quote:invoking the moral majority doesn't prove that they are either moral or the majority...
Once again, I'm not invoking moral anything. As far as the majority part, well, I haven't seen any hetero pride parades...but I'm guessing it would be sufficiently large enough to impress.
I know, Tex. Technically half the gay parade could use that bumper sticker anyway.
i guess invoking the moral minority works in this country - and stampedes the majority
that is so BS
Invoking the minority at the expense of the majority's opinion has always been a problem, Money. But because we're so afraid of litigation from people like the ACLU, we give in when we should stand up.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: "Technically half"
i wonder...kinda interesting stat, that would be.
ROFLMAO, I hadn't thought of it that way but the jokes from that one write themselves.
I just meant that if half (statistically) the parade is gay and half lesbian then half would qualify for the sticker.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: From a societal point of view, the majority gets to.
While I a personally believe in divinely based right and wrong, for the current discussion I am limiting it to what the society considers right and wrong. Societies define their rights and wrongs through legislation and social stigmas. 'Right' becomes what is generally accepted as good for the society and 'wrong,' inversely, what is considered damaging to it.
I'm surprised at you SF. You took the standard BS answer.
You are willing to let your argument be justified by what is considered 'right' by the majority? You need me to point out the track record of that position?
The Earth is Flat The Crusades The Spanish Inquisition The Red Man is a savage that must be exterminated The Black Man is a beast of burden The Woman should be seen and not heard
I can go on.
If the best answer you can give to me is that the majority says it isn't right, then I consider myself vindicated in my argument that it is discrimination alone.
Gotta do better than that SF.
-------------------- What is your goal? Do you know? If so you are already one step ahead of the pack. Posts: 3965 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now, as I mentioned earlier, my 'right and wrong' has nothing to do with the physical sex involved. So, I'll focus on the gender role aspect of your post.
You are focusing on what now? The gender role and not physical?
quote: As much as the women's lib folk would like people to believe that men and women are the same...we're not. Physical and emotional differences in the genders predispose us to different natural roles. The male is generally bigger and stronger and therefore predisposed to the breadwinner\hunter role. The female, through physical traits such as womb and mammary glands, is uniquely qualified to be the nuturer. These roles are both natural and bred into us socially since the dawn of time. When you play with these roles, some instinct screams that something just isn't right. In our current hypothetical homosexual parent family, neither of the roles is clear because one is absent and the other portrayed in two seperate ways.
Your focus on the gender role seems to be completely grounded within the physical realm.
'Some Instinct'? What is that? Could it be.....your own beliefs being projected onto another???
-------------------- What is your goal? Do you know? If so you are already one step ahead of the pack. Posts: 3965 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
5 people are stranded on an island (don't worry about gender or race, these are 5 generic faceless personages resembling human beings) with no hope of rescue. Determining that they are stuck with each other for the rest of their natural lives they decide together on what life is going to be like on the island. Since they are not clones of eachother raised with the exact same life experiences they obviously will disagree with at least one of the other 4 members on something at some point in their future. Now, since most decisions can't be made both ways (as it will affect the existance of all members) a decision will have to be made.
Three options exist as to the outcome of the disagreement.
1)The majority rules concept. Vote is taken, most number of votes wins.
2)The minority rules concept. Someone is apparently so important that they get to demand that others bow to their will even as it contradicts their own.
3)Seperation. The outvoted party leaves the group (voluntarily) and lives life according to their beliefs elsewhere.
In our current country, option 3 really isn't generally considered viable because if everyone left the U.S. because they disagreed with it about something it did everyone would be gone in short order. So we are left with options 1 and 2.
I'm surprised at you SF. You took the standard BS answer.
You are willing to let your argument be justified by what is considered 'right' by the majority?
Yes. Once again, this is simple but I'll spell it out...again.
Only two choices exist on this one, Big. You tell me which you like better.
1) God exists and has defined for and to man what is right and wrong. As the One that will judge men's actions at some point, He is uniquely qualifed to make the distinctions. This leads us to the determination that when He says homosexuality is wrong, it is. The rest of the discussion about gay marriage is therefore pointless.
or
2) God doesn't exist and we're left to our own to determine 'right' and 'wrong.' Since this is something that there doesn't seem to be a unanimous consensus, we are left with the previously mentioned three options as to how to determine where each disagreement falls.
The majority chooses making the minority unhappy; the minority chooses, making the majority unhappy; or the minority goes off to some corner of the world where they can practice what they want as they want.
Once again...which do you think should be the answer, Big?
If you define discrimination as the will of the majority holding sway, then yes, it's discrimination. However, if the group has decided that this isn't what they want, who would you rather have unhappy? The majority or the minority?
You need me to point out the track record of that position?
The Earth is Flat The Crusades The Spanish Inquisition The Red Man is a savage that must be exterminated The Black Man is a beast of burden The Woman should be seen and not heard
I can go on.
Please do. Other than the Earth is Flat item (which is a scientific question, not a moral one), the rest of these items fall completely under my previous postings as well as this one. To come out and say that they are 'wrong,' you have to explain your basis for such a distinction. Either there is a divinely accepted right and wrong, or it's simply a matter of what the bulk of the people can stomache. There is no middle ground on this one, Big.
God or might makes right. Which is it?
'Some Instinct'? What is that? Could it be.....your own beliefs being projected onto another???
Now you're getting as bad as Mach.
I'm not projecting my beliefs on anyone. I'm trying to get you to make a choice. Either you accept that there is an objective criteria for right and wrong (such as divine will), or you must accept that if we are all free to choose right and wrong for ourselves then it means where two or more people disagree on the 'right' choice, the majority should get to decide what it allows and that becomes the 'right' for that group.
Once again, there is no middle ground.
You tell me which you would have us believe.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I'll pose the same question to you, Mach.
Either you accept that there is an objective criteria for right and wrong (such as divine will), or you must accept that if we are all free to choose right and wrong for ourselves then it means where two or more people disagree on the 'right' choice, the majority should get to decide what it allows and that becomes the 'right' for that group.
Once again, there is no middle ground.
You tell me which you would have us believe.
Make a choice.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The minority rules concept. Someone is apparently so important that they get to demand that others bow to their will even as it contradicts their own.
this is usually what happens... there are several factors that determine WHY one is so important that other follow tho. Force of will is rarely equal among any random group of people.
1) this person is a sociopath and the others recognise that they have no choice but to follow or risk bodily harm 2) this person is physically endowed either sexually or strengthwise 3) this person convinces the others that he/she is a mouthpeice of God
mostly it's some combination of the three...
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27090 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Beyond that I am going to try and be generic about religion in my response as much as possible because that opens a new can of worms and we have a big enough can already. When I mentioned beliefs above I was not necessarily meaning religious in nature.
As to the five faceless beings on an island example...
The three outcomes you have provided leave no room for individual expression. Last I heard that was one of the founding principles of our Union. The Amish are left to practice their own individual lifestyle though it does not conform to the majority. Where is the difference?
The Earth is flat may have been a scientific question, but it was enough of an abnormality from the majority that people died because of it. Are you defending that as appropriate?
There may be a divine right and wrong (you and I believe so, though we have different takes on it) but this country is set up to be tolerant to folks who believe in different forms of divinity as well as folks that do not believe in divinity at all. As these forms of divinity (or non-divinity) can (and do) have differing beliefs on what constitutes right and wrong, and as the freedom of religion protects all such forms of belief in the divine, governmental rules cannot be based off of a divine right and wrong or we violate the right to freedom of worship. Therefore the Government must find another standard to use as the measuring stick.
So you see...there may not be middle ground within divine right and wrong but the laws of man (in America) are all about finding the middle ground that can apply to all without taking away the rights that are granted to each of the members that make up our union.
As an example...the US Constitution gives the right to life, liberty, and property. Therefore it is a crime to kill, enslave, and steal.
While these "right and wrongs" may be borrowed from the prevailing religion of the drafters that does not mean that laws can be based off of religion if they violate other tenants of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Now, since we must look beyond the old testament in order to find the ground work for denying equal rights to same sex couples, how do you justify your argument?
-------------------- What is your goal? Do you know? If so you are already one step ahead of the pack. Posts: 3965 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The three outcomes you have provided leave no room for individual expression. Last I heard that was one of the founding principles of our Union. The Amish are left to practice their own individual lifestyle though it does not conform to the majority. Where is the difference?
Bad example, Big. The Amish chose the third option. That is why they live in close knit communities where they can be free from 'corrupting influences.' My three options still stand.
While these "right and wrongs" may be borrowed from the prevailing religion of the drafters that does not mean that laws can be based off of religion if they violate other tenants of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
What the heck are you talking about? Have you heard of a little thing called amendments? The 'rights' you think you have are competely at the mercy of the prevailing opinion of the day. Prohibition was constitutional for several years. Then, as opinion swayed the oposite direction, it was repealed. Will of the majority.
Now, since we must look beyond the old testament in order to find the ground work for denying equal rights to same sex couples, how do you justify your argument?
The Old Testament verses simply mean that yet another religios group, Judaism, also holds the opinion that it's wrong. That is another huge chunk of the population that you are alienating by making it 'right' against their beliefs.
Ok, I think we are at an impasse until one question is resolved.
What constitutes 'right?'
I've tried to make it as plain as I can and I think you've dodged around answering my request for you to define it for me.
I'm trying to get you to make a choice. Either you accept that there is an objective criteria for right and wrong (such as divine will), or you must accept that if we are all free to choose right and wrong for ourselves then it means where two or more people disagree on the 'right' choice, the majority should get to decide what it allows and that becomes the 'right' for that group.
I'm not asking you to pick a religion and give them the final say as to right and wrong. I'm asking you to either give me an objective standard for measuring right and wrong (whatever that standard is) or to acknowledge that there isn't one and man gets to pick and choose his 'right' and 'wrong' at will.
Pick one or give me a viable third option (which I don't believe exists).
Until we can get this question resolved, we're going to continue going around in circles with various forms of name calling and other childish behaviors rampant.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
did you actually read the site you linked? it's anti-homophobic.... the arguments it provides question literal translations of specific words...
n the original Greek, the phrase translated "vile affections" does not refer to passion or lust. it appears to refer to the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music."
almost all religions provide tenets which proscribe the practice of OTHER religions...
this proscribing of other religious practices makes more sense since they were looking for new recruits/converts..
I'm asking you to either give me an objective standard for measuring right and wrong (whatever that standard is) or to acknowledge that there isn't one and man gets to pick and choose his 'right' and 'wrong' at will.
lemme show you the error of your survival argument.
put a colony of living things in any closed environmental system and they die in their own wastes sooner or later depending on the size of the closed system and the REPRODUCTIVE capability of the organism... in other words? right and wrong have no meaning without the broadest contextual understanding.
interesting: Smithsonian has an article entilted Brink of War this month... it's about Brigham Young and Joseph Smith....
did a little reading over the weekend at the OFFICIAL site...
i gotta say that i was lost by the time i finished the testimony of the three....
i don't question other peoples faith, but i find the story incredible... if the plates had been recovered in the dead sea? i would find it more credible, but in New York?....
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27090 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
did you actually read the site you linked? it's anti-homophobic.... the arguments it provides question literal translations of specific words...
I didn't provide the link to offer support to homophobic uses of the Bible, Glass. If that was my intent I would have linked www. God Hates F**S.com or some other hate site. I simply pulled the first link off of my Google search that listed New Testament verses used to support the standard christian position against homosexuality. I've repeatedly stated in this thread that I don't want to base my points on religion because half the readers will dismiss anything I say, no matter how logical, if I do.
lemme show you the error of your survival argument.
put a colony of living things in any closed environmental system and they die in their own wastes sooner or later depending on the size of the closed system and the REPRODUCTIVE capability of the organism... in other words? right and wrong have no meaning without the broadest contextual understanding.
Sorry, Glass, I'm not sure what that example has to do with the current discussion. I'm asking a simple question: is there an objective standard for measuring the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of something, or is it completely subjective to each man or woman's personal choices? The entire discussion hinges on which of these two options one believes. I just want Big, Mach, and anyone else interested in the discussion to go on record as to which of these two they believe. We can't progress any further till we do.
interesting: Smithsonian has an article entilted Brink of War this month... it's about Brigham Young and Joseph Smith....
While I might disagree with some of the finer points of the article on the Smithsonian, I guess history IS written by the victors.
did a little reading over the weekend at the OFFICIAL site...
i gotta say that i was lost by the time i finished the testimony of the three....
i don't question other peoples faith, but i find the story incredible... if the plates had been recovered in the dead sea? i would find it more credible, but in New York?....
I'll see if I can find some links for you, Glass. But there is substantial archeological work to support that not only were south and middle americas covered by ancient indian civilizations, but the same goes for the bulk of the U.S. There is a temple in mexico that has a mural depicting what we mormon's call 'Lehi's Dream.' A story only recorded in the Book of Mormon. Which was published some 140 years before the temple was discovered. I'll see what links I can find in the next few days if you're curious.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll see what links I can find in the next few day yes, i am curious (about most everything)
Sorry, Glass, I'm not sure what that example has to do with the current discussion. I'm asking a simple question: is there an objective standard for measuring the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of something, or is it completely subjective to each man or woman's personal choices? The entire discussion hinges on which of these two options one believes. I just want Big, Mach, and anyone else interested in the discussion to go on record as to which of these two they believe. We can't progress any further till we do.
well, my point was that rightness and wrongness have to be defined based on set of agreed upon parameters.
for instance? brewers want the yeast to reproduce as fast as it can to cut down production time. it's bad for the yeast cuz the yeast dies sooner....
we humans (currently) live in a closed ecological system, we are "doomed" to eventually destroy our planet no matter how "clean" we are IF we orver-reproduce... it really is that simple.
China recognised this and passed strict reproductive laws NOT based on religion, YET? the commies still outlawed homusekshal bahavure. without religious bias at all...
IF/when we were able to colonise other planets? (over)reproduction would/will suddenly become "right" again... but we are beginning to understand that we have reached a possible limit to our earths population right now, based on overall quality of life issues. if you don't beleive me? look at some of the most densely populated areas of India, and Africa's (as well as a myriad of other countries)inability to feed itself...
so? right and wrong? is it wrong to reproduce UNTIL we are at dangerously high population levels? or is it wrong to recognise that we are approaching dangerously high pop. levels and avoid the SUFFERING that all will face if we do not "slow down"? or isit wrong to ignore the dangers and procreate "naturally" until we all choke on our own waste, or die of starvation?
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27090 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
amendments? What the heck are you talking about SF? Didn't the California Supreme Court just strike down a majority rules marriage amendment as unconstitutional?
And prohibition is just another example of how the majority creates right and wrong does not always work.
I have already shown you why a divine 'right and wrong' cannot work in our country based off of the right to worship.
So then to the majority rules.
Majority rules can get close. But as can be proven though our view of history the majority is quite often proven wrong. So to further define right beyond majority rules one must look back in history to see when majority right was proven wrong. Again and again it can be shown that when the majority persecutes a social group for acting or being out of the norm when that group is not actively infringing upon the normal majority, the majority is proven wrong.
The majority persecuted the black man for being different when the black man was not infringing upon the majority. They were proven wrong.
The majority persecuted the red man for being different when the red man was not infringing upon the majority. They were proven wrong.
The majority persecuted the woman as being different from a man when the woman was not infringing upon the majority. They were proven wrong.
