Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
There you go again not only imposing your beliefs on others (against your creed if not mine), even God, and making the very assumptions you've just denied making. :doh: Lets for one moment assume you're entirely correct. The logical consequence of that (as your statements are contrary to themselves) is that we live in an irrational and inconsistent universe about which nothing can therefore be known. Either this is ture in which case you don't even definitely exist and neither does this thread or it's false in which case you're wrong. That's the problem with logic, if you believe in it you just can't stop using it and if you don't it's just meaningless to you. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
a) I'm fucking with you. b) No I'm not. c) Would you actually know if I was?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There you go again not only imposing your beliefs on others (against your creed if not mine), even God, and making the very assumptions you've just denied making.
I was being sarcy. Whilst many perceive this to be the lowest form of wit it's usually only deemed so by those that don't have the wit or skill to be sarcastic in the first place.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Lets for one moment assume you're entirely correct.
But I'm not!
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
we live in an irrational and inconsistent universe about which nothing can therefore be known
Untrue: we know lots of stuff and what we don't yet know we'll figure out. Exceptof course you religious types: you'll just say it was gods will or we aren't meant to know and leave it at that. How very mundane and boring. Might I suggest we start a new thread to play this out? This one is creeping ever closer to that point where I lose the will to hunt for it. :-)
-
a) I'm fucking with you. b) No I'm not. c) Would you actually know if I was?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There you go again not only imposing your beliefs on others (against your creed if not mine), even God, and making the very assumptions you've just denied making.
I was being sarcy. Whilst many perceive this to be the lowest form of wit it's usually only deemed so by those that don't have the wit or skill to be sarcastic in the first place.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Lets for one moment assume you're entirely correct.
But I'm not!
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
we live in an irrational and inconsistent universe about which nothing can therefore be known
Untrue: we know lots of stuff and what we don't yet know we'll figure out. Exceptof course you religious types: you'll just say it was gods will or we aren't meant to know and leave it at that. How very mundane and boring. Might I suggest we start a new thread to play this out? This one is creeping ever closer to that point where I lose the will to hunt for it. :-)
Be my guest on the new thread but what is there to debate? Is the universe logical? Empty because if it isn't the question is meaingless. Does God exist? Equally impossible to prove or disprove particularly as we can't agree on an understanding of our limited concept of God let alone come up with a testable definition? Is the postmodernist insistence on not 'imposing' your beliefs on others a hyprocritical and self contradictory piece of nonsense? Well that's self evident. Does 'religion', even by your undifferentiated understanding of it, stand in the way of progress and science and understanding? A non question because 'religion' includes the opposite or negation of everything it includes so the answer can equally be argued both ways by selecting different invalid subsets of an invalid definition. If you've got any other burning questions by all means go ahead. :-D
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
that I believe that everyone else should believe it too
Shout it from the rooftops if you so wish. But I will be deaf to your words of wisdom. Since the masses learned how to read and write, they are no longer dependent upon the local vicar's pontifications. We are no longer the ill-educated that can be led by the nose blindly towards a particular belief or religious viewpoint.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
We are no longer the ill-educated that can be led by the nose blindly towards a particular belief or religious viewpoint.
Do you really believe that there is less effort to control mass opinions by means of state based education today than at anytime in the past? I mean, how much of your visceral loathing towards someone of Matthews point of view was imparted to you by the state?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
But it does bring up the broader issue of whether or not we are a culture in any meaningful sense of that word and what institutions within our society should have some degree of authority to define the parameters of that culture. Marriage is about as fundamental to the definition of 'culture' as there is. To maintain that marriage is whatever any two, or more, individuals say it is, and that the rest of us have no option but to accept such associations is to say that we are not a culture in any way at all. I have no problem with such an open, cultureless, society as long as one of the other principles of that society is that I am free to discriminate against any part of it I like, in whatever way I like for whatever reason I like. But if I can be forced by the very same government which is not supposed to define marriage to accept whatever bizarre forms of marriage get created, than what is the difference in that and just leaving society the way it is and force marriage to remain between a man and a woman? Either way, the government is imposing itself upon the definitions of culture.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
But it does bring up the broader issue of whether or not we are a culture in any meaningful sense of that word
No it doesn't. You don't get to define the word culture.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have no problem with such an open, cultureless, society
Nobody cares
Stan Shannon wrote:
Either way, the government is imposing itself upon the definitions of culture.
Whatever.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Sorry mate, I never got on it. I'm simply reporting the facts, not asserting them on my own authority, has nothing to do with my personal experience, or in fact with me at all. I'm not imposing anything, God is by virtue of being God. You invent the concept of foobulbar then you own it, you get to say what is and isn't foobulbar and when and where it applies. If I come and along and disagree then it doesn't change anything, it's not my concept to change. How much more so with God who's concepts determine the very fabric and operation of the universe. Trying to redefine marriage is like trying to redefine causality, a futile exercise in self agrandisement and self delusion.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I'm simply reporting the facts, not asserting them on my own authority, has nothing to do with my personal experience, or in fact with me at all.
And who told you what God was thinking? How dare you presume to speak for Him? Get down on your knees and beg His forgiveness, you insignificant worm. You are not worthy. You will never be worthy. God does not, cannot share His ineffable self with the like of you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Who the hell cares if 2 people (of whatever sex) choose to get married? Why is it anyone else's business? What harm are they doing? Once again one person trying to tell another how to live based on their own narrow world view.
digital man wrote:
Who the hell cares if 2 people (of whatever sex) choose to get married?
Since we're looking at redefining marriage, by removing the religious context and arguing that nobody has the right to tell you who you can and can't marry... I would like to know what supporters of gay marriage think about polygamy. It's always been frowned upon, more so I think than the idea of gay marriage, and largely for the same religious reasons. I'd be interested to know if gay marriage supporters see it as different or would give it the same arguments. If we're tossing tradition out the window and rewriting the definition, is there any reason to keep the "2 people" clause? And if so, what makes it different? We'll save the question of whether or not it should be restricted to people for later. ;)
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Be my guest on the new thread but what is there to debate? Is the universe logical? Empty because if it isn't the question is meaingless. Does God exist? Equally impossible to prove or disprove particularly as we can't agree on an understanding of our limited concept of God let alone come up with a testable definition? Is the postmodernist insistence on not 'imposing' your beliefs on others a hyprocritical and self contradictory piece of nonsense? Well that's self evident. Does 'religion', even by your undifferentiated understanding of it, stand in the way of progress and science and understanding? A non question because 'religion' includes the opposite or negation of everything it includes so the answer can equally be argued both ways by selecting different invalid subsets of an invalid definition. If you've got any other burning questions by all means go ahead. :-D
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Damn you for sucking me in. Damn, damn, damn. Get your stinking paws off me.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Is the universe logical?
Irrelevent: you're attempting to ascribe a thought process to an inanimate object. Not cool. There my be apparent logic inherent in aspects of the universe. Or not.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Does God exist?
Nope.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Equally impossible to prove or disprove particularly as we can't agree on an understanding of our limited concept of God let alone come up with a testable definition?
But I don't need to prove what doesn't exist. What would be the point. But if you want me to belive what you believe PROVE IT TO ME!!!
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Is the postmodernist insistence on not 'imposing' your beliefs on others a hyprocritical and self contradictory piece of nonsense? Well that's self evident.
Indeed not: in every post I make or every conversation I have I NEVER raise the subject of god. You always do: it's your first line of defense.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Does 'religion', even by your undifferentiated understanding of it, stand in the way of progress and science and understanding?
Mostly: take Creationism. Please. And don't give it back.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
If you've got any other burning questions by all means go ahead
Enough, already. You win. I'll stop taking the piss out of you poor dumb goddie saps (and your poor dumb god) if you promise never to mention it again.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But it does bring up the broader issue of whether or not we are a culture in any meaningful sense of that word
No it doesn't. You don't get to define the word culture.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have no problem with such an open, cultureless, society
Nobody cares
Stan Shannon wrote:
Either way, the government is imposing itself upon the definitions of culture.
