|
On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior.
Do you not understand the concept of confession? You commit a bad act (i.e. a sin) and god forgives you. If you commit a lot of sins or whatever, you're a sinner. (i.e. a bad person). This is the entire crux of Christianity.
I'm not necessarily arguing whether your points are wrong, I'm just saying your wording is wrong. If Santorum calls someone a sinner, he's saying they're a bad person. I don't know if he's actually straight up called people "sinners", but if he has, that is the implication.
|
Santorum leading Oklahoma.
|
On March 07 2012 09:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 09:55 Chessz wrote:
But just think of the idea of the President of the United States making changes to govern people in his own image. find me one President that didn't. but this has become a topic of "what sc2superfan believes" and not "republican nominations". so i'll bow out. y'all can take the last word for now, but until it's directly about the republican nominations, i'm not going to respond.
I'm almost not sure if you're being serious.*Ideally* no president should ever govern in his own image but rather consider the multitude of images and histories that make up American identity. Then with that in mind, make the most informed and ethical decisions for the welfare of all. Do elected officials ever get caught up in their own motivations? OF course, it's probably what motivates half of them to get into politics anyway, because they are narcissitic and egotistical and have only one way of viewing things: theirs. Also corruption and greed and lobbying.
But how does this somehow validate Santorum?
|
I just have a short question about the election: Are the primaries winner takes it all or does coming in second place net you delegates, too?
|
On March 07 2012 10:05 ggrrg wrote:
I just have a short question about the election: Are the primaries winner takes it all or does coming in second place net you delegates, too?
Some states are winner take all (like Arizona), most are awarded by district or proportionally.
|
On March 07 2012 10:09 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 10:05 ggrrg wrote:
I just have a short question about the election: Are the primaries winner takes it all or does coming in second place net you delegates, too? Some states are winner take all (like Arizona), most are awarded by district or proportionally.
Thanks!
|
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think
|
On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior.
By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps.
|
On March 07 2012 10:12 bigwig123 wrote:
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think
There are over 50 million republicans in the US. I can assure you that they don't all think in the same way, and that there are democrats who are just as illogical.
On March 07 2012 10:15 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior. By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps.
Everyone, including you, believes there are limits on the types of marriages that society should allow.
|
On March 07 2012 10:18 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 10:12 bigwig123 wrote:
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think There are over 50 million republicans in the US. I can assure you that they don't all think in the same way, and that there are democrats who are just as illogical. Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 10:15 darthfoley wrote:On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior. By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps. Everyone, including you, believes there are limits on the types of marriages that society should allow.
Ok, i would say that all living humans (unless i am forgetting certain cases) should have equal rights. One right would be to marry someone they love who is also living (can show consent, at a reasonable age). By taking away this right, i am effectively saying i don't think they deserve this right. If a group doesn't deserve a right, isn't that labeling a group as inferior?
I'm trying to not commit logical fallacies, call me out if i am.
|
On March 07 2012 10:18 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 10:12 bigwig123 wrote:
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think There are over 50 million republicans in the US. I can assure you that they don't all think in the same way, and that there are democrats who are just as illogical. Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 10:15 darthfoley wrote:On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior. By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps. Everyone, including you, believes there are limits on the types of marriages that society should allow.
And everyone should be able to agree that homosexuality is NOT the same as beastiality, or child porn, but many conservatives would say they are one in the same
|
Romney leading among voters that decided within the last 3 days. Which is a first for him.
|
|
|
On March 07 2012 10:26 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 10:18 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 10:12 bigwig123 wrote:
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think There are over 50 million republicans in the US. I can assure you that they don't all think in the same way, and that there are democrats who are just as illogical. On March 07 2012 10:15 darthfoley wrote:On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior. By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps. Everyone, including you, believes there are limits on the types of marriages that society should allow. And everyone should be able to agree that homosexuality is NOT the same as beastiality, or child porn, but many conservatives would say they are one in the same
Of course homosexuality is not the same as beastiality. Just like homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality.
You mention child porn, which is funny because it has nothing to do with marriage... but still, there are plenty of people who support homosexual marriage while opposing things like polygamy, the marriage of relatives, or marriage to non-humans.
My point is, at the end of the day there is no objective standard of morality when it comes to marriage, it's just based on social norms.
|
On March 07 2012 10:35 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 10:26 ranshaked wrote:On March 07 2012 10:18 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 10:12 bigwig123 wrote:
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think There are over 50 million republicans in the US. I can assure you that they don't all think in the same way, and that there are democrats who are just as illogical. On March 07 2012 10:15 darthfoley wrote:On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior. By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps. Everyone, including you, believes there are limits on the types of marriages that society should allow. And everyone should be able to agree that homosexuality is NOT the same as beastiality, or child porn, but many conservatives would say they are one in the same Of course homosexuality is not the same as beastiality. Just like homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality. You mention child porn, which is funny because it has nothing to do with marriage... but still, there are plenty of people who support homosexual marriage while opposing things like polygamy, the marriage of relatives, or marriage to non-humans. My point is, at the end of the day there is no objective standard of morality when it comes to marriage, it's just based on social norms.
Well, the thing is, polygamy would completely disebowel the tax code, and things like bestiality/child relations don't work because a dog and a child cannot give consent nor sign a marriage document. So I'm inclined to block those ones off.
However I can't see any justification for incest being banned. It's not like every marriage=kids, and if we are going to block incest based on the charge of "it produces more disabled kids" then we should be blocking marriage between people with a significant family history of X and Y, and yadada.
You are right though, of course. Morality is certainly subjective.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 07 2012 10:35 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 10:26 ranshaked wrote:On March 07 2012 10:18 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 10:12 bigwig123 wrote:
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think There are over 50 million republicans in the US. I can assure you that they don't all think in the same way, and that there are democrats who are just as illogical. On March 07 2012 10:15 darthfoley wrote:On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior. By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps. Everyone, including you, believes there are limits on the types of marriages that society should allow. And everyone should be able to agree that homosexuality is NOT the same as beastiality, or child porn, but many conservatives would say they are one in the same Of course homosexuality is not the same as beastiality. Just like homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality. You mention child porn, which is funny because it has nothing to do with marriage... but still, there are plenty of people who support homosexual marriage while opposing things like polygamy, the marriage of relatives, or marriage to non-humans. My point is, at the end of the day there is no objective standard of morality when it comes to marriage, it's just based on social norms.
There's where you're wrong: you can form an objective standard. Just because we don't currently use one doesn't mean it doesn't exist, couldn't exist or that it shouldn't exist. My objective standard is pretty simple: can the parties involved provide informed consent (a child can't, an animal can't, so there you have the major distinction), and does it hurt anyone? You might argue that any sort of objective standard is based on subjective bias, and this is true to some extent, but I don't feel that it invalidates the entire process: rather it pushes us to constantly question whether those bias are influencing our standard in a positive or negative direction, and whether we can ask ourselves what would occur if we held ourselves to different standards, based on evidence and testing.
By that logic btw, I support polygamy and polyandry as long as all parties are informed and are consenting, but I think it's probably better in that circumstance to just not get married for practical reasons: it's bloody hard to regulate the legal benefits that would go with a situation like that.
|
On March 07 2012 10:42 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 10:35 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 10:26 ranshaked wrote:On March 07 2012 10:18 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 10:12 bigwig123 wrote:
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think There are over 50 million republicans in the US. I can assure you that they don't all think in the same way, and that there are democrats who are just as illogical. On March 07 2012 10:15 darthfoley wrote:On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior. By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps. Everyone, including you, believes there are limits on the types of marriages that society should allow. And everyone should be able to agree that homosexuality is NOT the same as beastiality, or child porn, but many conservatives would say they are one in the same Of course homosexuality is not the same as beastiality. Just like homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality. You mention child porn, which is funny because it has nothing to do with marriage... but still, there are plenty of people who support homosexual marriage while opposing things like polygamy, the marriage of relatives, or marriage to non-humans. My point is, at the end of the day there is no objective standard of morality when it comes to marriage, it's just based on social norms. Well, the thing is, polygamy would completely disebowel the tax code, and things like bestiality/child relations don't work because a dog and a child cannot give consent nor sign a marriage document. So I'm inclined to block those ones off. However I can't see any justification for incest being banned. It's not like every marriage=kids, and if we are going to block incest based on the charge of "it produces more disabled kids" then we should be blocking marriage between people with a significant family history of X and Y, and yadada. You are right though, of course. Morality is certainly subjective.
Regarding your point about polygamy... Suppose someone were to argue that it is immoral to deny three people from having a loving marriage simply due to tax code complications. That seems like a reasonable argument at least, comparable to homosexual marriage.
And there are other people who would be discriminated against under your philosophy, consider this taken from wikipedia:
Object sexuality or objectum sexuality, in German objektophil (OS), [1] is a pronounced emotional and often romantic desire towards developing significant relationships with particular inanimate objects. Those individuals with this expressed preference may feel strong feelings of attraction, love, and commitment to certain items or structures of their fixation. For some, sexual or even close emotional relationships with humans are incomprehensible. Object-sexual individuals also often believe in animism, and sense reciprocation based on the belief that objects have souls, intelligence, feelings, and are able to communicate.[2] Contrary to sexual fetishism, the object to an OS person is viewed as their partner and not as a means to an end to enhance a human sexual relationship.
Technically an inanimate object cannot grant consent to marriage, but it also cannot be harmed by marriage either, because it's not sentient. Should these people be denied the "right" to express the love they experience?
I honestly think this stuff is kind of interesting, and it is hard to come up with a standard for marriage which doesn't discriminate unnecessarily. I just think people should be aware that if they want to redefine traditional marriage, then they also need to have a solution to these types of issues, if they want to at least attempt to be consistent and not hypocritical, as many of them are...
|
On March 07 2012 10:46 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 10:35 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 10:26 ranshaked wrote:On March 07 2012 10:18 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 10:12 bigwig123 wrote:
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think There are over 50 million republicans in the US. I can assure you that they don't all think in the same way, and that there are democrats who are just as illogical. On March 07 2012 10:15 darthfoley wrote:On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior. By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps. Everyone, including you, believes there are limits on the types of marriages that society should allow. And everyone should be able to agree that homosexuality is NOT the same as beastiality, or child porn, but many conservatives would say they are one in the same Of course homosexuality is not the same as beastiality. Just like homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality. You mention child porn, which is funny because it has nothing to do with marriage... but still, there are plenty of people who support homosexual marriage while opposing things like polygamy, the marriage of relatives, or marriage to non-humans. My point is, at the end of the day there is no objective standard of morality when it comes to marriage, it's just based on social norms. There's where you're wrong: you can form an objective standard. Just because we don't currently use one doesn't mean it doesn't exist, couldn't exist or that it shouldn't exist. My objective standard is pretty simple: can the parties involved provide informed consent (a child can't, an animal can't, so there you have the major distinction), and does it hurt anyone? You might argue that any sort of objective standard is based on subjective bias, and this is true to some extent, but I don't feel that it invalidates the entire process: rather it pushes us to constantly question whether those bias are influencing our standard in a positive or negative direction, and whether we can ask ourselves what would occur if we held ourselves to different standards, based on evidence and testing. By that logic btw, I support polygamy and polyandry as long as all parties are informed and are consenting, but I think it's probably better in that circumstance to just not get married for practical reasons: it's bloody hard to regulate the legal benefits that would go with a situation like that.
Damn whitewing I just want to say that your posts on the past couple of pages have been A+.
|
To articulate his argument better, there is an argument in popular conservative media stating that homosexual marriage leads deterioration of marriage in general. That it opens up to things such as polygamy and incest which is of course a slippery slope argument.
The social dynamic of a polygamy marriage usually have led to mistreatment and manipulation of the female parties. Marriage between close relatives( think brother + sister) also have the same problems as stated above. Of course there would be exceptions, but the norm is not what we could call a healthy marriage.
Third, it is really a frivolousness argument to treat bestiality as a question of social norm. I really dont understand how an agreement between two consenting adults can be treated on the same plane of existence to a human and a "nonconsenting" animal. Anyone who makes this argument is just silly.
Don't throw the argument off the track with the inanimate object. How many people have expressed their undying love to a table?
|
On March 07 2012 10:49 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 10:42 1Eris1 wrote:On March 07 2012 10:35 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 10:26 ranshaked wrote:On March 07 2012 10:18 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 10:12 bigwig123 wrote:
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think There are over 50 million republicans in the US. I can assure you that they don't all think in the same way, and that there are democrats who are just as illogical. On March 07 2012 10:15 darthfoley wrote:On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior. By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps. Everyone, including you, believes there are limits on the types of marriages that society should allow. And everyone should be able to agree that homosexuality is NOT the same as beastiality, or child porn, but many conservatives would say they are one in the same Of course homosexuality is not the same as beastiality. Just like homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality. You mention child porn, which is funny because it has nothing to do with marriage... but still, there are plenty of people who support homosexual marriage while opposing things like polygamy, the marriage of relatives, or marriage to non-humans. My point is, at the end of the day there is no objective standard of morality when it comes to marriage, it's just based on social norms. Well, the thing is, polygamy would completely disebowel the tax code, and things like bestiality/child relations don't work because a dog and a child cannot give consent nor sign a marriage document. So I'm inclined to block those ones off. However I can't see any justification for incest being banned. It's not like every marriage=kids, and if we are going to block incest based on the charge of "it produces more disabled kids" then we should be blocking marriage between people with a significant family history of X and Y, and yadada. You are right though, of course. Morality is certainly subjective. Regarding your point about polygamy... Suppose someone were to argue that it is immoral to deny three people from having a loving marriage simply due to tax code complications. That seems like a reasonable argument at least, comparable to homosexual marriage. And there are other people who would be discriminated against under your philosophy, consider this taken from wikipedia: Show nested quote +Object sexuality or objectum sexuality, in German objektophil (OS), [1] is a pronounced emotional and often romantic desire towards developing significant relationships with particular inanimate objects. Those individuals with this expressed preference may feel strong feelings of attraction, love, and commitment to certain items or structures of their fixation. For some, sexual or even close emotional relationships with humans are incomprehensible. Object-sexual individuals also often believe in animism, and sense reciprocation based on the belief that objects have souls, intelligence, feelings, and are able to communicate.[2] Contrary to sexual fetishism, the object to an OS person is viewed as their partner and not as a means to an end to enhance a human sexual relationship. Technically an inanimate object cannot grant consent to marriage, but it also cannot be harmed by marriage either, because it's not sentient. Should these people be denied the "right" to express the love they experience? I honestly think this stuff is kind of interesting, and it is hard to come up with a standard for marriage which doesn't discriminate unnecessarily. I just think people should be aware that if they want to redefine traditional marriage, then they also need to have a solution to these types of issues, if they want to at least attempt to be consistent and not hypocritical, as many of them are...
I guess, but you also have to define traditional marriage. it varies between cultures
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