The majority is persecuting same sex couples as being different than hetero couples when same sex couples are not infringing upon the majority. They will be proven wrong.
-------------------- What is your goal? Do you know? If so you are already one step ahead of the pack. Posts: 3965 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes; and no, Big. They struck down an amendment to the California STATE constitution. Not THE Constitution. That bill hasn't even gotten started yet.
So then to the majority rules.
Majority rules can get close. But as can be proven though our view of history the majority is quite often proven wrong...
...The majority is persecuting same sex couples as being different than hetero couples when same sex couples are not infringing upon the majority. They will be proven wrong.
This is why what is 'right' changes from culture to culture and from time period to time period. The popular opinion changes with new developments (both scientific and social). Thus old concepts become obsolete and new ones become fashionable. Anthropologically speaking, it's intellectually dishonest to judge older cultures (or even contemorary ones) by OUR standards. Each culture has made its decisions on right and wrong based on complex interconnections of geography, history, governmental style and many other factors. To try and fit them into the mold you believe is 'right' and to judge them lacking if they don't, is as narrow-minded as Mach thinks I am.
And...you still haven't answered my question. Is there an objective standard for right and wrong or not?
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
The two book set, 1000 Evidences for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dr. David E. Richardson, Allen H. Richardson and Anthony E. Bentley are the best references that I've read. They line up historical and archeological information confirmable by any inquirer.
The mural I mentioned before was the Stela 5 glyph at Izapa, Chiapas, Mexico. It depicts quite well the forementioned story in the Book of Mormon.
This is one link to reading material online as well.
As I've told many friends, nothing that I can show you can prove to you my church IS the right one; they can only offer evidence that it MIGHT be. Beyond that it's up to you and God.
Now, back to the discussion at hand.
The overpopulation concept is crap. Pure and simple. We just don't use the resources available to us appropriately. One estimate put our ability to sustain life at nearly 200 times our current population if current farming technologies were utilized throughout the world instead of just in a few industrialized nations.
And as far as our current topic is concerned, are you saying that drowning all but your first child is 'right?' That's the tradition in China that you seem to favor in your post. Did you know that the men of India outnumber the women in some areas by as much as 40% for the same reason. 640 females to every 1000 males and the trend is getting worse. Is this 'right' to you? Did you know that if you don't count the immigrants, France and a net NEGATIVE population growth rate? They just aren't having enough children to overcome the age \ disease death rates. Is this 'right' to you?
Finally,
well, my point was that rightness and wrongness have to be defined based on set of agreed upon parameters.
But who gets to agree? And if everyone doesn't agree, then who wins? As I asked Big and Mach...
Is there an objective standard for right and wrong or not?
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
One estimate put our ability to sustain life at nearly 200 times our current population if current farming technologies were utilized throughout the world instead of just in a few industrialized nations.
the words i put in bold are called weasel words...
i got news for you. the US cannot sustains it's current ag output at this rate for unlimited generations.
you can put nitrogen fertilisers down and keep growing things until the soil is bankrupt... but replacing nitrogen does not keep the soil from going bankrupt...it actually accelerates the depletion of everything else..
you'll note that i didn't say we couldn't support more people anyway, i said there's a quality of life issue.
is it right to keep ten animals of any type in cage designed for one, even tho they can "survive"? your name is seeking freedom, yet we all know that the more people there are the less freedom there will be, it's a matter of physics...
i see you don't like the question since you immediately go to the value based hot-button issue of drowning...
as to the male/female inbalances and the Europeans birthrates declining? i am very familiar with the concept of the marching morons...
that doesn't change the overcrowding issues.. as you can see? th e poor are bing made more poor, and that won't change by making more poor...
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27090 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: To try and fit them into the mold you believe is 'right' and to judge them lacking if they don't, is as narrow-minded as Mach KNOWS I am.
I am glad that you agree with me that you are narrow-minded and not open-minded...
-------------------- Money Never Sleeps Pal.
Greed, for the lack of a better word is GOOD. Posts: 3671 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)