a Christian context?

>>3199051

There are other things besides tax purposes but that's essentially it. There's no test for love so you can't use that as any sort of requirement for recognising marriages. And, of course, marriages are what people make of it.

To me a hollow and empty thing would be a celibate lgbt person explaining why somehow straight "christian" marriage is the only real marriage.

>>3199062

I'm sorry if it feels hollow to you but its true. A man and a woman coming together as one flesh, and in imitation of creation, generating new life and educating said life in the faith.

And its not like only Christians have this either, there is natural marriage as well, every time a family is formed for the creation of new life.

Vs. "tax benefit ceremony with cake and dressuptime".

I don't know. I don't really understand why some gay people turn Christian marriage into the latter. For me I love being Christian, I love Christian marriage, and its sad to see that even the existence of Christian ethics and meaning beyond "tax benefit ceremony" is so offensive to some people.

File: 1355292783906.jpg (68KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x600px

>guy actually gets handed christian teachings
>is confused and scared

>>3199026
>>3199028
It seems like OP is having a problem with his neighborhood being suddenly against non-procreational sex. He doesn't like the chance for social pressure it'd cause. It'd be a more inclusive form of anti-homosexuality hate, I suppose.
>>3199028
>I am very Catholic and a celibate lesbian.

How's that experience been for you?

>>3199075

>How's that experience been for you?

Well and in fact most Catholic forums I go to are extremely supportive of me and gay folk in general, and it rarely comes up outside of the internet (though I do feel a certain pressure to act more feminine). I don't get where most accusations of "hate" come from.

But I feel like my less religious friends who know me from before I converted don't really get it, and its caused a bit of a rift between us. I don't think they are hateful toward me either, they just see the world differently I guess.

File: adventure!.gif (219KB, 250x287px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 250x287px

>>3199062
Marriage is defined in different ways in different cultures. You can't fault a person for attaching to a specific one.

>>3199072

I think you're misrepresenting things. You say that Christian marriage has "meaning beyond tax benefit and ceremony" but non-christians marriages often have meaning to the married couples. It's incredibly cynical to basically say people don't bring their own value to things.

What marriage does for me as a secular humanist is just as subjective and for my own benefit as anything in your faith that you, or your fellow congregation rather bring to their marriages.

It's not that you point out that Christianity has its own baggage to bring to marriage that offends people, its either the pretending its the only game in town or the forcing that shit on others via legislation that offends people.

File: images (3) (1).png (580KB, 1000x1133px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1000x1133px

>proceeds to go on about non-procreational sex and sex outside of that permanent bond he called marriage is bad
>goes into objectification and stuff

Just tell them to let gays get married so they'll have the permanent bond to have sex morally.

>tells me the core christian view is a permanent bond between two people to allow them to have sex for procreation

That's christian marriage. Legal marriage allows to people to become a family.

>>3199082

Christianity also acknowledges natural marriage though, which includes non-Christians. OP is just offended that a Christian guy in general is teaching people about the meaning of sexuality. He's not forcing anyone nor "pretending its the only game in town" (he acknowledges it isn't). But that alone is seen as hateful or scary to OP.

Out of curiosity, what does marriage mean to you?

>>3199085
"Magic Nigga" separates legal marriage from Christian marriage so it's fundamentally impossible for gays to actually marry under Christian teachings.

And having procreational sex != becoming a family. Adoption.

>that crazy Magic Nigga

>>3199091
>And having procreational sex != becoming a family. Adoption.
Actually scrap this. I read you wrong.

But yeah, seems like OP is upset Magic Nigga is teaching people to not enable him anymore.

File: 1357250842784.png (28KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 300x300px

>>3199023
Suddenly, the voice of reason.

>you will never stamp out the gay with Magic Nigga

>>3199089

I just want to point out that "natural marriage" doesn't exist in nature. I mean, firstly because marriage isn't in nature, but also because the standard family unit as we imagine it (1 father, 1 mother >1 children) is not by any means the natural or universal family unit of the human species. "Natural marriage" is Christian projection.

But also, lets say it is fundamentally impossible for LGBT and non-Christians to marry under Christian teachings, so what? You're not going to be procreating any time soon, I don't know why, then, you feel you can get secular married to a woman. Being celibate is unnecessary as you define Christian marriage.

Marriage means nothing, personally, to me. I'm in the category of person who might only bother with marriage for its perks.

>>3199093
are you talking to yourself?

>>3199099
>I just want to point out that "natural marriage" doesn't exist in nature

Human beings are a part of nature. Natural marriages very much to exist in nature.

Natural doesn't mean universal. It means something that you don't need divine revelation to come to understand. That men and women come together and create another generation is not something revealed by Jesus Christ, it is a part of our reality which has crossed through many other societies.

Non-Christians can get married under Christian teachings and even LGBT people (I think you meant "same-sex marriage" or something, because bi people can still easily marry someone of the opposite gender, pre-op trans folk can still consummate and even the LG can enter mixed orientation marriage if they are called to it. I can link you to a lesbian womans article written on her marriage to a man.

>You're not going to be procreating any time soon, I don't know why, then, you feel you can get secular married to a woman. Being celibate is unnecessary as you define Christian marriage.

I don't define it. And I don't now what you mean here.

>Marriage means nothing, personally, to me. I'm in the category of person who might only bother with marriage for its perks.

I get the feeling that a lot of irreligious lgbt folk feel this way. The whole discussion is framed around "perks".

>tfw Episcopalians are Christians with gay marriage

Never trust someone who uses the vague catch-all 'Christian' to define any set of beliefs beyond Jesus Christ is the Messiah and son of God sent to save humanity.

>>3199118

Episcopalians adopted that conveniently around the same time it was fashionable to do so.

I use Christian to refer to the teachings of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

>>3199108
>It means something that you don't need divine revelation to come to understand.

By that notion alone, it definitely doesn't exist.

People bond independent of the need or the drive to reproduce. Marriage in many cultures and today, is about bonds, not families and sex and reproduction needn't have anything to do with that.

> And I don't now what you mean here.

The logic of 'Christian marriage' obligates straight Christians to marry. It doesn't obligate you and other LGBT Christians to not enter into secular marriage. There's no reason why you couldn't enter into a sexless secular marriage with another women. Because refraining from do that doesn't promote procreation in anyway. You're essentially already out of that game.