Whatever.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You don't get to define the word culture.
Who does?
Oakman wrote:
Nobody cares
Yet, it is as inherently valid an opinion as is your own, whether you care or not.
Oakman wrote:
Whatever.
Indeed.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Josh Gray wrote:
In Australia if you are a hetro couple and you live together for two years the legal situation is the same as if you were married
Most, if not all, states have some form of common law marriage. It may be more trouble to prove than just going in and waving around a marriage license. Some more enlightened states are setting up benefits for domestic partnerships.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Tim Craig wrote:
Most, if not all, states have some form of common law marriage
"Interestingly", the concept of Common Law Wife / Husband is thought to have originated by many in the UK - shame that we actually DON'T have any legal form of Common Law Marriage - no matter HOW long you've managed to avoid proposing for ;) It's used most frequently over here by the press - more of a label to apply to someone than a legal thing....
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
We are no longer the ill-educated that can be led by the nose blindly towards a particular belief or religious viewpoint.
Do you really believe that there is less effort to control mass opinions by means of state based education today than at anytime in the past? I mean, how much of your visceral loathing towards someone of Matthews point of view was imparted to you by the state?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
None whatsover: I had to attend assembly and prayers every morning and RE at least once a week. My parents brought me up to be reasonably observant (Sunday school) but I'd already realised that there was no god. I didn't need some government dick to tell me that. And I (and I don't think anyone else) loathes Matthews point of view. He is harmless and well meaning and I'm sure quite happy with his beliefs. I see no reason for that to change. You need to lighten up.
-
Quick, pass the sick bag: that is the largest sack of bullshit I've read so far. Are you actually married? Do you have a clue? Who the hell are you to impose your beliefs on other people? There is no god: marriage is a man made institution and is an arbitrary (and temporary) union of 2 people for whatever reasons they deemed fit at the time they decided to do it. You need to get off that high horse before you fall off.
digital man wrote:
union of 2 people for whatever reasons they deemed fit at the time they decided to do it.
Not entirely. The obvious exception is marriage solely for citizenship. Though I suppose they still get all other legal benefits. So maybe technically that's correct.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
digital man wrote:
Who the hell cares if 2 people (of whatever sex) choose to get married?
Since we're looking at redefining marriage, by removing the religious context and arguing that nobody has the right to tell you who you can and can't marry... I would like to know what supporters of gay marriage think about polygamy. It's always been frowned upon, more so I think than the idea of gay marriage, and largely for the same religious reasons. I'd be interested to know if gay marriage supporters see it as different or would give it the same arguments. If we're tossing tradition out the window and rewriting the definition, is there any reason to keep the "2 people" clause? And if so, what makes it different? We'll save the question of whether or not it should be restricted to people for later. ;)
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
I'm sure you know that many sociologists consider what we have now as serial polygamy and serial polyandry. I think line marriage could provide a very stable, and ultimately very rich, alternative for some folks. It certainly would be no more confusing for kids that the present "blended families" where a child can have one bio and two or three step fathers along with a similar number of people who perform the mother role from time to time. And it would be a lot more supportive of kids than the single parent.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
digital man wrote:
Who the hell cares if 2 people (of whatever sex) choose to get married?
Since we're looking at redefining marriage, by removing the religious context and arguing that nobody has the right to tell you who you can and can't marry... I would like to know what supporters of gay marriage think about polygamy. It's always been frowned upon, more so I think than the idea of gay marriage, and largely for the same religious reasons. I'd be interested to know if gay marriage supporters see it as different or would give it the same arguments. If we're tossing tradition out the window and rewriting the definition, is there any reason to keep the "2 people" clause? And if so, what makes it different? We'll save the question of whether or not it should be restricted to people for later. ;)
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Then why do get people divorced?
Divorce, as I would see, would be just momentary disappointment between the two minds.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
As they get divorced, do their souls too get divorced?
Never. At least, within the viewable age of this world, till the last breath of the two, the Love would cherish their names and vice-versa. If you had watched the film ("Chachi 320") or its Tamil remake ("Avvai Shanmughi") there is a scene where Kamalahassan would speak about his life (in the movie) and the divorce that he suffered with the heroine. He used to comment "The law can only physically separate the two people not mentally. I still love her. I am still with her. She only till now has not realised it.". The heroine who was listening to the speech which was actually an interview with a reporter would break into tears because of her momentary disappointments that she nurtured for him.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis LevinsonVasudevan Deepak K wrote:
He used to comment "The law can only physically separate the two people not mentally. I still love her. I am still with her. She only till now has not realised it.". The heroine who was listening to the speech which was actually an interview with a reporter would break into tears because of her momentary disappointments that she nurtured for him.
Hopefully she got a restraining order and kept him away.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
We are no longer the ill-educated that can be led by the nose blindly towards a particular belief or religious viewpoint.
Do you really believe that there is less effort to control mass opinions by means of state based education today than at anytime in the past? I mean, how much of your visceral loathing towards someone of Matthews point of view was imparted to you by the state?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
I do not loath Matthew's point of view. It is right and proper that he should display his beliefs. Equally, it is right and proper for others to display differing/alternative/complementary/conflicting points of view. In terms of education, I want my children to be taught facts as presently understood not fantasies and not fables where relevance is perhaps questionable. Do we really need another "monkey trial"? [^]
-
There you go again not only imposing your beliefs on others (against your creed if not mine), even God, and making the very assumptions you've just denied making. :doh: Lets for one moment assume you're entirely correct. The logical consequence of that (as your statements are contrary to themselves) is that we live in an irrational and inconsistent universe about which nothing can therefore be known. Either this is ture in which case you don't even definitely exist and neither does this thread or it's false in which case you're wrong. That's the problem with logic, if you believe in it you just can't stop using it and if you don't it's just meaningless to you. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
That's the problem with logic, if you believe in it you just can't stop using it and if you don't it's just meaningless to you.
Actually the "problem" with logic is that it is a tool not a way of life (Spock notwithstanding.) Logic is always based on a priori assumptions. Your seem to include that there is a God and that He has so much time on His hands that He sticks His nose into every aspect of every human's existence - presumably down to whether or not you use a tissue or your finger to get rid of your boogers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I do not loath Matthew's point of view. It is right and proper that he should display his beliefs. Equally, it is right and proper for others to display differing/alternative/complementary/conflicting points of view. In terms of education, I want my children to be taught facts as presently understood not fantasies and not fables where relevance is perhaps questionable. Do we really need another "monkey trial"? [^]
-
Oakman wrote:
You don't get to define the word culture.
Who does?
Oakman wrote:
Nobody cares
Yet, it is as inherently valid an opinion as is your own, whether you care or not.
Oakman wrote:
Whatever.
Indeed.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Indeed.
Sorry, Stan. I wrote the above with low blood sugar. I should learn not to get near a keyboard until after I have a cup of coffee. I disagree strongly with what you have to say, but you deserve more than to be flipped off when you respond rationally and intelligently.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
We'll save the question of whether or not it should be restricted to people for later
We talking about T'Pol and B'Elanna here?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
T'Pol and B'Elanna
:laugh: I had to look them up on Wikipedia. Until we have sexy aliens, I was referring to camels and turtles and dogs and the like. What about marrying inanimate objects? Should we be able to marry sex dolls? And if so, what about blow-up sheep dolls? What about marrying dead people? That could be handy. I guess my point is, that if it really is an arbitrary line, who decides how far we move it? And if we're willing to move it for one group, can we say no to the next group?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Do we really need another "monkey trial"?
Remember this and be afraid: Scopes was found guilty.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface