Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
Tim Craig wrote:
So what gives you the balls
Nothing to do with balls, any claim to define or completely understand God is patently false and based on an inadequate original concept. Any concept of God that is small and pathetic even compared to mine is clearly lesser and therfore false, God is not less than my concept of him but infinitely more.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
You don't like my argument but fail to say anything to undermine in. Oakmans invocation of a historical figure who he CLAIMS would support my opinions is a straw man. Mai Zedong or Pol Pot might support his opinions or even Dr Crippen, so what. It is a non argument so my nose is just fine thankyou. Hmm, 2 minutes ago I was 'ignorant' now I 'seem to "know" everything'. Keep up the consistent debating line Tim it's really making an impact. :-D
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Keep up the consistent debating line Tim it's really making an impact.
I don't expect to make an impact on you. That's a hopeless cause. I just want to be in your face so you dont' think silence is agreement. And maybe some poor sod who is just making up his mind may see you exposed for what you are.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Keep up the consistent debating line Tim it's really making an impact.
I don't expect to make an impact on you. That's a hopeless cause. I just want to be in your face so you dont' think silence is agreement. And maybe some poor sod who is just making up his mind may see you exposed for what you are.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Expose away. As long as you keep attacking the messenger and not the message anyone reading the debate is bound to agree with you right :laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Expose away. As long as you keep attacking the messenger and not the message anyone reading the debate is bound to agree with you right :laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Hence the famous battle cry
That's all you got? I guess you just ran out of trash talk, huh?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Thats all your comment warrented. We currently live in the society that hundreds of thousands of young men sacrificed their lives to acheive, and that society has elevated sexual liberty to a status of fundamental freedom on a par and even exceeding that of our traditional rights - speech, religion, the press. This is what they were fighting for. Providing a list of famous perverts is hardly an intelligent reply.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Says the man who claims that men are only truly free when they are butt f***ing one another.
Geez, Stan. What is it with you and butt fucking? Get over it. No one is interested in your scrawney red necked ass. You're safe! :laugh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Thanks. Comments such as that always indicate that I'm winning the argument.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
Tim & I
Oh, damn. Drag me into this. :laugh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
Thats all your comment warrented. We currently live in the society that hundreds of thousands of young men sacrificed their lives to acheive, and that society has elevated sexual liberty to a status of fundamental freedom on a par and even exceeding that of our traditional rights - speech, religion, the press. This is what they were fighting for. Providing a list of famous perverts is hardly an intelligent reply.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
hundreds of thousands of young men sacrificed their lives to acheive,
Yep and at tens of thousands of which were gay. You think they weren't hoping that that they could become first class citizens?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Providing a list of famous perverts is hardly an intelligent reply.
lets see, you don't like Indians, Blacks, homosexuals, people to the left of Richard Nixon - how do you feel about Asians?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But if the only way was to peek in the window, that would be a direct violation of explicitely stated constitutional protections. Thats the way the system is supposed to work.
Ah but once you have passed a law making sodomy illegal, all you have to do is get a warrant and you can peep all night long. :cool:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
That reminds me of the old SA, in the 70's, where police went to great lengths to catch people of different races having sex.
-
That reminds me of the old SA, in the 70's, where police went to great lengths to catch people of different races having sex.
The first time the Supreme Court got involved in determining whether state marriage laws were constitutional was when they struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. A black and a white who had married elsewhere were being forced to leave the state or face jail. Stan, of course, regards this as a clear case of fascist judicial interference with the rights of the majority to oppress the minority.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
It's right there in the early chapters of Genesis, a man will leave his parents and be joined to his wife, they will become one flesh. I don't have it in front of me. This is the basis and orgination of marriage. The ceremony and state recognition and everything we have added on top is simply an acknowledgement of a fact already recognised by God.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
That seems more like an observation of a very natural and probable phenomenon.
-
yeah, all five of 'em.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
yeah,
Good to see you recognize that Fascism is authoritarianism of the right.
-
That seems more like an observation of a very natural and probable phenomenon.
Indeed, until you consider that all natural phenomena are the creation of God, including probability. This was God saying how it would be, not describing what already was. The same God who spoke the universe into existence. His words carry the authority of law, as in a law of nature. This is not of course to deny that both man and nature are fallen, see Genesis 3.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And it assumes they're all spiteful and vindictive. Which should be obviously silly to try to assert.
Hey, if the foo shits..... :laugh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
OK, so you're main interest is perpetuating partisan BS. Just checking.