>I get the feeling that a lot of irreligious lgbt folk feel this way.

I think it's more just irreligious folk. And that's fine. I know that's not always the case though.

I envision myself adopting children, and being in a marriage might facilitate that so that would be a reason for me.

>>3199119
>I use Christian to refer to the teachings of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Perhaps have the courtesy that other Christians see things differently?

>>3199119
>I use Christian to refer to the teachings of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Then you are an idiot. Use Catholic or Roman Catholic, it's a specific doctrine. You'll get rolled up with those Pentecostals and LDS and other fundamentals. Though you're probably part of a conservative Diocese anyways.

>>3199122
>By that notion alone, it definitely doesn't exist.

Yes it does. Flesh out your logic a little more?

>People bond independent of the need or the drive to reproduce.

And not all bonds are marriage. I am well bonded to all sorts of friends and family and they aren't marriage. Marriage requires that desire to reproduce. Honestly, we aren't married to anyone we "bond" to.

>The logic of 'Christian marriage' obligates straight Christians to marry.

Not at all. In fact, virginity is seen as a higher gift than marriage.

> It doesn't obligate you and other LGBT Christians to not enter into secular marriage. There's no reason why you couldn't enter into a sexless secular marriage with another women.

That would be considered scandal, which is also a sin. And a Catholic cannot enter into a non-Catholic marriage, period, that is, I am bound by the laws of the Catholic Church regardless. A straight Catholic cannot go into a polygamist sect if he wants to marry more than once. If he gets married he needs to be married in the Church and receive legal recognition as well if he is able to.

>>3199124

I acknowledge they "see things differently" (to say the least).

File: TradCatholicSpectrum_zps53d3d74d.jpg (55KB, 960x384px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 960x384px

>>3199127

I think "conservative" and "liberal" are political labels and don't apply to the Church. You either follow the Church or you do not. Anything beyond that is divisive. Pic related.

>>3199124
>have the courtesy of enabling lies from people who can't interpret Christianity correctly
No. I'm not going to treat fools with respect.

And OP used the catch-all Christian, we don't know the views of the person in question and their views are 1 to 1 with Catholics for the most part. The guy is probably a liberal Catholic.

>>3198816
>should I be happy or mad
Why would you possibly be happy about something like that?

>>3199138
Pro gay marriage, I'd assume.
>you get your marriage but get berated for sex

>>3199139
OP is gay, so presumably he's pro gay marriage and has no reason to celebrate this sort of attitude

>>3199099
>opinions
Believe whatever you want, anon.

>Marriage means nothing, personally, to me. I'm in the category of person who might only bother with marriage for its perks.


Marriage makes two people become a family and a spouse to one another legally and acknowledged by the government.

some of the rights gained in marriage as a spouse
>They can't be banned in visiting their spouse by his/her parents
>They can take care of their spouse in the hospital even after visiting hours
>They can buy prescription drugs for their bedridden spouse
>They can make medical decisions for their spouse if the he/she is unconscious or unable to make the decision him/herself
>Depending on their employment, they can take a leave of absence to take care of their spouse.

>They have the privilege not to testify against their spouse.

>They gain the right to live with one another in the same country.

I'm sure there are a lot more other than tax excepts and rights in grim topics like death.

>>3199131
>Flesh out your logic a little more?
If you're putting special revelation aside (ie. knowledge from the holy spirit) then you're talking about observing the way things work in nature. That's science, and as I pointed out, and as anthropologists will tell you, the assumption of 1 man + 1 woman + children = the only family unit is wrong.

>Marriage requires that desire to reproduce.

This is a non-sequitur. It only does if you arbitrarily decide it does.

>I am bound by the laws of the Catholic Church regardless

Therefore if you can't marry an opposite sex person to reproduce you can marry. If it's really about reproduction then sterile couples wouldn't be allowed to marry.

If you can't or won't reproduce then as anyone can "naturally" see, it makes no difference to anything if you lived your life with a women you loved. And if the Church says "no" then you following a faith that makes no sense.

>>3199146
>some of the rights gained in marriage as a spouse

Thanks for that list.

>>3199135
>I don't believe in those labels pic related
>pic illustrates the existence of those labels
Okay anon. Enjoy bowing to the American Council of Bishops instead of The Vatican.

>>3199136
>No. I'm not going to treat fools with respect.

That's unfair considering the respect we're affording you right now.

>>3199028
>I am very Catholic and a celibate lesbian.
what

>>3199149
>If you're putting special revelation aside (ie. knowledge from the holy spirit) then you're talking about observing the way things work in nature.

No. We are talking about to what extent that divine revelation has already been reflected in human societies through time, as already discussed. I think you misunderstood. So,for example, "thou shalt not kill" is part of the natural law. It was revealed by Jesus, but you don't need to have it revealed by Jesus in order to come to understand it on your own. Not all societies did, but some did.

That is considered a natural law.

>This is a non-sequitur. It only does if you arbitrarily decide it does.

No, that is the definition of marriage. I didn't decide it, it was given to the Church by God and solidly defined. Truth doesn't magically change because I decide it does.

>Therefore if you can't marry an opposite sex person to reproduce you can marry

No you cannot. And this sentence makes no sense.

> If it's really about reproduction then sterile couples wouldn't be allowed to marry.

Sterile couples are still required to have sex that is open to life. A man with no penis, for example, cannot marry because he wouldn't be able to consummate the marriage, wherein two become one flesh to begin with.

>, it makes no difference to anything if you lived your life with a women you loved

It does make a difference to ever call that a marriage though, which is absolutely not allowed since it causes confusion and scandal. Again, if we were to rename that nonsense "benefit ceremony" as a marriage we'd need a new term for actual marriages.

I may live with loved ones, (so long as it doesn't provide an occasion for sin), but I'd never call it a marriage.

>>3199136
>No. I'm not going to treat fools with respect.
Good job following Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Francis.

>>3199154

I know, the pic shows a divisiveness I dislike.

> American Council of Bishops instead of The Vatican.

False dichotomy, as the USCCB is in line with the Vatican.

