California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Atreus21There's nothing bigoted, hateful, or ignorant about opposing behavior you believe to be immoral.

Yes there is. There is a lot of bigotry, hatred, and ignorance resulting from people's belief that they are somehow more moral than others. People used to think that skin color had a bearing on content of one's character too, just like they do now with sexual orientation. It's rehash of same old bigotry just directed at different people.

People like the KKK believe that skin color denotes content of character, and they're wrong. Skin color isn't a choice. Content of character is determined by your actions, not your nature.

Anti-gay marriage people are not equivalent to racists, and the pro-gay movement isn't alike to the civil rights movement. Gay people aren't kept from exercising any rights in this country. The blacks were.

Originally posted by: OrByte
We've established in previous threads that according to you the bible says it is so, and you believe in the bible, therefore you are right and everyone is wrong.

Therefore what you "believe" should be legislated against the beliefs of others.

Of course. Just like you "believe" that gay marriage is a right, and that you "believe" I and people and like me are bigots.

We all base our actions on what we "believe." The question is which "belief" is right, and which is wrong.

I havent called you a bigot, at least not yet.

Previously the SC of CA ruled that gay marriage is protected, Gays were getting married. that has nothing to do with what I believe.

And when you say "which belief is right and which is wrong" I have to ask; Right or wrong ACCORDING TO WHOM?

Wait a minute. Do you not believe in the notion of things being right or wrong?

Obviously I believe in right or wrong. We have different ideas of right or wrong otherwise we wouldnt be in this stupid discussion so yes I do have an understanding of what is right and wrong TO MYSELF.

SO, in the context of this discussion/topic, when you say that, "The question is which "belief" is right, and which is wrong." I still ask, according to who? YOU?

I believe that to be the case. You and others like you chose to vote to create a group of people that is excluded from the right to marry.

You believe you are right.

I believe differently. But I don't pretend to think I'm right, which is why I say let the courts decide.

You are starting from the premise that you are right, and I am wrong. Or else, you wouldn't be arguing with me. You can't escape being just as bigoted as I am if you want to make any rational judgement of any kind.

If you gave equal consideration to all points of view, while considering them all morally equal, you couldn't make any argument.

I'm in this thread because I'm tired of people using the word bigotry, as if they know what it means. People use the word whenever they think someone is holding to a conviction. Bigotry is not the certainty that you are right. Bigotry is the absolute inability to fathom how you can possibly be wrong, and hence being unwilling and incapable of listening to any opposing argument. They are different things.

Just because you think you're right doesn't make you a bigot.

Look up the definition of the word and see if your stance fits.

Then shut the fuck up about it because your opinion as presented here is fits the very definition of bigotry.

What i really hate with people like yourself is that you actually BELIEVE that you have the right to dictate the equal rights of others while you are complaining about Talibans restricting the rights of women in another country, well guess what, you ARE the Talibans of your own country.

In what way would homosexual marriage affect you? It doesn't, it affects your control over society based on your religious beliefs.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21
[
Murder is wrong, no matter the motivation, coincidences, or circumstances. So is rape.

That's why people play with the definitions.

Is murder ok, when the state does it to a pisoner and calls it capital punishment?

The murder of the innocent is what is wrong. How dare you equate stopping a murderer from killing again to that of taking an innocent life.

Murdering innocent pepole in Gitmo is something you'd applaud (ask Don Vito for evidence, it has happened), don't go all high and mighty on me you stupid twat.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21
[
Murder is wrong, no matter the motivation, coincidences, or circumstances. So is rape.

That's why people play with the definitions.

Is murder ok, when the state does it to a pisoner and calls it capital punishment?

For most of our country's history, if I understand the history correctly, the notion of a husband raping his wife was not legally recognized; it was a legal impossibility, his 'right'.

I know you have this cool little thing called "the argument there is right and wrong" and you want to play with it, but you are not doing anyone a favor with simplistic use of it.

And needless to say, you are not doing any favors either by pretending that actual, real issues of right and wrong are addressed by it, by trying to make the false analogy that if you can say murder and rape are 'absolutely wrong', than every issue fits into your black and white Manichean (look it up if needed, I had to the first time I saw it) paradigm.

What's the 'absolutely right or wrong' answer on how much the government should provide healthcare to the needy, or other investments in people's needs? What's the absolutely right or wrong amount they should tax? What's the absolutely right or wrong position on how much and how they should influence who is in power in other nations? What's the absolutely right or wrong way for them to split the budget on schools, roads, and police?

