We Should Be Ashamed Of Our Hatred -mature Content!

[Lil Red]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1790238' date='Feb 24 2009, 03:13 AM']Palin - it's funny how just about everyone thought she was an incompetent bimbo except for pro-lifers.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
uh, not Camile Paglia.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
[quote name='bonkers' post='1790295' date='Feb 24 2009, 07:59 AM']Sure, it is the human condition to think that we little humans with our [s]pee[/s] brains are capable of[/quote]
pea brain

[havok579257]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790309' date='Feb 24 2009, 10:39 AM']Sure there is truth. Given your obvious hatred of Uzbeks and your overt Russian nationalism I doubt you will take a Polish Logician seriously but his work was of great importance.

[url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/"]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/[/url]


Your free to beleive that, but why take that personal beleif and try to force it on others?[/quote]

Because that's what politics is all about. Its about trying to get your personal beliefs written into law. Most american's have the belief that every man, women and child have the right to free speech. That is a belief our for father's had and forced on the general population. Was it bad for them to force this on the general population? Should we not have freedom of speech? Politics and government are all about the majorities beliefs out into action.

[havok579257]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1790283' date='Feb 24 2009, 09:35 AM']I find it very strange this perfect god demonstrates his perfect justice and love via an eternal torture chamber. Like there is no other alternative, it has to be an eternal torture chamber otherwise god isn't perfect. Very strange indeed. But then again, there's the whole ignorance and lack of grace thing I'm subject too blinding me from seeing this very obvious truth. Doesn't that sound the least bit odd to you? Doesn't it sound more like something some men made up to make people fearful?



[/quote]


God does not condemn anyone to hell, we do that ourselfs. Look at heaven as God's house. There are rules to get in and if you don't follow the rules you are not allowed in. Its the same concept of your house. I am sure you have rules for your house and who you let in. I imagine you don't let child molestors into your house with your children(hypothetical)? Same applies to God's house. He has simple rules. Follow them and you get to enter into heaven. Not only that, he will go one further. If you break on of his rules, all you need to do is ask for his forgivness and he will forgive you and let you in. Heck, break his rules 9 million times and as long as you ask for his forgiveness and repent, he will let you in. Now how does this not sound all love? How does it not sound all loving when God forgives people for whatever they have done. Somethign we as humans can not even do.

One more thing. If your driving your car and decide to go 90mph in a 45mph zone and get pulled over and get a ticket, who's fault is it? Is it the cop's fault for pulling you over or is it your fault for speeding? Same logic applies to God. Is it his fault you in hell? Or is it your fault for killing 100 people and having no remorse and not asking his forgiveness?

[havok579257]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1790287' date='Feb 24 2009, 09:46 AM']I'm not being deliberately offensive. If you claimed I was deceived by the devil or ignorant, I would react offensively but your intention would not be to offend me. Likewise, I think your beliefs are the equivalent of adult fairy tales. If you were an atheist, how would you think about Christian stories such as crucifixtion, resurrection and things like heaven, hell, angels and demons? They would probably sound really absurd to you and it is in my opinion that they are.[/quote]


Its mathamatically more proboble that there is a creator of the universe and everything in it than it all being by accident.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1790314' date='Feb 24 2009, 11:46 AM'][mod]Mature content. --Era Might[/mod][/quote]

[Hassan]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1790512' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:12 PM']Because that's what politics is all about. Its about trying to get your personal beliefs written into law. Most american's have the belief that every man, women and child have the right to free speech. That is a belief our for father's had and forced on the general population. Was it bad for them to force this on the general population? Should we not have freedom of speech? Politics and government are all about the majorities beliefs out into action.[/quote]


Obviously we have very different views on the correct role of government.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1790343' date='Feb 24 2009, 12:54 PM']im going to be especially blunt here. I'm sick and tired of people who fight tooth and nail for gay rights only to duck and twist at the prospect of other forms of marriage becoming legal too. When polygamy is brought up, they just write off the idea as absurd. No, what is absurd is someone fighting for equal rights and then putting limits on it.

If you are fighting for equal marriage rights know that you [i]have to be open to every form of marriage[/i] not just the one you are fighting for. And you have to be for these forms of marriage [i]right now[/i]. Not in some possible slippery sloped future, but right. now.

polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, bigamy, circle marriages, incestual marriages, human-animal marraiges...[/quote]


I don't care what the structure of marriage is so long as all the parties involved are adults concenting to the arrangment. That would not include "human-animal" marriages as an animal has no was to concent to such an arrangment.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790546' date='Feb 24 2009, 04:54 PM']Obviously we have very different views on the correct role of government.[/quote]


and what is your definition of a democratic government? mine is to do the will of the people and with a democracy, obviously it is up to the majority.

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1790462' date='Feb 24 2009, 04:08 PM']Marriage is a Sacrament. Sacraments do not change.[/quote]


According to the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunatly for you your Church is not the foundation of our secular state. If you cannot present an objective argument demonstrating the sacrosanct nature of marriage and one that is in line with what the Church calls a "sacrament" then you have no right, in a secular government, to try and use the lagal system to coerce other members of the population to conform to your religious faith.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790549' date='Feb 24 2009, 04:57 PM']I don't care what the structure of marriage is so long as all the parties involved are adults concenting to the arrangment. That would not include "human-animal" marriages as an animal has no was to concent to such an arrangment.[/quote]


so brother/sister marriage are ok? well what makes your opinion better and more important that the majority of the usa which says incest marriages are wrong? my point is, why should a small minority get to over rule the majority of the country? which is what your implying.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790556' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:04 PM']According to the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunatly for you your Church is not the foundation of our secular state. If you cannot present an objective argument demonstrating the sacrosanct nature of marriage and one that is in line with what the Church calls a "sacrament" then you have no right, in a secular government, to try and use the lagal system to coerce other members of the population to conform to your religious faith.[/quote]


actually, you have every right granted by the consitution to try and get the congress/ majority to see your point of view and change laws accordingly. you have that right granted to you by the for-fathers of this nation.

[Hassan]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1790559' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:05 PM']so brother/sister marriage are ok? well what makes your opinion better and more important that the majority of the usa which says incest marriages are wrong? my point is, why should a small minority get to over rule the majority of the country? which is what your implying.[/quote]

My oppinion is not restricting the liberty of other individuals.

If you seek to restrict the rights of others you should have an objectively verifiable reason for it, something accesable to everyone, not some private revelation.

[Hassan]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1790562' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:07 PM']actually, you have every right granted by the consitution to try and get the congress/ majority to see your point of view and change laws accordingly. you have that right granted to you by the for-fathers of this nation.[/quote]


And with rights, comes responsibility.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790569' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:10 PM']My oppinion is not restricting the liberty of other individuals.

If you seek to restrict the rights of others you should have an objectively verifiable reason for it, something accesable to everyone, not some private revelation.[/quote]

the problem with your train of thought is over 90% of Amerians believe incest is wrong. So why should the 90% of american's who believe it should be illegal have to just deal with it becuase a small minority thinks its ok? This is a democracy. Its the same with elections. Majority wins. In this country, in this democratic country, that's how it should be. If it is not, then its not a democratic society. As of right now, the majority of American's are against gay marriage as evident by everytime it gets put on a ballot. So why should it be legal if the majority of the country does not think it should be legal?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790573' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:12 PM']And with rights, comes responsibility.[/quote]


responsibility to make moral decisions, which is what those against gay marriage believe they are making.

[Hassan]

[quote name='missionseeker' post='1790368' date='Feb 24 2009, 01:35 PM']It's all based on dignity of personhood. We all have it. SSA or not. And we are called to respect the dignity of ourselves and everyone else. SSA or not. We are all given struggles. Some struggle with SSA. Some struggle with pedophilia, some struggle with sex addiction, some with pride, some with gluttony, some with sloth, some with various other things. Our struggles should not impede the dignity of our person or of other persons' persons.[/quote]

For a woman to be exposed to the lustful gaze of men is harmful to her dignity. In fact we must respect Muhammad (SAW) example, which respets women to the fullest extent possible. Men and women must be legally coerced to lower their gaze when the other approaches. A man should not look at a woman who is not his wife or immediate family, a woman must not expose her hair to the gaze of men. We must require women to cover ther adornments restrict their movement outside the house because to do otherwise is to degrade her as a human being, and risk a man's fall from the tru path into sin. A man exposing himself from the navel to the knees also degrades him as a creation of Allah (SAT) and invites women into sin.

Just like your understanding of human dignity my Muslim friends are free to beleive this, but until they can demonstrate the oneness of Allah and the Prophethood of Muhammad they have no right to coerce others to fll in line with their understanding of the dignity of the human person.

[Hassan]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1790580' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:16 PM']responsibility to make moral decisions, which is what those against gay marriage believe they are making.[/quote]


Yes, they beleive it. Do they have any rational, objectively verifiable reason for beleiving it? If not then it is irresponsible to coerce others into their arbitrary assumption.

[Hassan]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1790522' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:24 PM']Its mathamatically more proboble that there is a creator of the universe and everything in it than it all being by accident.[/quote]


Do you have some mathematical proofs you wish to show us?

[track2004]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1790343' date='Feb 24 2009, 12:54 PM']So whats the problem with this? It means the government must recognize any and all forms of marriage, past, present and future. Whatever anyone can come up with. Essentially, this will mean the government will be handing out these rights to basically everyone. Aside from being a joke, it raises the question that no one in this debate is asking - why does the government even give out these rights to married people in the first place?? Why not just give them to everyone from the start? or the reverse - why not just not give them out and shut everyone up?

Either all forms of marriage are equal - and thus no one is special, or a particular definition of marriage [i]is[/i] important to society, and needs to be encouraged above the rest. Can those in favor of gay marriage come up with a reason? Those in favor of traditional marriage can.[/quote]

Marriage in the state's view is essentially just a contract, right. You sign a piece of paper saying that you and your wife or husband are going to go this together. So all the crazy forms of marriage you were talking about don't work because (1) kids, animals, etc. can't enter into a contract and (2) generally more than 2 people can't enter into a contract.

Contract law says animals cannot enter into a contract, period. They can't manifest assent. Doesn't happen. No way. No how. No one can marry an animal (besides, you know, humans).

Contract law says minors can only sign voidable contracts. It's a technicality, but it means kids wouldn't be able to marry. Just like now. Kids can't marry.

Contracts can be restricted to be between two people. You can't marry a corporation (even though it gets treated like a person under the law). Two corporations can't marry (they can merge but that's different, mostly). It is generally hard to get more than two people (or other entities) to manifest mutual assent (the basis for contract law) because Party 6 will have a problem with Party 1's terms even though Parties 2 thru 5 are cool.

Contract law is based on the idea that if two people agree to something then they should be able to do it. You want to sell your house to me for $20, we can sign the papers and we're good. You want to do my (your old) lawn work and charge me $100 and hour, if I agree, we're good. You want to do anything short of something illegal and we're good. So why does contract law bar me from marring a girl? No other contract requires anything about the gender of the parties. And doesn't basing something on gender feel kind of arbitrary.

I'm an adult, I want to enter into a contract with another adult, what's so wrong with that? Under the rest of current normal contract law, nothing. Under current marriage laws, something.