Reply With Quote
Oh, and WHO ING CARES IF GAY PEOPLE WANT TO BE MARRIED? Just my opinion though.
I haven't read this entire thread so this may be way off base, but you say that "you aren't that important", but indeed "you" are when "you" are making up a vast majority of the population (non-smokers).
People that smell on buses do not directly affect your chances of getting cancer either.
Oh, and WHO ING CARES IF GAY PEOPLE WANT TO BE MARRIED? Just my opinion though.
Ok, I have no qualms with chump, he simply disagrees with me, and thats fine. But you, my friend, are a complete jackass and a waste of the gift of reasoning with which God has blessed you.
1. Dont argue that the freedoms of the masses are oft-protected in order to promote your views on not defending them. It is counter-productive.
2. This is not my personal morality. I do not believe sexual sex to be a preferred moral way of life, I simply believe that it is not our job to try to hinder it.
And the evolution argument, give me a break man. As I stated before, we are not trying to make a law that will lead to more gay sex, in fact, you could argue that through natural selection, at worst, it leads to less gay sex.
If, as you obviously believe, allowing gay marriage will allow more gays to come out of the closet, leading to them no longer reproducing with heterosexuals, and leading to less babies, then you have two options.
i. If you believe it is genetically influenced then we will, by natural selection and having less mate unwillingly with heteros, have less gays.
ii. If you don't believe that, then we will have a slight increase in sexuals that are out of the closet for one generation, then a future stabilization.
Now, that is assuming that it leads to more sexuals. This is a very shaky premise. In order for this to happen it would require that there is a sufficiently large population of sexuals who are reproducing with heterosexuals simply because it is the only way that they can get married. Again, a shaky premise, one that even if you agree with it, leads to minimal changes which can occur in either direction.
3. The cons ution does reflect a general seperation of church and state, and supreme court decisions have backed this up for years. The only question is if the state can do things such as fund parochial schools on the basis of increased educational goods, or if they should refrain because it is funding a church organization. In no way is this a question of whether or not we can make laws that ban certain practices based on one groups religious views.
4. I have never written an essay on Kant, and I am sorry, but my educational experiences are not something that can be used as an insult. You will have to come up with something better.
5. Now, you are against gay marriage because your bible tells you that sexuality is wrong. You could not believe how un-intelligent that makes you sound. Jesus Christ himself said to give unto caesars that which is caesars. Sounds simple enough to me as a basis for seperation of church and state. Also, it says sexuality is wrong, but it is going to be here regardless. We are talking about allowing them to simply say that they are married, whoopty ing do. The bible also says that:
Divorce is bad- make it illegal
Drinking is bad- make it illegal
Pre-marital sex is bad- make it illegal
Worshipping other Gods is VERY BAD- make it illegal, and kill all transgressors due to the serious nature of the offense.
and says that
Lying is bad- Lets make that a crime too.
These are just a few examples of things that the Bible says are wrong, yet are legal. And my guess is that you practice at least one of two of them.
Your religious beliefs are not relevant, nor are mine. Not everybody shares you views, and even if they did that is not cause to make them law, only something that is between you and God.
God does not want you to follow him because you are required to, he wants you to obey his commands because it is your decision, so making Gods commands laws takes away the role of the human being as a free moral agent, and makes obeying God a requirement.
Think before you speak. Please.
Again, this collapses into the fact that ventilation eliminates the slim cancer threat, so you are left only with the bad smell.
Also, as before, why can't non-smokers pe ion and protest bars that allow smoking, and go to bars that dont. Make this a bar-by-bar decision, not a law.
Lights out, 101A is done.
What a sop ric debating style you bring to the table.
Take an argument, raise it to the extreme and debate THAT.
I stated why I was against Gay marriage, in succinct terms. You state that is an invalid position. There are no invalid positions, I get to believe what I believe, for whatever reason I believe it. You want to ban people from voting, or debating if their points are somehow founded in scripture? (see I can use your sop ric style as well; not very productive, is it?)
Also, regarding infidelity and the other biblical transgressions you cite; I don't believe society should CONDONE those, either. I think people who practice such acts should not be normalized or championed. I don't think the mistress should have the same standing as the wife. I thnk that the child born out of wedlock is an unfortunate soul. Do I think we should make infidelity illegal, and throw adulterers in jail; no. Does that help clarify my position on gay marriage?
Impressed by long posts that don't address specific issues, are you?
More impressed by his then I was the crap you just spit out at 8:28.
The difference is very extreme.
I say that you can never make laws based on scripture, and use some things that the bible find equally wrong, and mention how they are legal.
You are taking my view that you can not make laws based on religion, and saying that I would like to keep these people from speaking or voting, which is....here we go...making a law based on religion.
I want to silence nobody, or make any laws hindering their speech, I only want to eliminate the use of religion in making laws, and prove how insane it is in principle.
Again, sit down, you didnt counter anything I said, just pretended that I was conflating the issue.
I absolutely disagree with you, as would anyone who believes the notion that the most basic freedom of all is: "freedom of thought".
A free society cannot exist if you try to censor WHY somebody wants a specific law passed, or WHY a person beleive what he/she believes.