Oh, there isn't one? Would zero budgets for schools and police, leaving children uneducated and criminals running wild forming gangs to rule the city be 'absolutely wrong'?

Not everything is black and white. Some things are. If we don't start from the premise that there IS a right and wrong, we can't pass judgement on anything. Period.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
You are starting from the premise that you are right, and I am wrong. Or else, you wouldn't be arguing with me. You can't escape being just as bigoted as I am if you want to make any rational judgement of any kind.

If you gave equal consideration to all points of view, while considering them all morally equal, you couldn't make any argument.

I'm in this thread because I'm tired of people using the word bigotry, as if they know what it means. People use the word whenever they think someone is holding to a conviction. Bigotry is not the certainty that you are right. Bigotry is the absolute inability to fathom how you can possibly be wrong, and hence being unwilling and incapable of listening to any opposing argument. They are different things.

Just because you think you're right doesn't make you a bigot.

I think you missed the point where I said you believe you are right and I believe differently.

Then I said let the courts decide.

NOW, I think people label you a bigot not because that you have conviction, but because your position is grounded in protecting "marriage" from people that are your equal.

Gays and you are just the same, wether you like it or not.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21
[
Murder is wrong, no matter the motivation, coincidences, or circumstances. So is rape.

That's why people play with the definitions.

Is murder ok, when the state does it to a pisoner and calls it capital punishment?

For most of our country's history, if I understand the history correctly, the notion of a husband raping his wife was not legally recognized; it was a legal impossibility, his 'right'.

I know you have this cool little thing called "the argument there is right and wrong" and you want to play with it, but you are not doing anyone a favor with simplistic use of it.

And needless to say, you are not doing any favors either by pretending that actual, real issues of right and wrong are addressed by it, by trying to make the false analogy that if you can say murder and rape are 'absolutely wrong', than every issue fits into your black and white Manichean (look it up if needed, I had to the first time I saw it) paradigm.

What's the 'absolutely right or wrong' answer on how much the government should provide healthcare to the needy, or other investments in people's needs? What's the absolutely right or wrong amount they should tax? What's the absolutely right or wrong position on how much and how they should influence who is in power in other nations? What's the absolutely right or wrong way for them to split the budget on schools, roads, and police?

Oh, there isn't one? Would zero budgets for schools and police, leaving children uneducated and criminals running wild forming gangs to rule the city be 'absolutely wrong'?

Not everything is black and white. Some things are. If we don't start from the premise that there IS a right and wrong, we can't pass judgement on anything. Period.

And how could you ever feel good about yourself if you couldn't pass judgement even though your own holy book says you shouldn't?

Perhaps you could try to lift your own spirits by doing good instead of condemning, you know, like Christ?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

You are starting from the premise that you are right, and I am wrong. Or else, you wouldn't be arguing with me. You can't escape being just as bigoted as I am if you want to make any rational judgement of any kind.

If you gave equal consideration to all points of view, while considering them all morally equal, you couldn't make any argument.

I'm in this thread because I'm tired of people using the word bigotry, as if they know what it means. People use the word whenever they think someone is holding to a conviction. Bigotry is not the certainty that you are right. Bigotry is the absolute inability to fathom how you can possibly be wrong, and hence being unwilling and incapable of listening to any opposing argument. They are different things.

Just because you think you're right doesn't make you a bigot.

Bigotry is an unfounded or irrational dislike of something, it has nothing to do with how certain you are or whatever else. This is why the argument that people who hate bigots are bigots is stupid.

If you are going to try and argue that opposition to gay marriage based upon a book you believe was handed down to you by god is a rational argument against it, then we have pinpointed the flaw in our discourse here. You are attempting to use an inherently irrational belief system in order to argue rationally against an issue. (note: just because religion is by nature irrational doesn't make it bad)

This is why people call you a bigot, and that's why sadly enough, they are right.

I haven't based one argument here on the bible. OrByte brought it up.

I don't disagree with homosexual activity because of it being some kind of affront to God. I disagree with it for reasons wholly non-religious.

Your equating opposition to gay marriage with solely those with religious beliefs is short-sighted.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I haven't based one argument here on the bible. OrByte brought it up.

I don't disagree with homosexual activity because of it being some kind of affront to God. I disagree with it for reasons wholly non-religious.

Your equating opposition to gay marriage with solely those with religious beliefs is short-sighted.

Please try and make an argument against gay marriage that is based upon sound science.

I'm serious. They are all slippery slope fallacies, appeals to ignorance, appeals to tradition, etc.

Elevate the discourse! Help us all!

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Atreus21There's nothing bigoted, hateful, or ignorant about opposing behavior you believe to be immoral.

Yes there is. There is a lot of bigotry, hatred, and ignorance resulting from people's belief that they are somehow more moral than others. People used to think that skin color had a bearing on content of one's character too, just like they do now with sexual orientation. It's rehash of same old bigotry just directed at different people.

People like the KKK believe that skin color denotes content of character, and they're wrong. Skin color isn't a choice. Content of character is determined by your actions, not your nature.

Anti-gay marriage people are not equivalent to racists, and the pro-gay movement isn't alike to the civil rights movement. Gay people aren't kept from exercising any rights in this country. The blacks were.

Originally posted by: OrByte
We've established in previous threads that according to you the bible says it is so, and you believe in the bible, therefore you are right and everyone is wrong.

Therefore what you "believe" should be legislated against the beliefs of others.

Of course. Just like you "believe" that gay marriage is a right, and that you "believe" I and people and like me are bigots.

We all base our actions on what we "believe." The question is which "belief" is right, and which is wrong.

I havent called you a bigot, at least not yet.

Previously the SC of CA ruled that gay marriage is protected, Gays were getting married. that has nothing to do with what I believe.

And when you say "which belief is right and which is wrong" I have to ask; Right or wrong ACCORDING TO WHOM?

Wait a minute. Do you not believe in the notion of things being right or wrong?

Obviously I believe in right or wrong. We have different ideas of right or wrong otherwise we wouldnt be in this stupid discussion so yes I do have an understanding of what is right and wrong TO MYSELF.

SO, in the context of this discussion/topic, when you say that, "The question is which "belief" is right, and which is wrong." I still ask, according to who? YOU?

I believe that to be the case. You and others like you chose to vote to create a group of people that is excluded from the right to marry.

You believe you are right.

I believe differently. But I don't pretend to think I'm right, which is why I say let the courts decide.

You are starting from the premise that you are right, and I am wrong. Or else, you wouldn't be arguing with me. You can't escape being just as bigoted as I am if you want to make any rational judgement of any kind.

If you gave equal consideration to all points of view, while considering them all morally equal, you couldn't make any argument.

I'm in this thread because I'm tired of people using the word bigotry, as if they know what it means. People use the word whenever they think someone is holding to a conviction. Bigotry is not the certainty that you are right. Bigotry is the absolute inability to fathom how you can possibly be wrong, and hence being unwilling and incapable of listening to any opposing argument. They are different things.

Just because you think you're right doesn't make you a bigot.

Look up the definition of the word and see if your stance fits.

Then shut the fuck up about it because your opinion as presented here is fits the very definition of bigotry.

What i really hate with people like yourself is that you actually BELIEVE that you have the right to dictate the equal rights of others while you are complaining about Talibans restricting the rights of women in another country, well guess what, you ARE the Talibans of your own country.

In what way would homosexual marriage affect you? It doesn't, it affects your control over society based on your religious beliefs.

Once again, my stance has no bearing on religious beliefs.

You're making a judgement, and hating me because I make judgements you don't like. You're the same kind of bigot you accuse me of being.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

You are starting from the premise that you are right, and I am wrong. Or else, you wouldn't be arguing with me. You can't escape being just as bigoted as I am if you want to make any rational judgement of any kind.

If you gave equal consideration to all points of view, while considering them all morally equal, you couldn't make any argument.

I'm in this thread because I'm tired of people using the word bigotry, as if they know what it means. People use the word whenever they think someone is holding to a conviction. Bigotry is not the certainty that you are right. Bigotry is the absolute inability to fathom how you can possibly be wrong, and hence being unwilling and incapable of listening to any opposing argument. They are different things.

Just because you think you're right doesn't make you a bigot.

Bigotry is an unfounded or irrational dislike of something, it has nothing to do with how certain you are or whatever else. This is why the argument that people who hate bigots are bigots is stupid.

If you are going to try and argue that opposition to gay marriage based upon a book you believe was handed down to you by god is a rational argument against it, then we have pinpointed the flaw in our discourse here. You are attempting to use an inherently irrational belief system in order to argue rationally against an issue. (note: just because religion is by nature irrational doesn't make it bad)

This is why people call you a bigot, and that's why sadly enough, they are right.

I haven't based one argument here on the bible. OrByte brought it up.

I don't disagree with homosexual activity because of it being some kind of affront to God. I disagree with it for reasons wholly non-religious.

Your equating opposition to gay marriage with solely those with religious beliefs is short-sighted.

That is utter bullsheit, but i'll humour you, tell me why you oppose gay marriage.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I haven't based one argument here on the bible. OrByte brought it up.

I don't disagree with homosexual activity because of it being some kind of affront to God. I disagree with it for reasons wholly non-religious.

Your equating opposition to gay marriage with solely those with religious beliefs is short-sighted.

Please try and make an argument against gay marriage that is based upon sound science.

I'm serious. They are all slippery slope fallacies, appeals to ignorance, appeals to tradition, etc.

Elevate the discourse! Help us all!

I am illustrating there are things intrinsically right and wrong. Once we establish that as a premise, we will move on.

If we don't establish that, you or I can reply with, "That's just your opinion" until one of us gets tired of the foolishness.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Atreus21There's nothing bigoted, hateful, or ignorant about opposing behavior you believe to be immoral.

Yes there is. There is a lot of bigotry, hatred, and ignorance resulting from people's belief that they are somehow more moral than others. People used to think that skin color had a bearing on content of one's character too, just like they do now with sexual orientation. It's rehash of same old bigotry just directed at different people.

People like the KKK believe that skin color denotes content of character, and they're wrong. Skin color isn't a choice. Content of character is determined by your actions, not your nature.

Anti-gay marriage people are not equivalent to racists, and the pro-gay movement isn't alike to the civil rights movement. Gay people aren't kept from exercising any rights in this country. The blacks were.

Originally posted by: OrByte
We've established in previous threads that according to you the bible says it is so, and you believe in the bible, therefore you are right and everyone is wrong.

Therefore what you "believe" should be legislated against the beliefs of others.

Of course. Just like you "believe" that gay marriage is a right, and that you "believe" I and people and like me are bigots.

We all base our actions on what we "believe." The question is which "belief" is right, and which is wrong.

I havent called you a bigot, at least not yet.

Previously the SC of CA ruled that gay marriage is protected, Gays were getting married. that has nothing to do with what I believe.

And when you say "which belief is right and which is wrong" I have to ask; Right or wrong ACCORDING TO WHOM?

Wait a minute. Do you not believe in the notion of things being right or wrong?

Obviously I believe in right or wrong. We have different ideas of right or wrong otherwise we wouldnt be in this stupid discussion so yes I do have an understanding of what is right and wrong TO MYSELF.

SO, in the context of this discussion/topic, when you say that, "The question is which "belief" is right, and which is wrong." I still ask, according to who? YOU?

I believe that to be the case. You and others like you chose to vote to create a group of people that is excluded from the right to marry.

You believe you are right.

I believe differently. But I don't pretend to think I'm right, which is why I say let the courts decide.

You are starting from the premise that you are right, and I am wrong. Or else, you wouldn't be arguing with me. You can't escape being just as bigoted as I am if you want to make any rational judgement of any kind.

If you gave equal consideration to all points of view, while considering them all morally equal, you couldn't make any argument.

I'm in this thread because I'm tired of people using the word bigotry, as if they know what it means. People use the word whenever they think someone is holding to a conviction. Bigotry is not the certainty that you are right. Bigotry is the absolute inability to fathom how you can possibly be wrong, and hence being unwilling and incapable of listening to any opposing argument. They are different things.

Just because you think you're right doesn't make you a bigot.

Look up the definition of the word and see if your stance fits.

Then shut the fuck up about it because your opinion as presented here is fits the very definition of bigotry.

What i really hate with people like yourself is that you actually BELIEVE that you have the right to dictate the equal rights of others while you are complaining about Talibans restricting the rights of women in another country, well guess what, you ARE the Talibans of your own country.

In what way would homosexual marriage affect you? It doesn't, it affects your control over society based on your religious beliefs.

Once again, my stance has no bearing on religious beliefs.

You're making a judgement, and hating me because I make judgements you don't like. You're the same kind of bigot you accuse me of being.

I don't hate you, i just dislike utter religious Talibanese people like yourself, but you're reaching my treshold of hate because you can't even admit why you are against homosexual marriage.

I judge you based on your bigotry just like i judge Talibans based on theirs, you are NO difference in anything but methods.