>>3199162
False. The American Council of Bishops and the Archdioceses are fragmented and very much not in line with the Vatican and haven't been for quite some time. The only thing in line are the bases set down in Vatican II. The focus of all the organisations are scattered.

>>3199024
>in fact the Church has plenty of celibate gay folk or gay folk in mixed orientation marriages.
That's some sad ass shit.

File: 1364009855713.gif (321KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 500x375px

>>3199167
Whats so sad about their personal choices?

>>3199159
>been reflected in human societies through time,

And in the 1-2 hundred thousand years we've been around, it's not been universally 'reflected' in our societies. But what does it matter really, you can move the goalposts as you need.

>"thou shalt not kill" is part of the natural law.

You think there's no situation where killing is the right thing to do?

>No, that is the definition of marriage.

That doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. Doesn't matter which authority says so.

>And this sentence makes no sense

That's because I meant to write 'cant'.

>A man with no penis, for example, cannot marry

This definition is dumber and less useful than I ever realised.

>It does make a difference to ever call that a marriage though

There's more than one kind of marriage though, as we've established.

But if it's the word you're hung up on then are you saying you're ok with LGBT catholics entering into same-sex 'civil unions', say,?

>>3199172

They could be living much happier lives bumming each other.

>>3199166

No they are in line with the Vatican. I don't think you know what you are talking about, especially since you are calling them the "The American Council of Bishops" and seem to be implying that it existed pre-Vatican II.

Different ministries will always have different "focuses", this is by design and is a strength of the Church. It does not mean that they are out of line or scattered or fragmented. There are genuine schismatic or dissident groups the USCCB is (obviously) not one of them.

>>3199167

They are pretty happy, happier than the people I see on here to be honest.

File: images (14).jpg (62KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 400x300px

>>3199172
They chose not to fall in love, to be romantically involved with someone. They chose to die alone, surrounded by people with fragile, conditioned love.

File: 1405730092487.gif (3MB, 300x451px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x451px

what does /lgbt/ think of this:

Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18:22

i am a gay atheist, and i just can not comprehend how some people think that christianity is accepting of homosexuals.
of course i am grateful for their double standards because many people would chose christianity over gayrights if they had to pick one or the other.
But come the fuck on, it plainly commands its followers to kill gays.

>something something old testament
then dont pack it together with the new...

<pic unrelated, i am actually serious

>>3199174
>And in the 1-2 hundred thousand years we've been around, it's not been universally 'reflected' in our societies.

Irrelevant it does not need to be. For the third time. This isn't me moving any goalposts, this is you repeatedly missing the goal and insisting you got it. I wish 4chan had italics because: *natural doesn't mean universal* (see >>3199108 the FIRST post I made on the topic).

>You think there's no situation where killing is the right thing to do?

See CCC 2263-2267.

>That doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. Doesn't matter which authority says so.

It isn't arbitrary at all. Are you that fixated on the word marriage, or what? We already know a relationship open to life is by biological reality quite different than your "ceremony" only done for some cheap government benefits.

>There's more than one kind of marriage though, as we've established.

No there is only one marriage recognized by the Church, which is all that matters to me. And any "civil union" would need to be completely non-sexual with no sexual connotation or attempt to make it as some sort of marriage equivalent for me to entertain it.

File: 1340800902795.jpg (129KB, 800x484px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 800x484px

>>3199176
>Remember one of those psychologist book about the traits seen in happy people
>look it up
>casual sex and frequent sex isn't on the list
>spirituality or religious faith is
Well damn. Could be okay.

>>3199182
>expecting /lgbt/ to understand Mosaic Law
I expect people to point to Leviticus and stuff and just start spouting "This is what Christians really believe!"

The Bible wasn't assembled for the layman and yet they keep trying to go through it and failing horribly.

>>3199182

It says nothing about celibate gay people and also that is part of Jewish law which is fulfilled and perfected by Jesus Christ (see Matthew 5:17) along with a condemnation of any religiously motivated death penalties (John 8).

File: 1338071383717.gif (2MB, 350x312px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x312px

>>3199182
Paul wrote that shit. Everyone knows Paul spent years killing christians, then he flips his shit and joins them and now somehow his words carry weight? What is this?

>>3199190

Paul did not write Leviticus...

>>3199184

When saying "not universal" I'm saying it's not all, it's not most. The way you think 'natural' marriage appears is not reflected in many societies in history at all. It doesn't even make sense to use this as a means to form an idea of how things should be done. You know what would be part of natural law by your reasoning? Slaverly.

>See CCC 2263-2267.

Yea, that's not natural law either. You would be VERY hard pressed to find societies that didn't recognise self defence or defence of others as acceptable.

>It isn't arbitrary at all.

Yes it is. Your catholic marriage crowbars this pretense of procreation into the definition arbitrarily. You can say that "that's what the dogma is" if you like, just lets not pretend that marriage has any NECESSARY connection with sex and reproduction.

>No there is only one marriage recognized by the Church

You disagree with me then say something entirely consistent with what I said.

>>3199190
>>3199192
the fact that you know the name paul means you know more than an average christian and this is how much you know

File: monty2.jpg (165KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 540x540px

>>3199190

>>3199192

Moses did, right? The plants talk to.

>>3199187

[citation needed]

>>3199201
moses didn't write shit
the original texts were also lost anyway
ezra "remembered" what they said long after the texts were lost
its all fanwank

>>3199203
For which?

>>3199201

the guy plants*

>>3199207

for the book that says celibate gay religious folk will be happier than the gay religious folk who bum each other.

>>3199201
>>3199206
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#From_scripture_to_canon:_formation_of_the_Old_Testament

>>3199199

I have zero idea how you are measuring "average Christian". St.Paul is sort of a big deal.

>>3199201

There's a Jewish pious tradition that said he did, but in reality Levicitus is anonymous.

>>3199197

> The way you think 'natural' marriage appears is not reflected in many societies in history at all.

Yes it was, but more importantly, it does not need to be. Natural does not mean "a lot". It means exactly what I said it did. And no, slavery is not a part of natural law, since slavery is an offense against charity.

Once again, natural law are those moral principles, already revealed through Jesus Christ, which can ALSO be found outside of the Church. Not by all, not by most.

>Yea, that's not natural law either. You would be VERY hard pressed to find societies that didn't recognise self defence or defence of others as acceptable.