Would you have us run every law proposed up against a "religious smell" test, that if you could find that one of its proponents was a proponent of it in some part because of religious beleifs, that that somehow makes that law invalid? (tough sentence to write on the fly, sorry) That is a slippery slope I don't believe society could stand very long on.
If you want to be taken seriously, go back and counter every one of my comments in that post, then I won't just assume that you are completely blown over.
Hah, no. There is no basis for these laws besides religious views. There are laws that have biblical similarities, but they are fine because they address actual issues, and right wrongs in society.
I don't see why it is absurd of me to assume a similarity between banning gay marriage based on the Bible, or banning other religions, divorce, cheating, or pre-marital sex based on these same teachings!!!
I don't have to do that to be taken seriously on this board.
Coming from a chump whose already been dumped in this very thread, I thought you'd be grateful I gave you another life after you were so pwned.
Nor do I have time to respond point by point to your diabtribe stereotyping me as some knee-jerk phobe. Just because John Smith bought into your act, and is impressed with big words, doesn't mean I did, or am.
Answer my question - do you think that people with a religious agenda should not be allowed to vote, or propose laws in this country? It sounds like that is what you are espousing.
I did, you pitiful jackass. I said very clearly that I have no desire to silence their vote, but that all laws must have a grounding that includes some non-Christian rationale.
So, you would have no problem with polygemy? I would have a problem with it. Part of the reason I would have a problem with it is biblically based, the other reason is because I think it is generally bad for society, and is behavior which ought not be condoned. Very similar to my beliefs on gay marriage, actually.
Again, I would not make infideltiy or gay relations illegal. Nor would I have society specifically put its seal of approval on those behaviors by making polygamy and/or gay marriage legal.
We posted at the same time; I will ignore the name calling if you could recognize that I re-asked the question while you were answering.
Stop trying to bully, you seem to be intelligent enough to post without such tactics.
1. With regard to "banning cigarettes," people can smoke in their personal spaces, or outside. The idea that we should ban smoking entirely is excessive. Secondhand smoke has been proven to cause lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Even if patrons have the freedom to come and go to smoke-filled establishments as they please, employees of those establishments do not. There are workplace standards for air quality. Developing an HVAC system to meet those requirements so that smoking can be permitted would be very expensive and wasteful, because it would require something approaching once-through cooling of 100% outside air. It also would be bersome and expensive for the authorities to ensure compliance.
The alternative is to insist that people go outside to smoke.
2) With regard to gay adoption, it's not as if people are lining up to take custody of state-ward children. Which is better, orphans in perpetual state or foster care, or children being raised by gays? Even if one regards a gay household as sub-ideal, isn't it still better than no home at all?
If we ever get to a situation where straight couples are getting on waiting lists to adopt black crack babies, then maybe we can re-visit the question of whether gay families are best for kids.
3) With regard to gay marriage, we don't have the right to discriminate against people's relationships, but that doesn't mean the government has to force moral affirmation on us.
We should not withhold tax, insurance, inheritance, or other benefits from a household because we do not like its morality. If some creep divorces his devoted wife when she falls ill in order to marry his plastic-enhanced young secretary, he still gets to file his taxes as "married."
But neither do we have to accept a committed sexual relationship as the same as a committed heterosexual relationship, any more than we should have to accept that a man is a woman or vice versa. We call the sexes different names because we recognize that there are fundamental differences.
yes, I can, but I have a small problem with you based on the at ude of your 1st post in response to me. You jumped into the fray insulting me in your very 1st post. I usually try to refrain from name-calling, but I admit that you had me a little upset.
I will make a better effort to keep name-calling our of my posts, but it is more difficult to respect somebody who refuses to respect you.
touche, hadn't had my coffee, yet - also, you mentioned Kant; I hated Kant.
Lol, I am a fan of Kant, at least that principle. I believe that if you "act so that you can will the maxim of your actions to be universal law," that you are doing very well for yourself and the people around you.
And I was up until 3:00 writing an essay, and had to wake up at 6 30. Yesterday my car broke down so Im bumming rides drom my fiancee. It's a rough day. lol.
...it's that crap I hated.
Oh come on, you weren't kind enough to give me a true reason why it is different to legislate gay marriage, and not cheating/worshiping other Gods, so at least tell me what Kant ever did to you.
I have yet to find an instance in which acting in accord with that philosophy does not lead to a better world, both in theory and reality.
Its application to this thread is that if we make a law based soley on a Christian view, then we should admit that it is ok to make laws based on all other Christian laws, and that other religions should be able to make laws as well.
Actually, I did, I think; Polymamy IS illegal (the gay marriage equivalent of cheating). Worshipping other gods is STRICTLY religion based, and I have not argued that any law should be considered as such.
As I said, I hated Kant, and haven't studied him in nearly 20 years, and then only as a freshman, and I need you to explain to me what you think that means before I can say whether or not I think I ought to live my life that way.
Myself? I think if people would follow the golden rule (I know, not sexy or anything), the world would be a better place.
I think we have debated without seeing each other's point. I don't want laws based on religion, but I don't see how you can keep laws from being proposed and espoused that aren't influenced by one's religion - nor do I feel that would necessarily be an ideal.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions