Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
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?
-
Oakman wrote:
Facts are verifiable. Beliefs or opinions are not.
I have already showed you that this is logically false so you're using bad definitions that can only lead to bad conclusions.
Oakman wrote:
So far you have shown no way to verify the existence of your god
Neither have I attempted to do that which cannot be done and is unnecessary.
Oakman wrote:
one you have already admitted may be a snare of the Antichrist.
That is simply a lie, or you simply can't read, go back and look again.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Actually, I agree with Oakman. Facts can be proven. Beliefs may or may not be facts. A belief with no rational basis has the same probability of being true as you being a descendent of Jesus. Not attempting to discover the truth is ignorance. The Bible may, in fact, be a tool of the Antichrist. You have no way of verifying otherwise.
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?
-
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.
I agree completely with that. I don't think that local communites should have such laws and I would vote against them if they were brought up anywhere that I live. I'm simply saying that as long as there is no violation of specific rights as clearly defined in the constitution the right to define their legality rest with the states and the people. The subversion of such classical liberalism is, in fact, the lingering intellectual legacy of the influence of the very philosophies which were roundly and proudly touted as being 'fascist' by the left in the first few decades of the 20th century.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
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?
-
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:
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 f***.
Stan, you poor benighted uninformed man, homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time: Alexander the Great *Macedonian Ruler, Greatest General of all time, 300 B.C. Socrates *Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C. Hadrian *Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c. Richard the Lionhearted *English King, 12th c. Saladin *Sultan of Egypt and Syria Desiderius Erasmus *Dutch Monk, Philosopher Francis Bacon *English statesman, author Frederick the Great *King of Prussia Walt Whitman *U.S. poet, author, 19th c. Marcel Proust *French author, 20th c. Colette *French author, 20th c. Gertrude Stein *U.S. poet, author, 20th c. Alice B. Toklas *U.S. author, 20th c. Federico Garcia Lorca *Spanish author, 20th c. Cole Porter *U.S. composer, 20th c. Virginia Woolf *English author, 20th c. Leonard Bernstein *U.S. composer, 20th c. Pope Julius III *1550-1555 T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) *English soldier, author, 20th c. Charles Laughton *English actor, 20th c. Marguerite Yourcenar *Belgian author, 20th c. Tennessee Williams *U.S. Playwright, 20th c. James Baldwin *U.S. author, 20th c. Andy Warhol *U.S. artist, 20th c. Michelangelo *Italian artist, 15th c. Leonardo Da Vinci *Ital. Artist, scientist, 15th c. Christopher Marlowe *Eng. Playwright, 16th c. Herman Melville *U.S. author, 19th c. Horatio Alger, Jr. *U.S. author, 19th c. Tchaikovsky *Russian composer, 19th c. Willa Cather *U.S. author, 19th c. Amy Lowell *U.S. author, 19th & 20th c. E.M. Forster *English author, 20th c. John M. Keynes *English economist, 20th c. Ludwig Wittgenstein *Australian mathematician, 20th c. Bessie Smith *U.S. singer, 20th c. Noel Coward *English playwright, 20th c. Christopher Isherwood *English author, 20th c. Pier Paolo Pasolini *Italian film director, 20th c. Yukio Mishima *Japanese author, 20th c. Eleanor Roosevelt *U.S. stateswoman, 20th c. Julius Caesar *Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C. Augustus Caesar *Roman Emperor Bayard Rustin *U.S. Civil Rights activist, 20th c. James I
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
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 f***.
Stan, you poor benighted uninformed man, homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time: Alexander the Great *Macedonian Ruler, Greatest General of all time, 300 B.C. Socrates *Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C. Hadrian *Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c. Richard the Lionhearted *English King, 12th c. Saladin *Sultan of Egypt and Syria Desiderius Erasmus *Dutch Monk, Philosopher Francis Bacon *English statesman, author Frederick the Great *King of Prussia Walt Whitman *U.S. poet, author, 19th c. Marcel Proust *French author, 20th c. Colette *French author, 20th c. Gertrude Stein *U.S. poet, author, 20th c. Alice B. Toklas *U.S. author, 20th c. Federico Garcia Lorca *Spanish author, 20th c. Cole Porter *U.S. composer, 20th c. Virginia Woolf *English author, 20th c. Leonard Bernstein *U.S. composer, 20th c. Pope Julius III *1550-1555 T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) *English soldier, author, 20th c. Charles Laughton *English actor, 20th c. Marguerite Yourcenar *Belgian author, 20th c. Tennessee Williams *U.S. Playwright, 20th c. James Baldwin *U.S. author, 20th c. Andy Warhol *U.S. artist, 20th c. Michelangelo *Italian artist, 15th c. Leonardo Da Vinci *Ital. Artist, scientist, 15th c. Christopher Marlowe *Eng. Playwright, 16th c. Herman Melville *U.S. author, 19th c. Horatio Alger, Jr. *U.S. author, 19th c. Tchaikovsky *Russian composer, 19th c. Willa Cather *U.S. author, 19th c. Amy Lowell *U.S. author, 19th & 20th c. E.M. Forster *English author, 20th c. John M. Keynes *English economist, 20th c. Ludwig Wittgenstein *Australian mathematician, 20th c. Bessie Smith *U.S. singer, 20th c. Noel Coward *English playwright, 20th c. Christopher Isherwood *English author, 20th c. Pier Paolo Pasolini *Italian film director, 20th c. Yukio Mishima *Japanese author, 20th c. Eleanor Roosevelt *U.S. stateswoman, 20th c. Julius Caesar *Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C. Augustus Caesar *Roman Emperor Bayard Rustin *U.S. Civil Rights activist, 20th c. James I
Hence the famous battle cry "For Butt fucking and abortion boys, forward!" :rolleyes:
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
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
Stan Shannon wrote:
Turning fascism into a 'right-wing' boogey man
No turning was required. Fascism is a right-wing form of authoritarianism and it is alive and well in the US in the form of the KKK, militias and skinheads.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Turning fascism into a 'right-wing' boogey man
No turning was required. Fascism is a right-wing form of authoritarianism and it is alive and well in the US in the form of the KKK, militias and skinheads.