Once again you don't understand natural law. Secondly, I can tell you didn't bother to read CCC 2263-2267 like I told you to.

>Your catholic marriage crowbars this pretense of procreation into the definition arbitrarily.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. Procreation is the very foundation of human life, much much moreso than the absolute nothingness yo base your marriage on.

And we can twist the word marriage to mean stained underpants too, but at that point you are playing with semantics.

File: did you say lewd.jpg (95KB, 850x854px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 850x854px

>>3199197
>>3199184
>these niggas still fighting over opinions

Do I need to call out Magic Nigga to quiet you kids down?

>>3199211
It never explicitly says religious gay celibates are happier than gays who partake in sex frequently. It's just a book by a psychologist that has in it traits the happiest people consistently have. Spirituality is on the list. Frequent sex is not. Closest you get is "close relationships". Sex is not mentioned.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/03/28/the-pursuit-of-happiness-characteristics-of-happy-people/

>>3199182
>leviticus

>>3199215

> which can ALSO be found outside of the Church. Not by all, not by most

Not necessarily by any apparently. This is shifting the goal posts. Why even crowbar the word 'nature' in when it only refers to nature when its convenient?

>much much moreso than the absolute nothingness yo base your marriage on.

> Procreation is the very foundation of human life

For argument's sake, I agree. Procreation is a very significant thing. That doesn't mean it necessarily has to have something to do with marriage. Making marriage about that is arbitrary and selfserving

Take a step back a second and check your tone. I'm not standing here and saying your marriage [would be] based on made up bullshit fairtales invented by high bronze age farmers. I'm not putting your shit down. How about you extend a little common fucking courtesy,

>but at that point you are playing with semantics.

You're already playing with semantics by bring in all this 'natural law' shit. That's my whole point here.

>>3199223
>It never explicitly says religious gay celibates are happier than gays who partake in sex frequently.

Yea, and so what kind of dent does being celibate make in happiness.

>>3199223
>http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/03/28/the-pursuit-of-happiness-characteristics-of-happy-people/

I'd really like to see the citations for the claims on that page. Spirituality makes people twice as happy as non-spiritual? Are you fucking kidding me? Religiosity has an inverse relationship with the HDI and the happiness of nations.

you should have told him you were gay so he could fuck you in his bumper stickered SUV

>>3199232
>Not necessarily by any apparently.

No. You seriously think that man and women coming together to have children never ever occurred outside of the Church? Really?

>Why even crowbar the word 'nature' in when it only refers to nature when its convenient?

Sigh. It refers to nature because it can be found in nature, and is found all over the world even to this day outside of the Church. That is straightforward what it means and you decided that it magically meant "most marriages in nature" or "all marriages in nature" or God knows what else. Even after you were corrected on this point 4 times.

>For argument's sake, I agree. Procreation is a very significant thing. That doesn't mean it necessarily has to have something to do with marriage.

Sure, we can twist the word "marriage" so it means "old cheese". Great. By this logic any definition is inherently arbitrary.

But we'd still need a word to refer to the extremely significant sacrament wherein a man and a woman become one flesh for the generation and rearing of new life. Aka the foundation of our very lives. It just so happens that the word "marriage" was the one historically chosen by human beings and our languages.

You are the one being "arbitrary" and "selfserving" by taking marriage and trying to fit it into your image which you already admitted was hollow and done mostly just for benefits earlier in the thread. I didn't think that was a put down I thought that was something of your own admission and I apologize if I misunderstood. To be honest I think saying that procreation and new life and the sacraments are "arbitrary" and should be changed on a whim for your own comfort (or that Catholic lgbt folk ought to enter into some hollow so-called "legal marriage" for govt benefits is a far greater insult than saying "durr bs fairytales".

>>3199237
Religiosity has little to do with spirituality. Religion is just an outgrowth. And if you really look at it objectively, atheism is now just another religion. One that uses science as quasi nature worship/mysticism.

There is and has never been and never will be a society without some form of organized spirituality. It is part of the human condition. That you hate or are told to hate certain religions that hate other thins doesn't change the fact that they are tapping into something that is a part of all of us.

>>3199235
Seeing the purpose of it I assume it'd strengthen the religious element in your life. I don't think it's been quantified though.

>>3199237
>I'd really like to see the citations for the claims on that page
It's from the guy's book The Pursuit of Happiness if you want to look further.

However, we need to note two things about your argument:

>The more developed nations are also the most influenced by Enlightenment ideology and less developed by religious ideologies
>Clumping together "religion" is an issue itself due to their practices. I wouldn't like Asatru and Christian people being lumped with Hindus who support a caste system or Buddhists with Muslims who are consistently at war.

>>3199237

> Religiosity has an inverse relationship with the HDI and the happiness of nations.

Any serious study controls for location so that is irrelevant. I'm a different anon but I can post many studies showing that religious folk have better mental/physical health as well as social adjustment.

In terms of happiness though:

>Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=177228

>Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2811%2962799-7/abstract

>People with no religious affiliation are at an elevated risk with people who are religiously affiliated.
>People with high levels of general religious involvement, organizational religious involvement, religious salience, and intrinsic religious motivation are atreduced risk for depressive symptoms and depressive disorders
>Longitudinal research is sparse, but suggests that some forms of religious involvement might exert a protective effect against the incidence and persistence of depressive symptoms or disorders.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10480747

>>3199247
>science is a religion
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>3199237

Part 2 of citations

>The spiritual and religious group had less distress and less mistrust than the religious-only group (p < .05 for both).
>Moreover, individuals who perceive themselves to be both spiritual and religious may be at particularly low risk for morbidity and mortality based on their good psychological status and ongoing restorative activities.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12008795

>Own religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction. More unusually, average religiosity in the region also has a positive impact: people are more satisfied in more religious regions. This spillover holds both for those who are religious and for those who are not. The flipside of the coin is that a greater proportion of “atheists” (those who say they do not currently belong to any religious denomination) has negative spillover effects, for the religious and atheists alike.
http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/56/61/20/PDF/wp200901.pdf

>Overall, husbands and wives in first marriages who are very religious have significantly higher marital adjustment scores than spouses who are less religious. Similarly, husbands and wives in first marriages who share the same religious denomination report higher marital adjustment scores than spouses who report different denominations. For spouses in both first marriages and remarriages, those who report that they are “both religious” have higher marital adjustment scores than spouses where both partners are not religious, or where only the wife is religious.
http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/33/2/246.short

I can give a LOT more studies like this if you are interested.

>>3199254

He didn't say science was a religion.

>>3199258
No, he said atheism was practically one. Which is equally laughable.

>>3199261

The new atheist movement does resemble a religion in some ways. It has no gods obviously but neither does scientology.

>>3199246
>ure, we can twist the word "marriage" so it means "old cheese". Great. By this logic any definition is inherently arbitrary.

Let me put it another why. What can you not have a marriage without? The answer is not sex, or procreation.

>To be honest I think saying that procreation and new life and the sacraments are "arbitrary" and should be changed on a whim for your own comfort (or that Catholic lgbt folk ought to enter into some hollow so-called "legal marriage" for govt benefits is a far greater insult than saying "durr bs fairytales".

What I am here defending is that there are people, religious and not, LGBT and not, who have marriages or want to be married and have cultural reasons outside of "maek babbys!!!" and that those marriages are very important to them and others for spiritual and cultural and practical reasons. It's not my place, nor yours, to say those unions are nothingness or are wrong.

We live in a world where we have the privileged of not needing to give a shit about having kids if we don't want to. Just because we are all the product of procreation doesn't mean we're obligated to do that and make it the basis of our most intimate bonds.

>>3199247
>There is and has never been and never will be a society without some form of organized spirituality. It is part of the human condition.

Absolutely. Society will never be free of it. It's like the flu.

>atheism is now just another religion. One that uses science as quasi nature worship/mysticism.

Atheism doesn't necessitate that. You can only generalise atheists as not believing in god. The reverence for science is just a westerner thing. Reverence for it is common among western atheists and religious folk alike. Atheism is by definition not a religion.

>>3199263
There's nothing "new" about "new atheism" All you're talking about is that now it's something of a movement. And barely one at that.

>>3199269
>Let me put it another why. What can you not have a marriage without? The answer is not sex, or procreation.

There are quite a few things you cannot have a marriage without. Openness to life, which includes those sexual and procreativre aspects, is very much one of them.

>It's not my place, nor yours, to say those unions are nothingness or are wrong.

I didn't say they were worthless. If its closed to life I don't see it as a true marriage though, it is missing one of those ingredients of what makes a marriage a marriage. Its so much more than legal paperwork or a bulleted list of "perks".

You can have "intimate bonds" outside of marriage of course, depending on what you mean by intimate bonds. And nobody is obligated to have children, but in that case you just aren't called to marriage. I'm not.

I understand your point better now, so I apologize for my defensiveness.

>>3199282
>it is missing one of those ingredients of what makes a marriage a marriage.

That's the arbitrary part. You could say you can't make a cake without flower, that's not arbitrary. But insisting that cake be made this something, say, ginger, is arbitrary and that's what catholicism does with this procreation angle.

You didn't say worthless but you did say they were based in nothingness.

File: 1400119391310.jpg (20KB, 284x276px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 284x276px

You're a faggot OP. Not figuratively, but literally.

>>3199292
>That's the arbitrary part. You could say you can't make a cake without flower, that's not arbitrary. But insisting that cake be made this something, say, ginger, is arbitrary and that's what catholicism does with this procreation angle.

No its not arbitrary its at the very heart of the marriage. Otherwise you have just any other social bond. Its the very fruit of the marriage. That is why there is marriage. Its like saying forgiveness for sins is arbitrary in confession.

I said your definition of marriage was based in nothingness. When I asked you what marriage was to you, you said benefits and not much else. Unless that was someone different.

File: 1395752515467.gif (3MB, 310x160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 310x160px

I want to get married someday with another guy. I want us to be a family.

I've skimmed the thread and all this religion talk doesn't really affect me except for the right to marry. Apparently, I'm not happy as a religious person but it's not a competition.

I don't want to be stuck as just a lover to my future boyfriend. I just want the right to marry, but with the person I love. Why so against it? Can't we just move aside religion and let other people get married? It's not like it's hurting anyone as long as it's consensual.

>>3199292

Anyway I am sorry but I need to head out. Again, I apologize if I misunderstood you at all.

>>3199300
>No its not arbitrary its at the very heart of the marriage.

But it isn't at the very heart of marriage, the two people involved are.

>I said your definition of marriage was based in nothingness.

My definition of marriage is not the same as what marriage would be for me, my definition of marriage is encompassing of my fellow citizens. That it can be just a practical arrangement and it can be a very spiritually loaded and meaningful.

I'm not pitting what my marriage would be against what the church says it must be here. I'm just outlining why the Church's definition is less useful than the secular. Also that the church doesn't have a trademark on the word or concept.

You don't get to claim the institution of marriage for yourselves.

>>3199303

Jesus, is that Brevik?

Also, the discussion here hasn't really been that you shouldn't get to get married as far as I can tell, it's just that this celibate catholic lesbian thinks you shouldn't get to call it a marriage.

File: 1388654082645.png (95KB, 534x664px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 534x664px

If god didn't want homofags to bond so well, why did he make prostate stimulation so damn enjoyable.

checkmate straightheists!

>>3199280
Atheism as it's being sold is little more then organized nature worship.
Read up on the foundign fathers religious leanings. Will sound familiar to the objective.

>>3199274
>Absolutely. Society will never be free of it. It's like the flu.

Yeah, I want you to do something. Count how many times you say something quasi religous or hold spiritual reverance for something.
Sprituality isn't wrong or evil.
No feelings we have are truly wrong or "evil", just our expression of them can be.

>Atheism doesn't necessitate that. You can only generalise atheists as not believing in god. The reverence for science is just a westerner thing. Reverence for it is common among western atheists and religious folk alike. Atheism is by definition not a religion.

No, atheists are supposed to not believe in religion or spiritual matters period. The current anti christianity thing is a really odd outgrowth that seems more like people are using real atheistic ideals as a way to wage a religious war against one particular religion. It's odd but there it is.
And reverence for science isn't a westerner thing. Fucks sake how utterly closed off from reality can you be. Science as nature/reality worship has been a thing in most countries for longer then the americas have even been a thing.