I've got to leave again, i'll be back in a couple of weeks. Have fun trying to justify your irrational beliefs.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

You are starting from the premise that you are right, and I am wrong. Or else, you wouldn't be arguing with me. You can't escape being just as bigoted as I am if you want to make any rational judgement of any kind.

If you gave equal consideration to all points of view, while considering them all morally equal, you couldn't make any argument.

I'm in this thread because I'm tired of people using the word bigotry, as if they know what it means. People use the word whenever they think someone is holding to a conviction. Bigotry is not the certainty that you are right. Bigotry is the absolute inability to fathom how you can possibly be wrong, and hence being unwilling and incapable of listening to any opposing argument. They are different things.

Just because you think you're right doesn't make you a bigot.

Bigotry is an unfounded or irrational dislike of something, it has nothing to do with how certain you are or whatever else. This is why the argument that people who hate bigots are bigots is stupid.

If you are going to try and argue that opposition to gay marriage based upon a book you believe was handed down to you by god is a rational argument against it, then we have pinpointed the flaw in our discourse here. You are attempting to use an inherently irrational belief system in order to argue rationally against an issue. (note: just because religion is by nature irrational doesn't make it bad)

This is why people call you a bigot, and that's why sadly enough, they are right.

I haven't based one argument here on the bible. OrByte brought it up.

I don't disagree with homosexual activity because of it being some kind of affront to God. I disagree with it for reasons wholly non-religious.

Your equating opposition to gay marriage with solely those with religious beliefs is short-sighted.

That is utter bullsheit, but i'll humour you, tell me why you oppose gay marriage.

Why is it bullshit? Is it impossible to accept that I have a non-religious argument?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why is it bullshit?

Maybe you could entertain us with why you oppose gay marriage? What are your non-religious reasons?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21
[
Murder is wrong, no matter the motivation, coincidences, or circumstances. So is rape.

That's why people play with the definitions.

Is murder ok, when the state does it to a pisoner and calls it capital punishment?

For most of our country's history, if I understand the history correctly, the notion of a husband raping his wife was not legally recognized; it was a legal impossibility, his 'right'.

I know you have this cool little thing called "the argument there is right and wrong" and you want to play with it, but you are not doing anyone a favor with simplistic use of it.

And needless to say, you are not doing any favors either by pretending that actual, real issues of right and wrong are addressed by it, by trying to make the false analogy that if you can say murder and rape are 'absolutely wrong', than every issue fits into your black and white Manichean (look it up if needed, I had to the first time I saw it) paradigm.

What's the 'absolutely right or wrong' answer on how much the government should provide healthcare to the needy, or other investments in people's needs? What's the absolutely right or wrong amount they should tax? What's the absolutely right or wrong position on how much and how they should influence who is in power in other nations? What's the absolutely right or wrong way for them to split the budget on schools, roads, and police?

Oh, there isn't one? Would zero budgets for schools and police, leaving children uneducated and criminals running wild forming gangs to rule the city be 'absolutely wrong'?

Not everything is black and white. Some things are. If we don't start from the premise that there IS a right and wrong, we can't pass judgement on anything. Period.

I'm including the full quote to support my point that IMO that is a terribly inadequate response to the points in the preceding post.

The danger isn't in underestending the idea of 'absolute right and wrong', but in overextending it. You did not answer my questions, either.

I could say, I guess, that you are continuing the simplistic level of commentary I complained about, but that isn't the level I want to discuss on. You could hardly have better supported my description, though, of you having this neat little toy called 'the argument there's absolute right and wrong you want to play with' by fixating on it even after I made that point.

Here's an easy oen for you.

Would it have been absolutely wrong for someone in Germany - maybe one of his staff who believed his policies were terribly evil, as his actual attempted assassins did, maybe a Jew I'll invent who was an enslaved food preparer with access to poison him - to have murdered Hitler in WWII? You did say murder is an 'absolute wrong', right?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21
[
Murder is wrong, no matter the motivation, coincidences, or circumstances. So is rape.

That's why people play with the definitions.

Is murder ok, when the state does it to a pisoner and calls it capital punishment?

For most of our country's history, if I understand the history correctly, the notion of a husband raping his wife was not legally recognized; it was a legal impossibility, his 'right'.

I know you have this cool little thing called "the argument there is right and wrong" and you want to play with it, but you are not doing anyone a favor with simplistic use of it.

And needless to say, you are not doing any favors either by pretending that actual, real issues of right and wrong are addressed by it, by trying to make the false analogy that if you can say murder and rape are 'absolutely wrong', than every issue fits into your black and white Manichean (look it up if needed, I had to the first time I saw it) paradigm.

What's the 'absolutely right or wrong' answer on how much the government should provide healthcare to the needy, or other investments in people's needs? What's the absolutely right or wrong amount they should tax? What's the absolutely right or wrong position on how much and how they should influence who is in power in other nations? What's the absolutely right or wrong way for them to split the budget on schools, roads, and police?

Oh, there isn't one? Would zero budgets for schools and police, leaving children uneducated and criminals running wild forming gangs to rule the city be 'absolutely wrong'?

Not everything is black and white. Some things are. If we don't start from the premise that there IS a right and wrong, we can't pass judgement on anything. Period.

I'm including the full quote to support my point that IMO that is a terribly inadequate response to the points in the preceding post.

The danger isn't in underestending the idea of 'absolute right and wrong', but in overextending it. You did not answer my questions, either.

I could say, I guess, that you are continuing the simplistic level of commentary I complained about, but that isn't the level I want to discuss on. You could hardly have better supported my description, though, of you having this neat little toy called 'the argument there's absolute right and wrong you want to play with' by fixating on it even after I made that point.

Here's an easy oen for you.

Would it have been absolutely wrong for someone in Germany - maybe one of his staff who believed his policies were terribly evil, as his actual attempted assassins did, maybe a Jew I'll invent who was an enslaved food preparer with access to poison him - to have murdered Hitler in WWII? You did say murder is an 'absolute wrong', right?

The reason my answer was short was because it's a premise that has to be established, or else we can't call anything good, bad, or even bigoted.

Not all killing is murder. In your case above, that would be killing to prevent others from being murdered. Similar to self defense. Killing the guilty in direct defense of the innocent isn't murder.

I have to go pick up my fiancee. I'll be back.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I have to go pick up my fiancee. I'll be back.

I guess you don't want to answer that question then?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I don't disagree with homosexual activity because of it being some kind of affront to God. I disagree with it for reasons wholly non-religious.

The good news is, here, in the United States of America, you're entitled to disagree with it all you want, but however much you disagree with it or dislike it, you don't have the right to impose your disagreements, dislikes or beliefs on other American citizens.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I haven't based one argument here on the bible. OrByte brought it up.

I don't disagree with homosexual activity because of it being some kind of affront to God. I disagree with it for reasons wholly non-religious.

Your equating opposition to gay marriage with solely those with religious beliefs is short-sighted.

Please try and make an argument against gay marriage that is based upon sound science.

I'm serious. They are all slippery slope fallacies, appeals to ignorance, appeals to tradition, etc.

Elevate the discourse! Help us all!

I am illustrating there are things intrinsically right and wrong. Once we establish that as a premise, we will move on.

If we don't establish that, you or I can reply with, "That's just your opinion" until one of us gets tired of the foolishness.

You are saying your opposition to gay marriage is not religiously based or founded in logical fallacies/junk science. I'm asking you to make that argument... many have tried... and every single one has embarrassingly failed.

What I really imagine will happen from this is that you will illustrate your view and in the end it will come from one of these fallacies or a foundation in religion.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You are saying your opposition to gay marriage is not religiously based or founded in logical fallacies/junk science. I'm asking you to make that argument... many have tried... and every single one has embarrassingly failed.

What I really imagine will happen from this is that you will illustrate your view and in the end it will come from one of these fallacies or a foundation in religion.

he won't do it. He's being boxed in by logic just like everyone else.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The reason my answer was short was because it's a premise that has to be established, or else we can't call anything good, bad, or even bigoted.

Not all killing is murder. In your case above, that would be killing to prevent others from being murdered. Similar to self defense. Killing the guilty in direct defense of the innocent isn't murder.

I have to go pick up my fiancee. I'll be back.

You are going to miss the points I suspect. For example, did you notice how all the big issues I asked in the first response, you appear to agree do not fit in your 'abolute right or wrong' category - and therefore leave you with no way to make choices by that standard on pretty much any of the actual policies society needs to decide? The 'gray area' you acknowledge fits nearly every policy area - so unless you are going to say you just have no opinion on pretty much anything but murder and rape, you need to get past that.

