quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Yes, they are; and more than anything else that's been posted, that statement proves what I've said it right. As the opinions on the subject change, it becomes 'right.' It will be 'right' as soon as the majority of people consider it such and not a moment before.
To believe otherwise is to acknowledge an absolute standard of right and wrong. If you believe in such, then offer it up so that the rest of us can adjust our life course accordingly.
Let's just say that on prevailing thoughts (the Majority) Gay marriages are "right" so get over it already. The future or near future is here.
quote:As I've mentioned before, the Constitution is hostage to the prevailing opinions. That is what Amendments are for. And on that note...
How about this, each state decides in their own states if Gay Marriages are legal like California. To have a national Amendment imo is really based on people's religious beliefs therefor it would be foregoing the "tradition" of Separation of Church and State. This should not be a Federal issue.
quote:What does?
I guess you did not get what I meant. That just because a Amendment is drafted does not mean it is right ala Prohibition etc.
quote:And it won't be the last one, either.
Then just accept it and move on. By your logic of Majority rules as well as right/wrong then Gay marriages will be "right". You can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't say Majority rules and then when the Majority says gay marriages are "right" then you say it's "wrong".
quote:Lifestyle choices are different from natural attributes like race or gender, Mach.
I would say Homosexuality is a natural attribute that is inside a person. Something that obviously you do not understand because in your mind someone cannot become gay or be born gay unless some outside influence such as books, movies, marriages etc. make them gay. Sorry, just bringing a little of our RR debate into this one.
quote:Somehow I doubt that.
Low blow from someone who I thought was civil and a gentleman. Guess I was wrong and you finally showed your true colors. Btw I would say I think more then you because you cannot think past your own religious beliefs. I am very open minded and obviously you are not.
quote:If Tex wants a bite at that one that's his call. Otherwise, it's not even worth dignifying.
Guess truth hurts because your logic that gay marriages will destroy heterosexual marriages is what people are saying that Bear Stearns initials stand for.
quote:With all of the consequences involved, Mach. With all of the consequences involved.
No consequences at all. Gay marriages will not destroy "traditional" heterosexual marriages. That is logical. It is also logical that gay marriages will not make a "hetero" kid turn "homo". If your gay your gay, if your not your not. There is no grey as you yourself said. Only black and white unless of course your bi-sexual.
-------------------- Money Never Sleeps Pal.
Greed, for the lack of a better word is GOOD. Posts: 3884 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess you did not get what I meant. That just because a Amendment is drafted does not mean it is right ala Prohibition etc.
And you apparently didn't understand my question, Mach.
What makes something 'right' or 'wrong?'
We're now on the third page of wasted posts because noone is willing to answer that question.
Big took a swing at it at least. When are you going to step up to bat?
Low blow from someone who I thought was civil and a gentleman. Guess I was wrong and you finally showed your true colors.
From anyone else that might even sting, Mach. From you? Pots and Kettles.
Btw I would say I think more then you because you cannot think past your own religious beliefs. I am very open minded and obviously you are not.
Of course YOU would say that, it'd be kinda awkward if you didn't. As for open minded? Well, that's one we'll just have to agree to disagree on.
Posts: 681 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli: I think in a way Tex (as well as SF and others) see it as a threat to their Manliness etc. Just my opinion. Btw, Traditions are meant to be broken.
That's the origin of the biting comment, Tex.
From our open-minded friend.
All yours if you want it.
I don't.
Posts: 681 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli: I think in a way Tex (as well as SF and others) see it as a threat to their Manliness etc. Just my opinion. Btw, Traditions are meant to be broken.
That's the origin of the biting comment, Tex.
From our open-minded friend.
All yours if you want it.
I don't.
lol, there's nuthin' to that--that's just Mach's way of flirting...
quote: But in our current discussion we're trying to define WHY something is right or wrong.
Though we have danced with Who and What I don't think we have ever asked the question WHY regarding right and wrong until this moment SF. It is a question worth asking.
quote: And yet the laws still exist and thus show a bias against the practice. Is that 'right' to you?
That also is worth exploring SF. You are a Mormon what is your take? I personally don't see how polygamy can work without one of the extra partners becoming sub-dominant which would to my mind infringe upon their liberty. But...should there be a law against it? If it was done against their will or under the age of consent it would be a form of enslavement but if they enter into that situation willingly?
quote: Yep. Education sure has stamped out that smoking thing. My, my, at the current rate, it should be all but gone by...well...20-something or the other. [Smile]
I'm afraid I'll need to see the statistics you are referring to before I can comment.
quote: True enough, but once again, how much of my right to property are you willing to take away to get there?
How great is the good that can come of it? From a property standpoint I own a chunk of nearly every sports stadium and complex in my state but I am not much of a sports fan (except for football which are too pricey for me to justify purchasing). From a property stand point I should own at least a classroom or two by now in regards to public education and yet I do not have children. Does not the health of your neighbors at least stand on par with you in regards to your entertainment?
quote:Sorry, Big, no such thing.
I disagree completely. It is subjective reasoning that classified homosexuals as mentally ill. It was the objective reasoning of metal health professionals that removed that classification. There may be differing opinions but as perfection has yet to be obtained that is to be expected, yes?
quote:...we both consider ourselves subject to a Creator...If that's the case, then right and wrong CANNOT change.
Ah, but I believe that right and wrong is completely independent of a creator and can be identified without the requirement of belief. Indeed, belief in a creator has caused much wrong in this world which strongly suggests that I am correct in my assessment.
quote: Thus the MAJORITY (funny how that keeps coming up) makes the laws.
'
Once again, Majority rules may affect laws but it does not constitute right. This is where your argument fails again and again. You are equating lawful with right. Until you can prove that lawful equals right the majority rules argument is a tangent to the conversation.
quote: But now we're back to who gets to decide what constitutes infringement?
As stated prior to the question. Individuals can be subjective in their reasoning. That is one of the main reasons that governments even exist. The governing body is put in place to make objective decisions about the country as a whole. Though the majority may have more representation within a governing body, if it is truly using objective reasoning all minority and majority groups will be treated equally in regards to the laws it passes. If the government passes laws that infringe on the equality status of a minority group then they are guilty of discrimination which is wrong. In such an instance the MAJORITY has used the legal system to act illegally. Therefore, while the majority can make right decisions they can also make wrong decisions which means The Majority cannot equal 'right'.
-------------------- Obamabots...Transform! Posts: 4110 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote:...we both consider ourselves subject to a Creator...If that's the case, then right and wrong CANNOT change. Ah, but I believe that right and wrong is completely independent of a creator and can be identified without the requirement of belief. Indeed, belief in a creator has caused much wrong in this world which strongly suggests that I am correct in my assessment.
and i would assert that what is right and wrong to US (esp in a social sense) has absolutely no relevance to whatever the (a) Creator is up to...
here's why.
the best argument i see for "guided evolution" is found in the area of parasites...
anybody who studies the amazing complexity of the life cycles of parasitic worms has to wonder what kind joke is being played.
the Biblical restrictions against eating certain kinds of foods are undoubtedly due to these parasites.
whether it was "advice" from God or astute human observation that led to the proscription of eating pork? the fact is that whatever guided the evolution of the very complicated life cycle of these 8 foot long intestinal worms has a strange, no, incomprehensible sense of "right and wrong".
does it strike you as a bit odd that a God who is responsible for the existence of Malaria is really worried about who is scratching who's back
-------------------- Of the People, by the People and For the People. Posts: 27933 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[Were Down]](graemlins/weredown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
