California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: 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.

I didn't say everything boils down to right and wrong. Some things are neither right nor wrong, such as beauty or taste.

But the very fact that you're arguing with me indicates the fact that you think you're right, and I'm wrong. It's inescapable. I'm surprised you, who went to law school, would argue that right and wrong are subjective.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh yes we do. We impose the fact that we disagree with polygamy and incest on other american citizens.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

I've done it before eskimo, and it was addressed to you. I'm not doing it here because if I do, people will focus on that, and not what I'm trying to illustrate. I didn't post here to voice my opposition to gay marriage. I'm posting to illustrate that liberals, who apparently believe no opinion is objectively better or worse than any other, are dishonest by not adhering to that principle when they call anyone who doesn't think as they do bigots.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: 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? It doesn't have to be. I'm not arguing it is. I'm arguing that people calling the opposition bigots are just as bigoted themselves.
Whose the judge? Whoever we deem to be a good judge
Who makes the rules? We do.
Whats right to you may be wrong to others....In some cases, perhaps. Certainly not in all. Rape is wrong from any perspective, and for anyone.
perspective is perspective.

Why do we need to pass judgement on anything?? Because we are imperfect, and we commit crimes against nature and humanity. If we don't pass judgement and inflict consequences, we can't protect rights like that to life and liberty. Is our judgement imperfect? Certainly. But we must engage in it nonetheless.
Who made us the judge and executioner? We did. We have to.

Just because a person disagrees with somebodys life style does NOT make that lifestyle wrong. We do if that lifestyle is destructive, or even morally wrong, as in the case of incest. Even consensual incest is illegal.

What if somebody disagreed with your lifestyle as a hetrosexual? Would that immediately make your lifestyle wrong? No, of course not. Lifestyle doesn't damn anyone if they're not breaking the law.

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. True, but at the most basic levels, there is only truth, and truth is right. Either we strive to find out what it is, or we are arguing about nothing. The fact that truth is sometimes difficult to determine doesn't excuse us from attempting to discern it.

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

Peace!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: 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.

I didn't say everything boils down to right and wrong. Some things are neither right nor wrong, such as beauty or taste.

Their bases are the same, and they are subjective.

But the very fact that you're arguing with me indicates the fact that you think you're right, and I'm wrong. It's inescapable. I'm surprised you, who went to law school, would argue that right and wrong are subjective.

Yes, I THINK I'm right and you're wrong. That is a subjective position.

Law is objective. They are written down in books for everyone to see, and they define what the law is. Things are objectively legal or illegal. Your opinions ABOUT the laws are subjective. You think those laws are right or wrong. "Legal" =/= "Moral" or "Right."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
True, but at the most basic levels, there is only truth, and truth is right.

False, false, false, false, FALSE. It is true that people are wrongfully executed for crimes that they did not commit. That doesn't make it "right." WTF are you thinking?

True =/= Right =/= Legal

Truth is a word in human language. It means whatever we decide we want it to mean. Truth is defined, and as a consequence it can be redefined.

In other words, statements are true only inasmuch as their syntax and definitions are consistent with the definitions we've agreed upon beforehand. Truth is literally created when words are defined. All the theorems of logic are tautologies.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I've done it before eskimo, and it was addressed to you. I'm not doing it here because if I do, people will focus on that, and not what I'm trying to illustrate. I didn't post here to voice my opposition to gay marriage. I'm posting to illustrate that liberals, who apparently believe no opinion is objectively better or worse than any other, are dishonest by not adhering to that principle when they call anyone who doesn't think as they do bigots.

You know, you're right. I remember now. I also remember that what you wrote didn't pass muster unfortunately. (I don't seem to be able to find it with the search function)

I'm not aware of any people making the argument that no opinion is better than any other either. Just because liberals preach tolerance doesn't mean that they need to be tolerant of everything, particularly toxic bigotry such as this.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Follow The Money....

The Church (any organized church) relies on psychological tricks to maintain control of its flock. Love, Peace and Charity don't cut it as well as Fear and Hate. Gay people are perfect boogeymen for the Church.

The Church can keep the pews filled using Gays as a focus of their parishioners ire, insuring that the donations keep flowing into its coffers. And, they don't have to spend any time doing that boring charity stuff: helping the sick and the poor.

Just imagine if the Church stoped undermining Gay people: The whole system would break down. People would stop getting all worked up over this nonsense - church attendence would drop($$). Eventually, Priests would then be able to get married, then the Church would not get their stuff when they died - losing more money, property, etc. Church's go after gay people - they have to go after somebody, thats how it works.

Also...

Desert Religions: Islam, Judaism and Christianity, along with Mormonism, were all based on male-chauvinist social codes. For orthodox or fundamentalist followers of these religions today this tradition continues, in the guise of 'god's will.'

Of course, you don't need to come out of the 'desert' 2,000 years ago - witness the male chauvinism of fundamentalist Hinduism. Which certainly shows male chauvinism and 'old time' religion itself are linked. Without the oppression of women - and the associated persecution of homosexuals - these religions would be vitally undermined. It is women that are the achilles heel to these religions' continued dominance of many communities. The freedom of women will diminish religion at it's source.

The wisdom of the people who founded our nation comes to light. There were, and are, very good reasons why religion should be a personal matter and not connected in any way with civic law. Keep your magic sky beings and vengeful deities to yourself, please.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh yes we do. We impose the fact that we disagree with polygamy and incest on other american citizens.

Yes, but it applies equally to all citizens, not just a distinct group.

Are you telling us you want to marry your sister AND your brother? :shocked: :laugh:

 

[piasabird]

They should start by investigating the government in California for all its corrupted politicians. Maybe the Federal Goverment should send troops to California and force them to enforce immigration law while we are at it. California is guilty of Insurrection against the Federal Government.

They will never prove anything against the Mormon Church. This is my prediction. I am assigned the duties of a Church Auditor for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The LDS Church is very careful and very discreet how it handles church funds. Just to give a check to a parishoner who is behind on his rent it takes a request with written documentation then 2 people have to sign the check. Also take donations and you will find the donation envelopes must be opened by two people and then all the donations must be sent to the bank by two people. We are very serious about how we spend and document how we spend our money.

I have heard repeatedly the President of the Church say that we are to vote our conscience. The Church never endorses candidates. However, in a case like this it is perfectly legal for a church to preach all day long against any policy or proposed single issue law which they determine to be immoral or a sin. As an example, we preach against drinking alcoholic beverages, Coffee and Tea. No one has said that is interfering with anything.

Last time I checked being a member of a church does not bar one from being involved in politics. What churches do and what members of the church do are two different things.

Good luck in your investigation.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: piasabird

They should start by investigating the government in California for all its corrupted politicians. Maybe the Federal Goverment should send troops to California and force them to enforce immigration law while we are at it. California is guilty of Insurrection against the Federal Government.

Buahahahaha!!! Thanks for today's entry for the dumbest post of the year contest. :laugh:

 

[piasabird]

The Mormon church led by Brigham Young was investigated for Insurrection against the Federal Government. You will find investigating the Church of Latter-day Saints harder than you might think.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I've done it before eskimo, and it was addressed to you. I'm not doing it here because if I do, people will focus on that, and not what I'm trying to illustrate. I didn't post here to voice my opposition to gay marriage. I'm posting to illustrate that liberals, who apparently believe no opinion is objectively better or worse than any other, are dishonest by not adhering to that principle when they call anyone who doesn't think as they do bigots.

You know, you're right. I remember now. I also remember that what you wrote didn't pass muster unfortunately. (I don't seem to be able to find it with the search function)

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

 

[piasabird]

What is undermining Gay People?

We look at some goverment policy as enabling sinners.

It all boils down to your point of view.

I dont care how you cut your mustard. Maybe you are a stiky person. (Humor added)

If you examine the teachings of the Bible Marriage is the first concept introduced. It is the core of all Christian Churches. You can either be for the Family or against it. If you find in favor of gay marriage that is against the Family. So are you for the Family or against it. The Family is the primary building block of all civilization. If you are aginst protecting Family Law, you are against the establishment of a civilized society. Marriage is about protecting families, not protecting a person's sexual tendencies.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I've done it before eskimo, and it was addressed to you. I'm not doing it here because if I do, people will focus on that, and not what I'm trying to illustrate. I didn't post here to voice my opposition to gay marriage. I'm posting to illustrate that liberals, who apparently believe no opinion is objectively better or worse than any other, are dishonest by not adhering to that principle when they call anyone who doesn't think as they do bigots.

You know, you're right. I remember now. I also remember that what you wrote didn't pass muster unfortunately. (I don't seem to be able to find it with the search function)

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

The root of Atreus's argument against gay marriage:

"I admit, part of my resistance to gay marriage lies in a deep-seeded disgust with gay activity."

"Other groups of people are withheld from marrying for the same reason gays are: because it's not what society in general calls marriage, nor would it serve the purpose of the conventional marriage."


"Gay people aren't useless to society, but gay sex is."

brilliant. Have we heard anything new? nope.

And when called out to explain how he would address infertile couples being married he dropped off the radar.

I guess since gay sex is useless for procreaton gays shouldnt be married.

I guess since gay activity is "disgusting" then they shouldnt be married.

I guess since other people (read polygamist) cant be married then gays can't be married.

again...anything new here? nope.

all arguments have been easily debunked. Yet people that believe what Atreus believes still wish to deny gay marriage. And they still think they aren't being bigoted about it.

yeah.....

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What is undermining Gay People?

We look at some goverment policy as enabling sinners.

It all boils down to your point of view.

I dont care how you cut your mustard. Maybe you are a stiky person. (Humor added)

If you examine the teachings of the Bible Marriage is the first concept introduced. It is the core of all Christian Churches. You can either be for the Family or against it. If you find in favor of gay marriage that is against the Family. So are you for the Family or against it. The Family is the primary building block of all civilization. If you are aginst protecting Family Law, you are against the establishment of a civilized society. Marriage is about protecting families, not protecting a person's sexual tendencies.

That is too Black and White my friend.


where does individual accountability factor into your equation when attempting to legislate your beliefs?

I believe much as you do...but I wont pass laws like you want. What happens if I believe in the nuclear family model, but I also believe that gays should be able to choose who they love?


last time I checked.. marriage is about love.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What is undermining Gay People?

We look at some goverment policy as enabling sinners.

It all boils down to your point of view.

I dont care how you cut your mustard. Maybe you are a stiky person. (Humor added)

If you examine the teachings of the Bible Marriage is the first concept introduced. It is the core of all Christian Churches. You can either be for the Family or against it. If you find in favor of gay marriage that is against the Family. So are you for the Family or against it. The Family is the primary building block of all civilization. If you are aginst protecting Family Law, you are against the establishment of a civilized society. Marriage is about protecting families, not protecting a person's sexual tendencies.

It's not the government's job to reinforce the teachings of the Bible any more than it's the government's job to reinforce the teachings of the Talmud or the Quran or the tales of the Norse Gods or any other religious text, so that argument is absolutely worthless from the outset. But let's examine the "family" that you are so interested in protecting. Are you honestly making the claim that gay or lesbian couples are incapable of having a family? I was raised by lesbian mothers... it's good to finally learn that I grew up without a family. Thanks for shedding new light on my upbringing. From now on, I will not refer to the women who raised me as "mothers," simply "those crazy dykes what done fed and clothed me all them years." Clearly this won't apply to children who were lucky enough to be adopted by straight parents; that's an actual family unit there. Or at least it is according to Thor.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: OrByte
The root of Atreus's argument against gay marriage:

"I admit, part of my resistance to gay marriage lies in a deep-seeded disgust with gay activity."

"Other groups of people are withheld from marrying for the same reason gays are: because it's not what society in general calls marriage, nor would it serve the purpose of the conventional marriage."


"Gay people aren't useless to society, but gay sex is."

brilliant. Have we heard anything new? nope.

And when called out to explain how he would address infertile couples being married he dropped off the radar.

I guess since gay sex is useless for procreaton gays shouldnt be married.

I guess since gay activity is "disgusting" then they shouldnt be married.

I guess since other people (read polygamist) cant be married then gays can't be married.

again...anything new here? nope.

all arguments have been easily debunked. Yet people that believe what Atreus believes still wish to deny gay marriage. And they still think they aren't being bigoted about it.

yeah.....

Yes, I noticed his line about gay sex being worthless to society because it doesn't lead to procreation. My cousin was recently married and eager to start a family. To her horror, she learned that she was infertile. Now, according to the law, she is legally allowed to stay married, regardless of her inability to reproduce. According to Atreus21, she is effectively a worthless member of society. What's your proposal Atreus, should she be killed? She and her husband are looking into adoption to raise a family... is that OK with you even while gay adoption is apparently not a valid reason to allow gays to marry? Can you make the argument that infertile straight couples are any different from gay couples when it comes to sex that leads to procreation? Can you come up with a reason to allow the straight couple to marry and the gay couple to not?

I look forward to your reply Atreus21.

 

[Eeezee]

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

Do you think it's okay for churches, businesses, etc. to have unlimited spending caps in politics?

 

[Eeezee]

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?

You're wrong.

1) 9th and 10th amendments of the US Constitution: In other words, even if a right or power is not mentioned in the Constitution, it still belongs to the people (or state). Thus, gay marriage has always been a right as of 1791

2) The California Supreme Court established that gays do have the right to marry (in California), according to the state's Constitution. Thousands of gay couples did marry, because it was their right.

3) Points 1 and 2 establish that gay marriage was a right. An amendment to the state's constitution stripped away this right.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
True, but at the most basic levels, there is only truth, and truth is right.

False, false, false, false, FALSE. It is true that people are wrongfully executed for crimes that they did not commit. That doesn't make it "right." WTF are you thinking?