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.
You're right, to some extent my line for capital punishment can be argued as arbitrary. But it's not quite that simple. It's very common in many cultures to feel that the punishment should fit the crime. And most people who support capital punishment only want it as a punishment for murder. So virtually anybody with an opinion on capital punishment wants it in either no situation, or only in the case of murder and severe violent crimes. Not all that arbitrary really is it. On the other hand, who should be allowed to marry isn't so black and white. Well actually it is if you have religion. But since we have this growing movement of faithless people who really want to piss on the beliefs of those who do have religion, now the age old standard has to be questioned. And only when you remove the religious context from marriage, which has probably just about always been an integral part of it, then it turns completely arbitrary. The only thing that makes the current suggestion any more logical than including polygamy or other things to come, is that it's maybe the closest next step out from the standard. So, 1) for you to claim that the current suggestion is not arbitrary, would seem to mean that it's the first step in an intentional slippery slope. In which case, you'd probably fight the slippery slope argument fervently since loosing that argument would betray your actual intent. Or, 2) despite the fact that allowing gay marriage and not polygamy is completely arbitrary, you really want gay marriage so you'll dishonestly argue that it's not arbitrary for the same reason as #1. In either case, by starting this and insisting on removing the religious context you've made it completely arbitrary. And it is arbitrary, far more so than believing that murderers should be put to death. But life is change, and personally I'm not that concerned with what other people choose to do. There are valid arguments on both sides. But sure, to some extent you could argue that any decision on any issue is arbitrary. That's just my 2 yen.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
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.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
They didn't need to write that you have a right to eat apple pie marry a person of the same sex because they were stating a principle.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The point is that unless you understand the principle the words are no use to you except to trip over.
And some people choose to believe that the principle is that a sub-set of the population can and should restrict the freedoms of other sub-sets of the population, remember slavery? I for one do not believe that in any way whatsoever reflects the principles stated.
led mike
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
They didn't need to write that you have a right to eat apple pie marry a person of the same sex because they were stating a principle.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The point is that unless you understand the principle the words are no use to you except to trip over.
And some people choose to believe that the principle is that a sub-set of the population can and should restrict the freedoms of other sub-sets of the population, remember slavery? I for one do not believe that in any way whatsoever reflects the principles stated.
led mike
Don't misquote me, that's at least forum abuse if not outright liable, the two statments are not equivalent. You clearly demonstrate though that you have not understood the principle. What some people choose to believe completely at random and with no reasonbale excuse, or association with the constitution beyond their assertion that there is one, is totally irrelevant.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
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
-
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.
First I apologize for the delayed reply, this thread just went crazy and I have technical forum threads which I give priority over soapbox. Also you hit my leaving the office time yesterday. Ok I've run out of excuses :-D
Rob Graham wrote:
Why do you presume the reasons for refusal are religious rather than secular morality?
I agree, while it predominantly is it is definitely not exclusive.
Rob Graham wrote:
not being willing to do what you consider to be murder?
Rob Graham wrote:
Requiring someone to do what they regard as criminal in order to retain their job is discriminatory.
I disagree. The choice to enter the field is a choice, no one forced you. It does not seem at all unreasonable given the nature of modern medicine that one could anticipate there could arise situations that don't align with your personal beliefs. However since you chose to be a professional in that field you do your job, period. If you want to address changing the definition of murder then you do it through the appropriate mechanisms, not by refusing to do your job, otherwise you a flirting with being an anarchist.
led mike
-
Thats all your comment warrented. We currently live in the society that hundreds of thousands of young men sacrificed their lives to acheive, and that society has elevated sexual liberty to a status of fundamental freedom on a par and even exceeding that of our traditional rights - speech, religion, the press. This is what they were fighting for. Providing a list of famous perverts is hardly an intelligent reply.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats all your comment warrented.
Yes given you believe the appropriate approach to debate has nothing to do with facts and evidence.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Providing a list of famous perverts is hardly an intelligent reply.
You were the one that stated 200 years of history was in fact very important. Of course you are unable to actually provide any facts as Oakman did. And his list is only the ones we know about. Given how many modern republicans are exposed as gays all the time I have do doubts that Oakmans list is just the tip of the asshole, so to speak. But back to facts. You just make the claim that history supports your POV, what you can't do is prove it. What I don't yet know is if you can't prove it because history doesn't support your claims or because you have no concept of what proof is.
led mike