yeah, all five of 'em.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Citations for what? History?
Yes accurate historical documentation is acceptable
led mike
I don't see why someone has to down-vote you for that without even saying why. Bugger.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
Hence the famous battle cry "For Butt fucking and abortion boys, forward!" :rolleyes:
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
yeah, all five of 'em.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Jeffersonianism is the belief that such power should be invested in the hands of the people, limited only by a strict interpretation of the consitution.
Stan, I hate to break it to you, but Town Meetings don't work too well when you are talking about 303,569,630 (as I typed) people. And the kicker is "interpretation of the Constitution." Who, besides you, gets to do the interpretation? You have already said that when judges do it, it becomes fascism.
Stan Shannon wrote:
People like you and led mike simply do not understand that the model of government you are prmoting is predicated upon the evolution of progressivist thought in the late nineteenth and early 20th century which grew out of Marxist theory and finally morphed into fascism.
You have no idea what form of Government I am promoting because I have never spoken in detail about what I think might be a good form of government. Just because Tim & I point out that you are holding a counterfeit ten dollar bill does not mean that we are promoting the further debasement of our currency by Bush, Cheney, et al.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Look at how many of them get caught doing them.
What, 3 or 4? OK, it's more than that, especially if you start counting Catholic priests and tele-evangelists... But what's worse, keeping a standard that you can't always live up to, or having no standard at all.
Tim Craig wrote:
just they've been told they're bad and they shouldn't do them. If they can't do them, then obviously, no one else should.
Well, that's an over simplification and assumes that nobody on the right has a mind of their own or any valid points or perspectives. And it assumes they're all spiteful and vindictive. Which should be obviously silly to try to assert.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
If you do, he'll drink all your beer. You have to take at least two so they'll keep each other honest.
But then they'll throw you in the lake and tell you they won't let you back in the boat until you say you've been reborn. :-D
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But then they'll throw you in the lake and tell you they won't let you back in the boat until you say you've been reborn.
Is that the corrolary of the sig line I saw the other day? That the only problem with baptists is that they're not held under long enough.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
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?
Yes, it shows that you have an inadequate understanding of even my limited and partial understanding of God. It also shows that you have unacknowledged domain errors in your thinking which is probably why you make so little sense. God is exceptional by virtue of being God. If you can't spot the exceptionality of a definition that is fundamentally unique then you need a holdiay or brain reboot or something.
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?
These are your opinions and they are both ignorant and incorrect.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Oakman wrote:
think in this case society could continue to require informed consent, exsanguinity, and breathing as prerequisites to marriage without stepping on too many toes.
Ehh, fair enough.
Oakman wrote:
The slippery slope argument can pretty much be used to argue against anything
True, but this is the one time it actually seems applicable. Polygamists are already working on lining up a movement if the gay argument works. I don't think donkeys and blow-up ferrets are going to be an issue but... Personally I don't think it's an arbitrary line, but if gays get marriage it will mean the decision makers do believe it's an arbitrary line. And if you see it as arbitrary, you still have the very real problem of where that line should be. I don't think the slippery slope argument has any weight in the capital punishment issue. It's really easy to draw a logical line for it, repeat offenders of violent crimes showing no sign of rehabilitation. But this... I dunno, live and let live I suppose.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
I dunno, live and let live I suppose.
Funny how you say this but in the one case you claim it's a slippery slope and that means the line is arbitrary because you disagree with where the line should be moved and in the other it's easy to establish the line because you want it at a certain point. :doh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.