Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
Oakman wrote:
And some people make me re-examine my beliefs because I can't accept the idea that I agree with them about something
Amen to that.
Oakman wrote:
Hey I've been wrong - I remember, when I was 12, being wrong. I admit it.
I've made mistakes... Most were haircuts and girls ;) , but there were a couple of other things I was wrong about.
Oakman wrote:
I do mind the school system deciding to have that discussion before I think my kid is ready.
That's my big issue... I don't think this is about marriage so much as it is about making the 'lifestyle' more openly wide spread and accepted. I don't really want to have that conversation with the boy, but it's my responsibility to do so at some point. And I don't want the school or anybody else taking it upon themselves to do it. Then again, he's going to run into it at some point, I guess I just don't want it to be too soon.
Oakman wrote:
too bad more people don't agree.
People have a real tendency to want to dictate what other people do. Some people can't deal with disagreement, usually because they REALLY believe that they are right so anybody who disagrees is wrong and must be converted. They can usually be spotted by their inability to argue civilly.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Most were haircuts and girls
I once got a haircut that was so bad, I couldn't think about anything else and ended up going to work wearing two different shoes. I had to stand up on stage in front of about 60 fellow workers that day. . . :-O As for girls well, I spell those mistakes ex-wives. Hopefully thats not something you'll go through.
BoneSoft wrote:
they REALLY believe that they are right so anybody who disagrees is wrong and must be converted. They can usually be spotted by their inability to argue civilly.
and they call you Marxist Fascists. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The very notion of discrimination of any type is the only thing our society any longer has the moral fortitude to discriminate against.
Ah yes the old circular logic ploy, how novel and intellectual of you. Self defense is really an attack in political disguise. :zzz:
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is ultimately a belief in nothingness altogether.
I don't know about that but you are almost an example of nothingness.
led mike
led mike wrote:
Ah yes the old circular logic ploy, how novel and intellectual of you.
Says the man who claims that men are only truly free when they are butt fucking one another.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
led mike wrote:
Don't they have the freedom to quit those jobs and not participate in those activities that violate their religious principles
Strangely enough, yes. I consider the threat of firing someone to be a form of force. While it is true that ultimately we always have a choice, even if force is used or lethal force is threatened, we also live in a country which is founded in part on the idea that we will protect the rights and the freedom of the minority, not simply impose the latest political thinking on them. If a nurse chooses a career that will, she believes, allow her to be a helping person in childbirth, I do not think the state should require her to perform abortions, especially late term ones. Please understand that I am not arguing against abortion. Just the right of some people to provide OB-GYN nursing care without performing abortions. Among other things, giving them that right will give us more nurses.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I consider the threat of firing someone to be a form of force.
That is similar to considering self defense an attack. The person that didn't quit the job that they felt they should not perform but rather refused to do their job is the one who attacked. They caused the situation and the reactions from legislators and/or management is self defense. I guess since you did not address my halloween scenario you believe the OB-GYN nurse scenario deserves some special consideration. Is it that you know one that is in this situation? We have people in this country that don't believe modern medicine should be used at all because it violates their religious beliefs. They don't believe in an appendectomy. I mean where do we draw the line? The only logical place to draw it is simple, don't discriminate ever, period. You are still free to believe that abortion should not have happened because God opposes it. But on earth you signed up as a "medical professional". I seem to remember the bible speaking to the issue of following the laws of men etc. right? This is a great example. I mean if your faith in God is so great you should not have a problem doing your job while simultaneously believing that the abortion should not be happening. If God does exist I believe he is powerful enough to handle that.
led mike
-
led mike wrote:
Ah yes the old circular logic ploy, how novel and intellectual of you.
Says the man who claims that men are only truly free when they are butt fucking one another.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
I consider the threat of firing someone to be a form of force.
That is similar to considering self defense an attack. The person that didn't quit the job that they felt they should not perform but rather refused to do their job is the one who attacked. They caused the situation and the reactions from legislators and/or management is self defense. I guess since you did not address my halloween scenario you believe the OB-GYN nurse scenario deserves some special consideration. Is it that you know one that is in this situation? We have people in this country that don't believe modern medicine should be used at all because it violates their religious beliefs. They don't believe in an appendectomy. I mean where do we draw the line? The only logical place to draw it is simple, don't discriminate ever, period. You are still free to believe that abortion should not have happened because God opposes it. But on earth you signed up as a "medical professional". I seem to remember the bible speaking to the issue of following the laws of men etc. right? This is a great example. I mean if your faith in God is so great you should not have a problem doing your job while simultaneously believing that the abortion should not be happening. If God does exist I believe he is powerful enough to handle that.
led mike
led mike wrote:
That is similar to considering self defense an attack.
"We had to attack first in self defense?"
led mike wrote:
The person that didn't quit the job that they felt they should not perform but rather refused to do their job is the one who attacked
The jobholder didn't change the rules, the state did, without making any provision of the beliefs of the minority.
led mike wrote:
I seem to remember the bible speaking to the issue of following the laws of men etc
Are you saying that you cannot have objections to abortion unless you believe in God? You might want to read up on some of the studies that Planned Parenthood has conducted on members of its own clinics. Plenty of humanists have trouble with late term abortions.
led mike wrote:
I guess since you did not address my halloween scenario
I assumed it was reductio ad absurdum and required no comment from me. More often than not this type of argument is based on opinion (this is equal to that) and not proven fact. We could debate whether your example is equal to mine, but since you originally asked for anyone forced to act against their beliefs, I chose to "dance with the girl I came with." As I pointed out to you a long time ago, my thesis doesn't require that the law force priests to marry gays, so unless you think it necessary to nail down some new point, I suggest we agree to disagree.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
I consider the threat of firing someone to be a form of force.
That is similar to considering self defense an attack. The person that didn't quit the job that they felt they should not perform but rather refused to do their job is the one who attacked. They caused the situation and the reactions from legislators and/or management is self defense. I guess since you did not address my halloween scenario you believe the OB-GYN nurse scenario deserves some special consideration. Is it that you know one that is in this situation? We have people in this country that don't believe modern medicine should be used at all because it violates their religious beliefs. They don't believe in an appendectomy. I mean where do we draw the line? The only logical place to draw it is simple, don't discriminate ever, period. You are still free to believe that abortion should not have happened because God opposes it. But on earth you signed up as a "medical professional". I seem to remember the bible speaking to the issue of following the laws of men etc. right? This is a great example. I mean if your faith in God is so great you should not have a problem doing your job while simultaneously believing that the abortion should not be happening. If God does exist I believe he is powerful enough to handle that.
led mike
led mike wrote:
f your faith in God is so great you should not have a problem doing your job while simultaneously believing that the abortion should not be happening.
What does faith in God have to do with not being willing to do what you consider to be murder? Why do you presume the reasons for refusal are religious rather than secular morality? Requiring someone to do what they regard as criminal in order to retain their job is discriminatory. It is no different than firing an employee who refuses to do a task that they honestly consider to be unethical.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Says the man who claims that men are only truly free when they are butt f***ing one another.
You got a quote for that? Oh right, I forget you're a quoteless wonder.
led mike
Its the logical conclusion of your reasoning. In your society, sexual liberty is the only true form of liberty. Freedom is something you do with your penis. Nothing else matters. Thats what all those brave young men died for on Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima and so many other places - so that men might someday be able to freely butt fuck. Yet never be allowed to met as free men and decide among themselves the moral parameters of their own communities. That power belongs only with those who have the wisdom to decide such things.
led mike wrote:
forget you're a quoteless wonder
I still have no idea what you want a citation for. Does this[^] help you?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I have a right to do what is right, no more and no less.
Wow so your argument is to rewrite the founding fathers. "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Patrick Henry was exactly correct. Notice that neither his statement nor any references to Christians or Jesus are found in the Declaration or Constitution. So while it is a great observation to be made it does nothing to change the words in the documents that "all the founding fathers" agreed on. In fact it seems to logically suggest the opposite. I mean given what Henry said is true they must have gone to great lengths to ensure no references to Christians, Jesus or God made it into the Constitution.
led mike
led mike wrote:
so your argument is to rewrite the founding fathers. "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
No my argument is that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ( the greatest good for the greatest number of people, not self-centered egoism ), are among the things that are right. They didn't need to write that you have a right to eat apple pie because they were stating a principle. The point is that unless you understand the principle the words are no use to you except to trip over.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
led mike wrote:
That is similar to considering self defense an attack.
"We had to attack first in self defense?"
led mike wrote:
The person that didn't quit the job that they felt they should not perform but rather refused to do their job is the one who attacked
The jobholder didn't change the rules, the state did, without making any provision of the beliefs of the minority.
led mike wrote:
I seem to remember the bible speaking to the issue of following the laws of men etc
Are you saying that you cannot have objections to abortion unless you believe in God? You might want to read up on some of the studies that Planned Parenthood has conducted on members of its own clinics. Plenty of humanists have trouble with late term abortions.
led mike wrote:
I guess since you did not address my halloween scenario
I assumed it was reductio ad absurdum and required no comment from me. More often than not this type of argument is based on opinion (this is equal to that) and not proven fact. We could debate whether your example is equal to mine, but since you originally asked for anyone forced to act against their beliefs, I chose to "dance with the girl I came with." As I pointed out to you a long time ago, my thesis doesn't require that the law force priests to marry gays, so unless you think it necessary to nail down some new point, I suggest we agree to disagree.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The jobholder didn't change the rules, the state did, without making any provision of the beliefs of the minority.
That's garbage. They didn't change anything about the fundamental concept that you are a medical professional and your job is to provide medical services. If you want your job to shape laws you should work in the legislature, or whatever.
Oakman wrote:
Are you saying that you cannot have objections to abortion unless you believe in God?
Of course not, however I see where my post might seem that way. I don't believe in or support abortion personally, I equally don't support legislation prohibiting it.
Oakman wrote:
Plenty of humanists have trouble with late term abortions.
Humanist or Catholic, I don't care, as a medical professional the time when you are supposed to medical service is not the appropriate time or means of addressing your trouble with abortion, period.
Oakman wrote:
We could debate whether your example is equal to mine
It's not meant to be equal, it does however address the very large problem associated to every attempt at social legislation, the slippery slope, or as I choose to present it, the where do you draw the line question?
Oakman wrote:
I suggest we agree to disagree.
Works for me. CYA
led mike
-
Its the logical conclusion of your reasoning. In your society, sexual liberty is the only true form of liberty. Freedom is something you do with your penis. Nothing else matters. Thats what all those brave young men died for on Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima and so many other places - so that men might someday be able to freely butt fuck. Yet never be allowed to met as free men and decide among themselves the moral parameters of their own communities. That power belongs only with those who have the wisdom to decide such things.
led mike wrote:
forget you're a quoteless wonder
I still have no idea what you want a citation for. Does this[^] help you?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its the logical conclusion of your reasoning.
Only when you pass the data through the (D)espeir logic prism. I guess he left that with you when he departed. I still crack up every time I see how hung up you are on sodomy. The Stan doth protest too much. Time for me to get out of the office. As usual Stan, it's been, well, something. CYA :-D
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its the logical conclusion of your reasoning.
Only when you pass the data through the (D)espeir logic prism. I guess he left that with you when he departed. I still crack up every time I see how hung up you are on sodomy. The Stan doth protest too much. Time for me to get out of the office. As usual Stan, it's been, well, something. CYA :-D
led mike
led mike wrote:
Only when you pass the data through the (D)espeir logic prism. I guess he left that with you when he departed.
No, its unequivocally the logical conclusion of your reasoning. Your reasoning elevates it to a fundamental right. Its the same as speech or religon or the press, or any other right. If fact, its greater than those because neither freedom of speech or religion or the press may be used to discriminate against those who wish to have anal sex. It is their freedom and theirs alone which matters.
led mike wrote:
I still crack up every time I see how hung up you are on sodomy.
I could just as easily use abortion or flag burning. All are examples of the same statist use of authority to subvert the popular will. Both of those are done deals though, sodomy is merely the most recent example and the one that seems most alien to our traditional values.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
It seems to me that the Jeffersonian goal of smaller government and less government interference in our day-to-day lives would preclude legislating matters that are just as well defined and enforced by other means.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It seems to me that the Jeffersonian goal of smaller government and less government interference in our day-to-day lives would preclude legislating matters that are just as well defined and enforced by other means.
It does indeed. But beyond that, the government which does exist should be as decentralized as possible. It makes no sense at all to assert that a federal judge legalizing sodomy means less government than does the government of Bugtussel, Arkanasas making it illegal. Bugtussel only affects Bugtussel, the fedearl court affects everyone.
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.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The question then becomes what is the more trustworthy measure of truth, what God says about himself or what public opinion thinks about God.
I would contend that the difference is merely semantic.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
the cornerstone of fascist theory
Stan Shannon wrote:
than you are a fascist
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats because you're a fascist
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fascism is
Stan Shannon wrote:
morphed into fascism
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fascsm was
God help us, you've read Jonah Goldberg. Now, where you use to write "marxist" you now write "fascist". The more thing change, the more they stay the same - You're still wrong.
oilFactotum wrote:
you've read Jonah Goldberg.
Good catch. I'm actually reading it right now, and it has helped clarify some key points for me. I've always argued that fascism and socialism are the same basic set of principles, but the precise historic association between them is always difficult to determine because of the purposeful attempts by the left to obscure them. Turning fascism into a 'right-wing' boogey man has been the cornerstone of post WWII liberalism. Goldberg does a good (though not great) job of outlining a bit of that history. The real political extremes are between fascism and classical liberalism. The modern left is economically socialistic, but socially fascist. The right is economically free market but socially it is not rooted strongly in any set of principles, although, in my heart, I believe true Jeffersonianism is still a real possibility.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 9:04 PM
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It seems to me that the Jeffersonian goal of smaller government and less government interference in our day-to-day lives would preclude legislating matters that are just as well defined and enforced by other means.
It does indeed. But beyond that, the government which does exist should be as decentralized as possible. It makes no sense at all to assert that a federal judge legalizing sodomy means less government than does the government of Bugtussel, Arkanasas making it illegal. Bugtussel only affects Bugtussel, the fedearl court affects everyone.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
It does indeed. But beyond that, the government which does exist should be as decentralized as possible. It makes no sense at all to assert that a federal judge legalizing sodomy means less government than does the government of Bugtussel, Arkanasas making it illegal. Bugtussel only affects Bugtussel, the fedearl court affects everyone.
But it certainly makes sense to assert that if there are no laws passed outlawing sodomy at the federal, state, or local level, this does indeed indicate less government. Let cultural institutions of parent, church, and peers enforce the ever-shifting cultural norms. Leave the law to restrictions without which society could not function. Less government is more freedom.
-
Marriage is a unique institution; it was not invented by man but by God and as such all debate about redefining it is moot. None of use own the definition so none of us can change it. We can lie to ourselves and attempt to exceed our authority but it makes no difference. You are married if God considers yo married and not if he considers you not and that's an end of it. Anyone who wants to invent some other form of union or statute or institution can do so if they have the power but it is not marriage.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Did you read my signature?
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
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.
Marriage is an abstract concept. It is entirely opinion. If society agrees you're married, then you're married. Marriage has not one definition, but many. Everyone has their own definitions, some similar, some vastly different. God is an abstract concept. It is entirely subjective. God is what you think it is. If you think there is a God, then there is a God. Reality is different for everyone. Everyone has their own perception of reality. It's just that some are more delusional than others…
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
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.
You actually believe we're made of atoms? But the Bible didn't say so!
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Oakman wrote:
Do you read Aramaic? And Greek? Unless you do, you have never read the Scriptures.
Nonsense, and you forgot Hebrew.
Oakman wrote:
have probably munched on more unleavened crackers and cheap red wine than you have dreamed of. I was at least as much of a religious cannibal as you are.
And yet you have no part in Christ so all you do is eat and drink judgement on yourself, how sad. :sigh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Yes. All that Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew is nonsense.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Shout it from the rooftops if you so wish.
Thank you, I will.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But I will be deaf to your words of wisdom.
Sadly true as without the spirit of God no one is capable of faith.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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.
This carries the tacit assumption that all such belief and religious viewpoints are false and therefore less likely to be accepted by more educated people. Of course if one such belief or viewpoint were in fact to be true then all good education would only increase the level of acceptance of it. In fact as the fundamental truth all good education would be based on it. Perhaps this is why most of that drive to educate that you identify as having occured was originally led and promoted by Christians, even the predecessors of very vicars you disagree with.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
I am God. Everyone is their own God. Why? Because everyone has a different view of what God is. That alone is evidence that there is no unified God.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?