Hell in some ancient cultures science was seen as magic and pure religion and even interwoved gods and mysticism in it.

Kind of how physicists created the myth of dark matter to explain away why none of the math they're doing makes a lick of sense.

>>3199392
>Atheism as it's being sold is little more then organized nature worship.

Atheism is being sold as "religion sucks".

>people are using real atheistic ideals

Ideals? There's no ideals in atheism. There's no creeds or precepts. Atheism is a category of people who don't believe in gods.

You can disbelieve in gods and have some sort of spiritual religion. Nature veneration, ancestor worship, some Buddhism inclusive.

The current Anti-christianity thing is growing pains of a culture that now has enough comfort and safety nets that it has the privilege of apathy and disbelief.

>Kind of how physicists created the myth of dark matter

Dark Matter isn't a myth. It's an indirectly-detectable substance. The maths just indicated it was there.

>>3199392

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77yXhAibQp4

>>3199424
>Atheism is being sold as "religion sucks".
No, RELIGION AM BAD HERE SOME EVOLUTION I DINNAE UNDERSTAND!
This is basically how most atheism vs religious arguments start and end.

>Ideals? There's no ideals in atheism. There's no creeds or precepts. Atheism is a category of people who don't believe in gods.
>You can disbelieve in gods and have some sort of spiritual religion. Nature veneration, ancestor worship, some Buddhism inclusive.
>The current Anti-christianity thing is growing pains of a culture that now has enough comfort and safety nets that it has the privilege of apathy and disbelief.
No, that's wrong as fuck. You can't be an atheist and believe in religion or sprituality. That definition is stupid and wrong. And a lot of people who claimed to be atheists were just religious people who used it as a way to distance themselves from religion or desparage one religion or another behind the safety of "don't believe it."

>>Kind of how physicists created the myth of dark matter
>Dark Matter isn't a myth. It's an indirectly-detectable substance. The maths just indicated it was there.
Dark Matter only exists because it's needed to make the math work.
It doesn't exist because we found it or have a single solitary bit of direct evidence that it exists. It exists as a catch all way of saying, lets just say "DARK MATTER" did it and continue with this probably completely erroneous train of thought.

>>3199456

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, which is not necessarily the lack of spirituality.

The evidence for dark matter's existence is the same kind of evidence for anything else. Not being able to directly measure something doesn't mean something isn't there when the existence of that something is manifest in the behaviour of other phenomenon. Dark Matter is not a hole in mathematics. It's form and density and location can be identified by looking at the behaviour of galaxies. The only way that it theoretically doesn't exist is with alternate theories of gravity and none of them have gained mainstream acceptance among physicists, but the idea of there existing some material that interacts only gravitationally has. I can say that with confidence because there are theories of what dark matter is and experiments buried deep underground to test them - ie. to directly observe dark matter.

>>3199475
Atheism is a lack of belief in religion and spirituality PERIOD. No other bullshit. That's EXACTLY what it is supposed to mean.

>Not being able to directly measure something doesn't mean something isn't there when the existence of that something is manifest in the behaviour of other phenomenon.

Dude, you know you're directly stating that ether is real right?
Darkmatter is a place holder and there is NOTHING saying that it truly exists other then the fact that many formulas need it to exist as a scape goat to blame any and all inconsistencies on.

>>3199490

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, which is not necessarily the lack of spirituality.

You're confusing atheism with irreligiosity.

The term Dark Matter is a place holder until any of the candidates of what it might be are detected. Physicists don't think dark matter is a mathematical artefact but an undiscovered form of matter.

>>3199490
Also that's not what 'scapegoat' means.

>>3199498
Atheism is a disbelief in gods and by extension religion and spirtuality.
Period.

And dark matter might as well be MAGIC for all we know about it. All we really know is that it's needed to make some math work and have not a single shred of evidence that it even exists beyond that.

>>3199506
It's an apt usage.

>>3199522

Atheism isn't even disbelief in gods. Someone with no concept of a god is an atheist. And again, there is religious world views and spiritualities that don't feature gods.

Period. There I can say it too. Atheist is not the same as anti-theist which is not the same as apatheist which is not the same as pantheist. All terms you moronically confuse.

The maths is the evidence that it exists. That's why the rotational velocities of galaxies are what they are, there's matter we can't see forcing them to do that. I mean, for goodness sake, we use gravitational perturbations to detect the existence of exoplanets around other stars because we can't usually see them directly. This the exact same principle. Dark Matter is not a myth, you twit.

File: DoJUL4r.jpg (66KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x333px

>>3199498
>Anything with dark in it is spooky and evil

>>3199547
>Atheism isn't even disbelief in gods.
What the fuck are you even tarding on about? That's the basic definition of the word.


And no dark matter doesn't exist except as a way to explain why holes in mathematical formula. That's it. We have no fucking idea if it's real or not.
I repeat, it exists only to make mathmatical formlas and theories work. Period. There is no evidence it exists beyond the fact that it needs to exist for the aforementioned purpose. Do you understand that.

>>3199559
>That's the basic definition of the word.

No. Lack of belief and disbelief are different things. If you have no concept of a thing you don't believe that it doesn't exist, you just don't believe that it does. That's all atheism is. Rejection of all religion and all spirituality is not necessary to be either of those.

Atheism is not antitheism is not apatheism is not pantheism. Open a fucking book you tool.

>There is no evidence it exists beyond the fact that it needs to exist for the aforementioned purpose. Do you understand that.

You don't understand that indirect observations is still evidence, as in the case of detecting exoplanets by the gravitational effects on their stars.

I'm not arguing about this any more, you dense motherfucker.

>>3199573
*slaps u*

>>3199570
>If you have no concept of a thing you
Atheism means does not believe in gods and by extension organized religion or sprituality.

Are you retarded? That's the basic definition.

No, a dog is not a fucking atheist because it doesn't understand the concept of gods. How in the everloving fuck does that train of thought have anything to do with the conversation at hand.

Indirect observation means fuck all.
It's as good as a guess.
Like I said ETHER still makes sense with some formula. You yourself are saying it exists.

>>3199490
>>3199498
>>3199547
>>3199522
Atheism is one of answer the answers to a simple question: Do you believe in in the existence of any deities?
If no, then you're an atheist. If yes then you're a theist.

Agnostic is an answer to another simple question: Are you absolutely 100% sure about your position on the existence of any deities?
If no, then you're agnostic. If yes, then you're gnostic.

A third simple question is this: Do you believe in spiritual, paranormal, or other phenomena inherently lacking verifiable evidence?
If yes, then you are a skeptic.

So, most of the time people say "atheist", it's just short-hand for "agnostic atheist skeptic". Someone that doesn't believe in gods or spiritual stuff, but even then can't be 100% certain due to the possibility, however small for them, that such things are simply beyond current science to verify.
This is pretty much what Dawkins, the mastermind of the evil atheist conspiracy, is.

Now, can we get back to bitching about the parts of LGBT that individual anons are not?

>>3199592
>A third simple question is this: Do you believe in spiritual, paranormal, or other phenomena inherently lacking verifiable evidence?

This was supposed to be followed with
"If no, then you're a skeptic. If not, you're a believer."

>>3199587
>Like I said ETHER still makes sense with some formula.

You said it was a myth made up by cosmologists. I'm pointing out that as far as physicists go, the idea that there's nothing there and it's to be resolved with improved maths is fringe belief. Indirect is not as good as a guess because a guess is not an observation. A great deal of physics is done with indirect observations. The discovery of the Higgs Boson was made with NOTHING BUT trillions of indirect observations. You going to call the higgs boson a fucking 'guess'? Jesus Christ.

>>3199606
Dark matter is based on fucking nothing except needing it fix some formula. There are no observations of it beyond that.

Until there is some real evidence of it existing it might as well just be a magial way to handwaive bad theory.

>>3199613
as far as physicists go, the idea that there's nothing there and it's to be resolved with improved maths is fringe belief. Indirect is not as good as a guess because a guess is not an observation. A great deal of physics is done with indirect observations. The discovery of the Higgs Boson was made with nothing trillions of indirect observations.

>>3199072
Must it be for the creation of life? What of the infertile? Does God not want them to have families?

If it's not the case that children must be created then why not two men raising a child together?

>>3199019
so what's the problem? do you live in a weird time shifted zone where you can get burned if you are acting slightly out of religious morality?

don't you know that everyone likes sex outside marriage and 50% of 20 yo guys will do it with girls outside marriage. is your little town a cultural singularity in the western world?

>>3199613
>Dark matter is based on fucking nothing except needing it fix some formula.
>It's not real because I can't look at it
Kill yourself

>>3199613

We can see it's effects on the clumping of galaxies. It doesn't act with the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus it's called "dark" just like dark energy.

>>3198816
>goes into objectification and stuff
could you elaborate? I'm curious to hear what he says on this and how he retorts to responses such as "emotional bonding" or "doing it for my other's sake, not for my sake".

I'm also curious to know exactly how happy married people are in relationships where they have sex for procreation only

>>3199257
yes, moar.

>>3200283
It's quite obvious that ignorance is indeed bliss.

>>3200283

>There is mounting scientific evidence of a positive association between religious involvement and multiple indicators of health.
>The strongest evidence exists for the association between religious attendance and mortality, with higher levels of attendance predictive of a strong, consistent and often graded reduction in mortality risk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17516883

>Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious.
>The most religious Americans score a 66.3 on the Gallup-Healthways Healthy Behavior Index compared with 60.6 among those who are moderately religious and 58.3 for the nonreligious.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx

>Religious involvement was significantly associated with lower mortality (odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.39), indicating that people high in religious involvement were more likely to be alive at follow-up than people lower in religious involvement.
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/rel_mort_meta.pdf

>Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent).
www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

>We found that church attendance, dogmatic conviction and a consequential religious attitude affect intentional donations positively. The religiosity of one’s network does have an additional effect. Partner’s church attendance is positively related to willingness to donate.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20058103?uid=3739728&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56278815123

>Persons with autistic spectrum disorder were much more likely than those in our neurotypical comparison group to identify as atheist or agnostic
http://palm.mindmodeling.org/cogsci2011/papers/0782/paper0782.pdf

>>3200283

part 4

>An impression based on a vote-counting method of reviewing studies on religion and personality is that religiosity is associated only with low Psychoticism (or high Agreeableness and Conscientiousness), while unrelated to the other Eysenck's or Big Five factors. This meta-analytic review of studies on religion and the Five Factor Model revealed that, in addition to Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, religiosity (today?) is related to Extraversion. Interestingly, while Openness is negatively related to religious fundamentalism (weighted mean r=?0.14, P<0.01) and, to some extent, intrinsic-general religiosity (r=?0.06, P<0.01), it is positively related to measures of open or mature religiosity and spirituality (r=0.22, P<0.0001). The meta-analysis also indicated that extrinsic religiosity is followed by high Neuroticism, whereas open-mature religiosity and spirituality reflect Emotional Stability.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886900002336

>Results from a series of multilevel analyses indicate that church attendance (the frequency of attending religious services) has significant inverse effects on nondrug illegal activities, drug use, and drug selling among disadvantaged youths.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418820000096371

>In healthy participants, there is a strong, consistent, prospective, and often graded reduction in risk of mortality in church/service attenders. This reduction is approximately 25% after adjustment for confounders. Religion or spirituality protects against cardiovascular disease, largely mediated by the healthy lifestyle it encourages.
http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/th707/stcl/th70713.pdf

>>3200283

part 5

>Individuals who report attending religious services once a month or more (just over 50 percent of the population) have a 30–35 percent reduced risk of death over a 7.5 year follow-up period after adjusting for potential confounding factors. Consistent with prior research, 20–30 percent of this effect may be explained by better health behaviors (especially physical activity) among regular service attendees.
http://hsb.sagepub.com/content/45/2/198.short

>Overall, the results show that those who attend church once per week exhibit a 32% reduction in the risk of mortality as compared with those who never attend religious services. Moreover, the benefits of weekly attendance persist with controls for sociodemographic characteristics, cardiovascular health, activities of daily living, cognitive functioning, physical mobility and functioning, social support, health behaviors, mental health, and subjective health.
http://psychsocgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/2/S102.short

>The results showed significant and positive associations between claiming religious affiliation important and survival (relative hazard of dying . RH .70; 95% CI .58–.85) and church attendance and survival (RH .73; 95% CI .64–.87).
http://tro-helbred.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Religion-and-survival.pdf

>Our results show that regular religious attendance (especially weekly attendance) is associated with a wide range of healthy behaviors, including preventive care use, vitamin use, infrequent bar attendance, seatbelt use, walking, strenuous exercise, sound sleep quality, never smoking, and moderate drinking.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743505002409

>Religious influence and perceived negative consequences of smoking were protective against ever smoking for both genders (OR=0.7, 95% CI=0.5–0.9; OR=0.8, 95% CI=0.7–0.9, respectively).
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13557850310001631722

>>3200283

part 6

>Relative to their peers, religious youth are less likely to engage in behaviors that compromise their health (e.g., carrying weapons, getting into fights, drinking and driving) and are more likely to behave in ways that enhance their health (e.g., proper nutrition, exercise, and rest).
http://heb.sagepub.com/content/25/6/721.short

>public religiosity had a significant effect on effective birth control at first sexual intercourse and, for females, for having ever been pregnant.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953603000960

>Results indicate that respondents' participation in church activities is related to heightened educational expectations, and that these more intensely religious students score higher on standardized math/reading tests, even while controlling for variables that often show religious effects to be spurious
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0021-8294.00030/abstract

>>3200283

part 7

>The association of religion with measures of social adjustment also extends to the marital realm. A meta-analytic review of dozens of studies showed that married religious adults are more likely to stay married over time (mean correlation of religious service attendance with divorce, r
.13) and have higher levels of marital satisfaction (mean effect size of r
.15) and marital commitment (mean effect size r
.19; Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2001).

>To be sure, all of these explanations are important, but the list is incomplete. George, Larson, Koenig, and McCullough (2000) surmised that only 35% to 50% of the relationship between religiousness and various measures of health and well-being could be explained on the basis of the explanatory variables such as social support, health behaviors, and coping.
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf

>Results indicate that religious fathers are more involved fathers and that they report higher quality relationships; this is true for both married and divorced fathers.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00382.x/full

>religiosity is modestly inversely related to delinquency.
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:73226

>These results suggest that child religiosity may largely contribute to stress coping process among maltreated and nonmaltreated children from low-income families.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213408000926

>Hierarchical regression analyses suggested that maternal religiosity was a strong predictor of maternal and child adjustment; children’s own spirituality served as a predictor of their socioemotional adjustment as well. Furthermore, child spirituality mediated the relationship between maternal religiosity and children’s externalizing behavior.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20094762

>>3200283

part 8/final

>religious involvement is correlated with reduced levels of domestic violence;
http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/55373.pdf

>. For abused and nonabused alike, higher intrinsic spirituality and religious orientation scores also matched lower antisocial behaviors and higher resiliency behavior scores.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED417001

>>3199253
>>3199257
>>3200337
>>3200344
>>3200348
>>3200352
>>3200357
>>3200368

To recap (TL;DR):

Lack of Religion is correlated with:
-Depression
-Anxiety
-Mortality
-Autism
-Introversion
-Impulsivity
-Substance Abuse
-Pain
-Suicide
-Aggression
-Delinquency
-Being a shitty father.
-Domestic abuse

Religion is correlated with:
-Agreeableness
-Conscientiousness
-Emotional Stability
-Happiness (both themselves and people around them)
-Marriage and children, including Marital Satisfaction and Commitment
-Supportive friends
-Contact with family
-Higher GPA and Standardized Test Scores
-Cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and immune function
-Coping skills
-Health related quality of life
-Seeing a Dentist, Wearing a Seatbelt, and Taking Vitamins
-Reasons for living
-Trust in others
-Respect
-Volunteerism
-Charity

So yes, religious people and spirituality in general are conductive to much greater well being on a variety of fronts.

>>3200379
>mfw I became religious and have been basically cured of depression without outside help
>Everyone else around me seems sadder and sadder every day

It's a special kind of feel.

>OP comes in worried about people changing his community's views on homosex
>everyone talks about religion rather than touching on the issue

File: fuck.jpg (546KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 2000x1333px

>>3200514
Magic Nigga cannot be stopped.

>>3200379
Then why is it the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be atheist?

>>3200975

I'm not sure why you say "then" since the two don't necessarily follow.

And actually nowadays religiosity goes up with more education, though its very much culturally dependent (as well as dependent on what religion you identify with). If you go to college in the Czech Republic, your religiosity may go down.

>decades of repeated cross-sectional survey data demonstrate that the strong, positive effect of college education on reporting no religious affiliation declines precipitously across birth cohorts. Specifically, a bachelor's degree has no effect on non-affiliation by the 1965–69 cohort, and a negative effect for the 1970s cohorts. Moreover, these across-cohort changes are strongly associated with aggregate growth in college education, and they vary considerably by religious origin.

http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/08/01/sf.sou080.extract

So for Baby Boomers, the more educated you are the more likely you were to call yourself "non-religious". But for Gen X on down, the same is not true and in fact the trend is reversed. More educated = more religious.

Likewise when you control for race, the more educated are much more likely to go to church, which is the biggest measure of religiosity (as opposed to religious affiliation):

>While religious service attendance has decreased for all white Americans since the early 1970s, the rate of decline has been more than twice as high for less educated, lower and lower-middle class whites compared to more educated and presumably more affluent whites, according to a study presented Saturday at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Las Vegas.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44192469/ns/health-behavior/t/who-going-church-not-who-you-think-study-finds/#.U_5Mevk2w_4

Once again, this is culturally dependent and really varies between religious denominations as well, and I've heard that the whole "more educated = less religious" thing still holds true in a few nations.

File: images (230).gif (951KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 400x225px

>>3200514
This is the only way religious faggots can showoff what they learned from the pray-the-gay-away programs they took.

File: this is wheels as shit.gif (3KB, 289x271px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 289x271px

>>3200514
Because it's a nice ethical argument that only hurts homosexuals by extension and aids them in another way. The only real responses could be:

>It's totally not going to work out for magic nigga, don't worry
>That sucks, I support you
>Cope, nigga.

Personally I have nothing wrong with this