Which raises the issue of the relevance of 'absolute right and wrong' to the system for deciding nearly all issues that are not 'black and white'.

How does saying murder is black and white help you with the decision on how to split the money between schools, roads and police? Or whether to overthrow Chavez?

But let's also continue the Hitler question. You respond, as I said is typically done by using 're-defining', to say that's ok, because it's a murder to prevent other murder. Well, pretty much all leaders of powerful nations choose policies that some think are murder - so, do you extend the right to kill all those leaders by the same argument? Would killing George Washington have been ok because he cause the murder of British soldiers? Was assassinating JFK ok because he had some Vietnamese and Cubans killed? Would assassinating Bush have been ok to prevent the 'murder' of innocent Iraqis? Would killing Putin have been ok to keep him from killing his critics? Just what degree of responsibility is needed for justifying 'murder'? Is it the person who pulls the trigger? The leader who orders him to do so? The strategist who creates the plan? The person who gives money to the leader? With what degree of knowledge of the planned violence? The people who defend the gorup politically - perhaps by citing cases where the group has been the victim of murder itself by others?

Since murder is so black and white, all the above would like you to paint them one or the other. And of course, there are countless more - what if the president ordered the shooting of Mexican civilians who are seen crossing our border illegally? If that falls short of your definition of ok, then can the president be morally murdered to protect the Mexicans?

You did not even answer the murder by the state of a prisoner - something done not to prevent further murder, but for revenge.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: brandonbull
So the vote didn't go their way and now they are having the government harass people?

You really believe that the electorate can vote to take away another group of peoples rights?

This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

You are probably some snot nosed little kid with nothing more to do that make stopid ignorant statements!!

What "rights" were taken away? In the entire history of California no gays were allowed to marry, except for a few months period in 2008 when activist judges changed law.

Prop 8 is the exact same proposition as one that passed in California in 2000 that nobody protested back then. And something that also passed by vote in all 30 other states that had some form of marriage definition on the ballot.

Get a sense of reality before you start "flaming" others.[/]

YES, it is the same proposition as in 2000, and that one was over turned by the California Supreme Court...why? Possibly because it plain wrong!!!!
You really cannot be that nieve can you?? or totally lacking in understanding?


First of all you don`t change the constitution of California or try to circumvent the constitution by abusing propositions.
Second -- to change the Constitution of California it requires a 2/3 `s vote.
Propositions only need a majority........

Then you mean to tell me that being gay and not being able to marry the exact same way that non- gay people marry is NOT a denial of basic rights afforded everyone?

Peace!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

And that's because you're an ignorant bigot -- plain and simple.

Thanks for your participation in this thread. Move along, troll! I never stated my opinion on the subject matter, so pull your head from your ass and wipe the shit from your eyes.

Well you sure as hell didnt state any facts, so what else can I presume your claims are? Lies? I guess you don't want the benefit of the doubt. Fine, fuck ya, then. You really are as ignorant as I thought.

BTW. I support equality between gays and others. I believe the state should not worry about "marriage" at all. They should eliminate it from hetrosexual couples and give that "right" to none and place it back within the church or family and between the people involved.

When you can eliminate all of the social and legal benefits offered to married couples that unmarried couples do not enjoy, then your proposal will have merit. Until then, your position is to deny gay people the same rights enjoyed by people like me. That's unconstitutional.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

If we don't start from the premise that there IS a right and wrong, we can't pass judgement on anything. Period.

That's absolute horseshit. There isn't any objective standard for delicious or beautiful, but we can still decide that things are tasty and or pretty. Get a fucking education.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Not everything is black and white. Some things are. If we don't start from the premise that there IS a right and wrong, we can't pass judgement on anything. Period.

Why does this issue need to be about right and wrong?
Whose the judge?
Who makes the rules?
Whats right to you may be wrong to others....
perspective is perspective.

Why do we need to pass judgement on anything??
Who made us the judge and executioner?

Just because a person disagrees with somebodys life style does NOT make that lifestyle wrong.

What if somebody disagreed with your lifestyle as a hetrosexual? Would that immediately make your lifestyle wrong?

So now we pass an proposition to take away your rights.......because we think your lifestyle is wrong......then it becomes a never ending cirlcle....

To be honest there are many situations where in reality there is no right or wrong...

Define moral in a way that everybody agrees...you can`t.......so now define right or wrong using the same criteria...

Peace!!

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

How can a "right" that has never existed be taken away?

Easy, by nipping it in the bud.