Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
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
-
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
Oakman wrote:
Logic is always based on a priori assumptions.
Absolutely, hear, hear. Hence my earlier comments in this thread. I assume that there is a God and that he is who he says he is and has the characteristics he has revealed. The evidence of history is that these assumptions are sound, lead to the best outcomes and have no long term negative consequences. Right down to the sub atomic infrastructrure of the universe. :-D
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
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.
BoneSoft wrote:
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?
The slippery slope argument can pretty much be used to argue against anything - If we have the death penalty for convicted serial rapist-killers today who is to say that we won't impose it on people who don't pay their cable bill tomorrow? I think in this case society could continue to require informed consent, exsanguinity, and breathing as prerequisites to marriage without stepping on too many toes.
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"? [^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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.
But he just said he rejected that. Are you saying that you accept with you find unacceptable? I trully do not understand.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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 you want them to be taught that Christianity is acceptable or unacceptable? What do the facts say?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Do we really need another "monkey trial"? [^]
Did you know that Clarence Darrow was a supporter of fascism?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Any outcome of such a system is bound to be at best a reflection of public opinion. The question then becomes what is the more trustworthy measure of truth, what God says about himself or what public opinion thinks about God. Which is more consistent is will certainly be obvious to anyone who's lived long enough. No such argument can of course make any impact on the minds of the majority of under 25s in the UK today who do not believe in the existence of truth. Presumably they're not entirely confidant of their own existence either or able to see problems with holding such an opinion. This, not terrorism or GW or Bird Flu or even the Shrubbery themselves and all their friends is the biggest threat to society today and civilization tomorrow.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Oakman wrote:
Logic is always based on a priori assumptions.
Absolutely, hear, hear. Hence my earlier comments in this thread. I assume that there is a God and that he is who he says he is and has the characteristics he has revealed. The evidence of history is that these assumptions are sound, lead to the best outcomes and have no long term negative consequences. Right down to the sub atomic infrastructrure of the universe. :-D
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
he is who he says he is and has the characteristics he has revealed.
You are taking the word of men for this. They tell you they are inspired - or worse, other men tell you that the writers were inspired -- by God, but unless you are telling us you have been up on Arrarat and seen the Burning Bush, you may be deeply deceived and in the snares of the antiChrist.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The evidence of history is that these assumptions are sound, lead to the best outcomes and have no long term negative consequences. Right down to the sub atomic infrastructrure of the universe
That's an opinion. Not a verifiable fact. You have to separate the two. Even if you think your opinion is the only valid one.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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.
But he just said he rejected that. Are you saying that you accept with you find unacceptable? I trully do not understand.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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 you want them to be taught that Christianity is acceptable or unacceptable? What do the facts say?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Do we really need another "monkey trial"? [^]
Did you know that Clarence Darrow was a supporter of fascism?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you saying that you accept with(sic) you find unacceptable?
That is the very tyranny of post modernism, that nothing is allowed to be unacceptable, except unacceptability itself. Tollerance of everything except intollerance. It is a philosophy of madness and unreason that is corrupting the minds of my generation and those younger, putting the entire future of science itself at risk and undermining our society and culture. It's not the only problem but it is one that stands in the way of fixing all the others becuase it prevents the recognition of the unacceptable as unacceptable.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Yes he was, but in the here and now of year 2008, do you expect the same result?
Depends on what town the trial is held in. Overturned on appeal, probably - at least on the Federal level.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
he is who he says he is and has the characteristics he has revealed.
You are taking the word of men for this. They tell you they are inspired - or worse, other men tell you that the writers were inspired -- by God, but unless you are telling us you have been up on Arrarat and seen the Burning Bush, you may be deeply deceived and in the snares of the antiChrist.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The evidence of history is that these assumptions are sound, lead to the best outcomes and have no long term negative consequences. Right down to the sub atomic infrastructrure of the universe
That's an opinion. Not a verifiable fact. You have to separate the two. Even if you think your opinion is the only valid one.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That's an opinion. Not a verifiable fact.
As you have already admitted, when it comes to matters of the unprovable there is no way to separate the two. You have to make fundamental assumptions in order to reason. If you make them then you have to accept the logical consequences of those assumptions or you aren't capable of reason.
Oakman wrote:
Even if you think your opinion is the only valid one.
What if I think that God's opinion is the only valid one?
Oakman wrote:
unless you are telling us you have been up on Arrarat and seen the Burning Bush
If you're asking have I had direct experience of the presence of God then the answer is yes.
Oakman wrote:
you may be deeply deceived and in the snares of the antiChrist.
This is always a theoretical possibility but it is not my belief. I could go around prefacing every statement I make with 'I believe' but all that would imply is that actually I don't. As I said to Richard earlier it is only current culture that tries to insist that we all go around pretending not to really believe what we believe and that is not something I believe in.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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.
But he just said he rejected that. Are you saying that you accept with you find unacceptable? I trully do not understand.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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 you want them to be taught that Christianity is acceptable or unacceptable? What do the facts say?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Do we really need another "monkey trial"? [^]
Did you know that Clarence Darrow was a supporter of fascism?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you saying that you accept with(sic) you find unacceptable?
That is the very tyranny of post modernism, that nothing is allowed to be unacceptable, except unacceptability itself. Tollerance of everything except intollerance. It is a philosophy of madness and unreason that is corrupting the minds of my generation and those younger, putting the entire future of science itself at risk and undermining our society and culture. It's not the only problem but it is one that stands in the way of fixing all the others becuase it prevents the recognition of the unacceptable as unacceptable.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
That is the very tyranny of post modernism, that nothing is allowed to be unacceptable, except unacceptability itself. Tollerance of everything except intollerance. It is a philosophy of madness and unreason that is corrupting the minds of my generation and those younger, putting the entire future of science itself at risk and undermining our society and culture. It's not the only problem but it is one that stands in the way of fixing all the others becuase it prevents the recognition of the unacceptable as unacceptable.
Matthew, your arguments have been used to kill so many, many people. Remember who the poster boys for Christian intolerance are. "Exactly! We need to burn all those damned Jews at the stake unless they convert today, right, Torquemada?"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface