How many people fall for "I love you"? :DQuote:
It never seizes to amaze me how people can fall over a word..
Printable View
How many people fall for "I love you"? :DQuote:
It never seizes to amaze me how people can fall over a word..
Angelic:
It's actually not that difficult. There are "universal or societal wrongs", (murder, theft, screwing the neighbors wife etc.), that do not contribute to an ordered society insofar as they have a tendency to promote escalation/retaliation and the eventual breakdown of the society.Quote:
How can any law be passed? Every law is based upon a concept of right and wrong, and any concept of right and wrong can differ from vision to vision.
Then there are the "theistic wrongs", (eating pork is bad, homosexuality is wrong), which, while they may have served a purpose at some time in the specific theism of the society that created them they are, after all, a belief based in the theism rather than something that has relevance to the order of society, (I think you can see what I mean.... because I _think_ I can...;))
In a monoculture it may be valid to pass laws that are both universal and theistic but for a culture that prides itself on diversity and freedom of religion the theistic laws, be they of a majority or not, should not be, (in a truly diverse and intellectually honest society), considered.
What you are saying is "I'm all for diversity, I'm all for loving and helping all people - but only if they live the way I see fit... All men are born equal but I'm more equal, so there". That doesn't reflect a desire for diversity nor for loving and helping all people. Rather, it depicts someone paying lip service to those qualities which, I'm afraid I do find all too common.
Knowing that Bill and Fred across town are "married" should be no different to knowing that Bill and Fred kiss and make out at night and the difference in no way changes who _you_ are. In 2000 years christianity has summarily failed to stamp out homosexuality. In fact, they can't even manage to do it within their own ranks in the same period. So, for 2000 years christians have lived daily beside homosexuals. You continue to do so today whether you like it or not. So nothing has changed about you or your religion - it has been conserved as it has been for 2000 years. You accept the "sin" of homosexuality as you always have... Are you now trying to punish them for it by withholding "privilege" because you can't eradicate them?.... Hmm, are we back to the "stamping of feet" again? ;)Quote:
But to conserve, preserve, protect the base of who we are
OTOH, I can see your point of view.... I think the activists are simply messing around because they like to stir the pot.... They should grow up but I have a distinct feeling that, like some of my kind, (athiests), they would like to see the eradication of all forms of religion.... Which probably has a lot to do with their own insecurity in their belief system. But that's a whole other story.....
Hmm...Let's take a closer look at that --
Murder, theft -- ok, hard to debate. But how about that last one? You know, if there's no sacred union, who are you to say I can't screw my neighbor's wife? I mean, I'm happy, she's happy, doesn't actually do any harm to the husband. Makes him mad, sure, but lots of things make people mad. So why is that objectively wrong? Following the train of thought here, I didn't hurt you, hubby and I can have it out between ourselves, so how about you leaving me alone to screw as I please?Quote:
murder, theft, screwing the neighbors wife etc.
You see where I'm going on this? There has to be a line drawn. Ok, government marriage isn't sacred then, so why are we stopping with homosexual marraige? Why can't I marry a cow (no ex-wife comments ;))? What if I love my dog? Sure, the thought makes me sick too, but someone out there thinks it's ok. Why can't I marry more than one wife? That's a theistic value, Tig, so c'mon, let's not stop with homosexuals. If we're going to open up this concept of marriage, then let's open it up. If we're going to be fair, let's be fair to everyone. Then we can sit back and watch the moral bottom fall out of the country.
Hmm, now who's talking liberal now? That's a very lib concept, one that tries to rewrite history a little ever-so-subtly. But truth is, there has always been some theism in US government. Did we not come here as Protestants seeking freedom from the Catholic tyranny at the time? The freedom of religion was that you can have a different religion than mine and practice it freely, but it did not mean that our fine government was devoid of such theistic values. After all, "In God We Trust". In other words, the government is built off this, but you have the freedom not to believe in that God yourself. We won't bother you about it. No state religion. Libs have warped this to mean that government should be devoid of all theism...and that simply wasn't the original case.Quote:
for a culture that prides itself on diversity and freedom of religion the theistic laws, be they of a majority or not, should not be
"Separation of church and state" therefore means that one may not govern the other, it does not mean that one is devoid of the other altogether. Of course, the Anti Civil Liberties Union reads a different history book evidently.
Very true.Quote:
You continue to do so today whether you like it or not.
Doth mine eyes deceive me? Do I detect some spin? I don't remember saying that...I love them regardless of how they live -- I'll suggest there's a better way to them, but I won't force it on them, they do as they may. Just keep our sacred concept from being changed by Uncle Sam. *stomp* My desire for deversity does not mean I'm open to anything. Again, that's a liberal argument.Quote:
I'm all for diversity, I'm all for loving and helping all people - but only if they live the way I see fit
I will give you one thing Tig, and you can have all sorts of fun quoting me on this one. I do think I'm right, and that all the other viewpoints are wrong. Else, i wouldn't hold to this one.
Let's see how many people I stir up with that one. ;)
But, don't get me wrong, I do see where you're coming from, and you have some very valid points to throw out there. Indeed, that'd keep any self-respecting debater well on his toes. You do make a hard case to break in your own right.
Angelic: You do understand that I am playing a part here that is somewhere between Devils Advocate and "I'm an Athiest, proud of it and you shouldn't be imposing your morals on me"... Just so you know.... You've throw that nasty "liberal" word at me a couple of times and I'm tempted to break one of the ten commandments.... The one about killing people.... ;)
In the real world it's followed by him coming and kicking your ass... at which point your bothers go and give him such a good kicking that he dies......Quote:
Makes him mad, sure, but lots of things make people mad.
Thus I had stated in my previous post:-
There are many countries in the world where marriage is "committed" either in a theistic fashion or in a secular fashion such as a Registry Office in Great Britain. There is no mention of a god in the Registry office "ceremony" as far as I can recall and there doesn't have to be if you don't want there to be. The point here is that you screwing with my "wife", S.O., girfriend, woman that I married in a civil ceremony may promote or escalate and therefore should be something that carries some protection..... Otherwise the society begins to break down because the moral core of the society is eroded... sound familiar?Quote:
that do not contribute to an ordered society insofar as they have a tendency to promote escalation/retaliation and the eventual breakdown of the society.
*COUGH* There is at least one judeo-christian religion that thinks this is perfectly ok. There are many other religions in the world that thinks this is fine too..... So how do you know you are right? [Poke fun] Is it because "your theism is better than theirs" [/poke fun]Quote:
Why can't I marry more than one wife?
As to marrying animals..... Feel free..... Have a good time..... Just don't beat on them when they don't have your dinner on the table when you get home or crap the bed while you are sleeping in it..... Have at it my old fruit, have at it..... ;)
Actually it's a _very_ freedom oriented statement/concept. It equates to "live and let live".Quote:
That's a very lib concept, one that tries to rewrite history a little ever-so-subtly
I can't disagree that there is theism in every government. My argument was that the laws that emanate from a single theism in a country of many theistic beliefs is a little "out of place" when "freedom" is the very cornerstone of the country's philosophy. You see, whenever you impose the theistic beliefs of your group on all the other groups with a different theism you _are_ restricting their freedom, there's no avoiding that.
I fully understand the concept of "Separation of Church and State" and I fully understand that it doesn't have anything to do with freedom from religion. It would be, IMO, an utter tragedy for the country if, all of a sudden, everyone's religions just disappeared..... Why, because, IMO, their belief in a god is the only set of rules that keeps the vast majority anywhere close to being on a moral track. Without that I would be carrying my friend Mr. Browning _everywhere_ I went. Conversely, if you took the subset of the population that can actually determine an acceptable, (societally), moral track without the "guidance" of a supreme being, (which isn't that small of a subset), and removed the rest then we wouldn't need theistic laws anyway.
Errr.... What's a constitutional amendment to prevent gays marrying? It's forcing it on them!Quote:
I'll suggest there's a better way to them, but I won't force it on them, they do as they may.
But Angelic, the difference between you and me is you "think" you are right.... I _know_ I am.... :pQuote:
I do think I'm right, and that all the other viewpoints are wrong.
Oh yeah?! Well, all I gotta say to that is...not in the face!! *ducks*Quote:
You've throw that nasty "liberal" word at me a couple of times and I'm tempted to break one of the ten commandments.... The one about killing people....
I must concede that's not too shabby a defense of your point there. But, if there is no sacred element of mariage, I would have to question why it's a at the moral core of society. Shouldn't we seek, in our growing enlightenment, to remove it? Wouldn't we be happier if we could "screw whoever we pleased to" without it leading to moral erosion? This doesn't seem to be a moral that should have such an effect in a secular world, to me anyway.Quote:
The point here is that you screwing with my "wife", S.O., girfriend, woman that I married in a civil ceremony may promote or escalate and therefore should be something that carries some protection..... Otherwise the society begins to break down because the moral core of the society is eroded... sound familiar?
But I think you dodged my point --
But should we not bend our laws further to allow for it then? Especially multiple wives. If I can marry a dude, why can't I marry two dudettes? I know that would make the day of quite a few AOers. ;)Quote:
As to marrying animals..... Feel free..... Have a good time..... Just don't beat on them when they don't have your dinner on the table when you get home or crap the bed while you are sleeping in it..... Have at it my old fruit, have at it.....
Hey, you're catchin' on. ;)Quote:
Is it because "your theism is better than theirs"
If it's that horrible, then they should pick a country to live in more suiting to their desires. They have the freedom to leave. It might not be your philosophy, but it's the current philosophy of the U.S. of A., so that's what we go by until the people change it otherwise. I'm just tired of "freedom" equating "change the country to make every frickin' person perfectly content".Quote:
You see, whenever you impose the theistic beliefs of your group on all the other groups with a different theism you _are_ restricting their freedom, there's no avoiding that.
See, I think this is the underlying problem. Freedom for all yes, bu that doesn't mean everyone fits in nice with everyone else. I say if you don't like it, go find a better country. There's lots of them out there ya know.
If nothing else, it would certainly prove to be a fascinating scenario to watch.Quote:
Conversely, if you took the subset of the population that can actually determine an acceptable, (societally), moral track without the "guidance" of a supreme being, (which isn't that small of a subset), and removed the rest then we wouldn't need theistic laws anyway.
All things in perspective, my friend. First of all, I'm not for a constiutional amendment. I think that's overkill and I fear it opens the door to start amending the basis of our government rather trivially -- which would open the door for all sorts of possibilities with our liberal friends.Quote:
What's a constitutional amendment to prevent gays marrying? It's forcing it on them!
Prevent gays from marrying, allow civil unions, or whatever the heck you wanna call it. Sounds more compromising than forceful to me. What? Wait? Compromise? No...Let them friggin' have their way, all the way!
See what I mean? I'm willing to make some concessions here and there, but I don't see the same notion from the other side. "What? Compromise with you, you psycho right-wing religious fanatic?" Why do they have to call it marriage? Hmm? Would it not, I'll dare say, even help "gay pride" for them to have something that's solely theirs? Sounds like an "everbody wins" scenario to me. We keep our marriage, they get to play house, everyone's happy.
Hey...no fair...that's my line! ;)Quote:
But Angelic, the difference between you and me is you "think" you are right.... I _know_ I am...
[edit]Tig, I think we scared everyone else off this thread with our back-and-forth antics. [/edit]
I wouldnt get a tax break though :(Quote:
As to marrying animals..... Feel free..... Have a good time..... Just don't beat on them when they don't have your dinner on the table when you get home or crap the bed while you are sleeping in it..... Have at it my old fruit, have at it.....
AFAIK 196 countries.Quote:
There's lots of them out there ya know.
I was curious about what the Islamic faith had to say about this, and so I found the following:
Hmmmm..... at least under Christianity you still have a chance to be forgiven.Quote:
Book 38, Number 4447: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
Book 38, Number 4448: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.
Book 38, Number 4449: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him. I (Ikrimah) said: I asked him (Ibn Abbas): What offence can be attributed to the animal/ He replied: I think he (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such a thing had been done to it.
And you thought we were bad. ;)
That would require a higher level of society than humanity can achieve at present.... You see, no matter how superior we like to think we are we still operate to a great extent on our animal instincts..... Overlaid, of course, with a healthy dose of our theism that shaped our society when it was _really_ needed. As we advance we will, hopefully, find that our reliance on a supreme being as the giver of our moral core will wither and we will be left with a self-sufficient society that has a self determined moral core that is no less strong than the one you believe your theism gives you. I, for one, am not holding my breath.... ;)Quote:
Wouldn't we be happier if we could "screw whoever we pleased to" without it leading to moral erosion?
No dodging required, it's just kinda hard to type a full discussion of the issues and concentrate on work issues at the same time.....Quote:
But I think you dodged my point --
I dunno.... That's the usual argument of the intolerant..... I guess tolerance only extends as far as those being tolerated don't request anything from you or your response is "GTF outta here".... Is that the "I love them all" thing again? Do you see the little "inconsistencies" in your attitudes... I do... They change very quickly when you are questioned.... No problem, it's a defensive reaction based in your animal instincts and over-riding your theistic belief... It's absolutely normal.... [casting line with _huge_ bait..... Ask me about being able to speak the language of the country you live in..... ;) ]Quote:
If it's that horrible, then they should pick a country to live in more suiting to their desires.
I really don't care what you call it when you allow gays to marry.... The whole point is that two people who want to be together for life should be given the same rights under the law as any other two.... period.... By not doing it you are eventually going to cause other social problems that we all end up paying for. What you call it is irrelevant.... call it woghumphdemuff for all I care.... What I do see at the moment is an awful lot of people trying to deny a group the basic rights that they have on the grounds of a non-threatening theistic transgression.... That's BS...
Yeah.... I could also make the point that by not killing them christains are torturing them by keeping them alive and denying them their freedom/pleasure fo rthe rest of their life by trying to brainwash them out of the behaviour..... Yeah... that's nice....Quote:
Hmmmm..... at least under Christianity you still have a chance to be forgiven.
Point of note: Is it just me that has noticed that when level minded conservatives are arguing these points none of the screaming liberals have chosen to throw their usual 2c into the ring....
Oooh, I'm biting my lip on this one, as if we venture into this we'll go way off topic. But, I will say in short, this show's a critical flaw in evolution theory and nature, IMO.Quote:
Overlaid, of course, with a healthy dose of our theism that shaped our society when it was _really_ needed.
Yeah, just be glad you're day isn't being spent hour after hour copying and pasting database entries...*stabs self*Quote:
No dodging required, it's just kinda hard to type a full discussion of the issues and concentrate on work issues at the same time.....
Inconsistencies or balance? I'm not so tolerant that I can be bent on anything. There is a line drawn, and I will stand my ground if someone tries to push me over that line. Tolerance does not mean "anything goes". Also note the love is still there. You can love and still be opposed, though many seem to lack the dynamics to follow such logic.Quote:
Do you see the little "inconsistencies" in your attitudes...
Please note I'm not taking a "holier-than-thou" attitude though. I'm as screwed up as the rest of you guys. ;)
Actually, I'd rather have that discussion with SBC tech support...Quote:
Ask me about being able to speak the language of the country you live in.
Hmm...starting to go in circles. My answer this refers back to my previous post:Quote:
What I do see at the moment is an awful lot of people trying to deny a group the basic rights that they have on the grounds of a non-threatening theistic transgression.... That's BS...
Again, why can't we compromise instead of let them completely have it their way? Is it that I'm the only one who's actually willing to bend a little here?Quote:
Why do they have to call it marriage? Hmm? Would it not, I'll dare say, even help "gay pride" for them to have something that's solely theirs? Sounds like an "everbody wins" scenario to me. We keep our marriage, they get to play house, everyone's happy.
Now c'mon...don't you think that's a little overdramatic? Torturing? Brainwashing? All we're missing are the black helicopters...Quote:
I could also make the point that by not killing them christains are torturing them by keeping them alive and denying them their freedom/pleasure fo rthe rest of their life by trying to brainwash them out of the behaviour
Well I'm sure there's a level-minded liberal...out there...somewhere...maybe... ;)Quote:
Is it just me that has noticed that when level minded conservatives are arguing these points none of the screaming liberals have chosen to throw their usual 2c into the ring....