True =/= Right =/= Legal

Truth is a word in human language. It means whatever we decide we want it to mean. Truth is defined, and as a consequence it can be redefined.

In other words, statements are true only inasmuch as their syntax and definitions are consistent with the definitions we've agreed upon beforehand. Truth is literally created when words are defined. All the theorems of logic are tautologies.

You're still arguing objectively, though. You can start each of your sentences with, "This is the truth:". Even if you're saying all truth is subjective, you're still making an objective statement when you use the word "is."

You're saying the only objective truth is that there is no objective truth, and that's a contradiction.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I've done it before eskimo, and it was addressed to you. I'm not doing it here because if I do, people will focus on that, and not what I'm trying to illustrate. I didn't post here to voice my opposition to gay marriage. I'm posting to illustrate that liberals, who apparently believe no opinion is objectively better or worse than any other, are dishonest by not adhering to that principle when they call anyone who doesn't think as they do bigots.

You know, you're right. I remember now. I also remember that what you wrote didn't pass muster unfortunately. (I don't seem to be able to find it with the search function)

I'm not aware of any people making the argument that no opinion is better than any other either. Just because liberals preach tolerance doesn't mean that they need to be tolerant of everything, particularly toxic bigotry such as this.

Well c'mon. The day I convince you of the validity of any of my positions is the day I have a heart attack.

I hold by that argument. There's no right to social sanction.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh yes we do. We impose the fact that we disagree with polygamy and incest on other american citizens.

Yes, but it applies equally to all citizens, not just a distinct group.

Are you telling us you want to marry your sister AND your brother? :shocked: :laugh:

No, it applies to anyone who wants to commit incest or polygamy. We do not endorse their lifestyle.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I've done it before eskimo, and it was addressed to you. I'm not doing it here because if I do, people will focus on that, and not what I'm trying to illustrate. I didn't post here to voice my opposition to gay marriage. I'm posting to illustrate that liberals, who apparently believe no opinion is objectively better or worse than any other, are dishonest by not adhering to that principle when they call anyone who doesn't think as they do bigots.

You know, you're right. I remember now. I also remember that what you wrote didn't pass muster unfortunately. (I don't seem to be able to find it with the search function)

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

The root of Atreus's argument against gay marriage:

"I admit, part of my resistance to gay marriage lies in a deep-seeded disgust with gay activity."

"Other groups of people are withheld from marrying for the same reason gays are: because it's not what society in general calls marriage, nor would it serve the purpose of the conventional marriage."


"Gay people aren't useless to society, but gay sex is."

brilliant. Have we heard anything new? nope.

And when called out to explain how he would address infertile couples being married he dropped off the radar.

I guess since gay sex is useless for procreaton gays shouldnt be married.

I guess since gay activity is "disgusting" then they shouldnt be married.

I guess since other people (read polygamist) cant be married then gays can't be married.

again...anything new here? nope.

all arguments have been easily debunked. Yet people that believe what Atreus believes still wish to deny gay marriage. And they still think they aren't being bigoted about it.

yeah.....

I dropped off the radar because I work full time.

My revulsion to gay activity may be telling of my motivation, but it doesn't debunk my arguments. And anyway, again, I didn't get into this thread to rail against gay marriage. I'm tired of the left immediately labelling any opposition as bigoted. You can use the word to villify anyone defending a principle, belief, or conviction. But when the word is leveled at you, your own immovability seems excusable. You guys act as if holding to any principle is bigoted. But that means you too are adhering to principle, and therefore are no less bigoted than I am.

I'm always told not to impose my morality on others. That means they want me to yield to their morality. I'm told to be tolerant of others, which means my ways are not tolerated. I'm told that women are supposed to be free to choose, unless of course they choose to agree with me.

These contradictions have been common of the modern left. What I want is to cease the dishonesty. You want what you want because you think it's right, good, and true. Just like the rest of us. But at least the rest of us admit it.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What is undermining Gay People?

We look at some goverment policy as enabling sinners.

It all boils down to your point of view.

I dont care how you cut your mustard. Maybe you are a stiky person. (Humor added)

If you examine the teachings of the Bible Marriage is the first concept introduced. It is the core of all Christian Churches. You can either be for the Family or against it. If you find in favor of gay marriage that is against the Family. So are you for the Family or against it. The Family is the primary building block of all civilization. If you are aginst protecting Family Law, you are against the establishment of a civilized society. Marriage is about protecting families, not protecting a person's sexual tendencies.

Pull your head out of your pious ass for one minute and please do tell what version of the Bible you are getting your programming from? Your opinions about "the Family" are nothing more than the subjective blasphemies of someone who is surely going to hell.