IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

18 Pages V  « < 10 11 12 13 14 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Right Wing Megathread, ITT: RM gets to be a partisan hack with reckless abandon
Tad Walters
post May 12 2012, 06:53 AM
Post #221


Master of Speaking About Nonsensical Things
***

Group: Soylent Greens
Posts: 306
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Houston, Texas
Member No.: 638



So I heard someone was smurfin' some smurf in here? If a smurf can smurf smurfette, than a smurf should be able to smurf a smurf whenever they want.





Tad Smurfin' Walters has spoken.


--------------------
"And you thought us Varsities were illiterate!"
Tad Walters
J. Frank Dobie High School '11 Varsity
Loyola University- Naw'lins Class of 2015
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Research Monkey
post May 12 2012, 07:20 AM
Post #222


touha po ztracené
***

Group: Coach Class
Posts: 6,940
Joined: 2-May 09
From: The Dirty T
Member No.: 94



QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 11 2012, 12:54 PM) *
What if it is one's belief that the aggregate acceptance of homosexuality (or any other sexual sin, for that matter) by a society does have something to do with him/her as an individual? That sounds funny, but here's what I mean.

Assume the premise that God is real and the bible true (Yes! I said it - assume the bible to be true!). From this, we can draw that the story of Sodom and Gomorah is also true (just assume it for thirty seconds, that's really all I ask). IF it is true that S&G were destroyed as cities because of their sexual sins and the overall acceptance of those sins (just as the bible states) then what makes it so absurd to deduce that our fate will be the same? Shouldn't I be concerned with the fate of my country? After all, national defense is considered to be a very real subject because it concerns the fate of our nation as a whole, and according to the bible, (and yes, we're still assuming the bible to be true) sexual sins concern the fate of our nation as well. Well, frankly, if the bible is true, and we can assume a similar fate for ourselves as S&G, then I think it's clear that the overall acceptance of sexual immorality does indeed have much to do with me as an individual. I'm included in America, so if God burns it, I'm going down too.


There are three problems with this statement. One is logical, the other two are theological.

The logic problem rests entirely with the first premise. IF AND ONLY IF the first premise is true, then this is an entirely reasonable chain of statements. However, it does not make sense to adopt public policy under the assumption that the Bible is the literal word of a living, unitary God, and that all other scripture is false. How can we prove the validity of this premise? Can we prove it true? Can we prove it false? Can we provide evidence at all with respect to that first premise? The answer to that is no. We can't perform experiments, we can't gather data, and we can't assess our findings. Thus, there is no compelling reason to adopt the premise. If the premise cannot be justified, it can't reasonably be assumed.

The theological arguments are as follows:

1. The problem with Soddom and Gomorrah is that Abraham cannot find 10 righteous men in the cities. The lesson is not that the cities were destroyed for sinning, but for being infested with sin and without virtue. If you are a righteous man, I don't see how that's problematic.
2. That story comes from Genesis in the Old Testament, which is largely considered by nearly all Jews and many or most Christians to be metaphorical, rather than literal. The fact that this story is generally not considered to be a literal history makes accepting that first premise even sketchier.

QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 11 2012, 12:54 PM) *
Whether that school of thought is Keynesian economics, strict contstructionism, or Christianity, I can hold my beliefs AND I can vote accordingly. I get told I can't cite the bible because "This is America! We have religious freedom!" but it's that exact same religious freedom that does give me the right to cite the bible for my beliefs. Just like you can cite Keynes and I can cite Hayek, we can also cite books of religion for our personal beliefs and vote accordingly. To put it simply, I'm asserting that to tell me I can't vote according to the teachings of Moses because "not everybody agrees" would be similar to telling me I can't vote according to the teachings of Keynes because "not everybody agrees." But that's the point - we can vote according to ANY school of thought whatever WITHOUT "infringing" on the lives of others. Thus, voting according to the bible and believing in the bible does not inherently infringe on the lives of others, as Tree has asserted.


The problem here is an interesting one. The people who believe in Keynesianism or strict constructionism like it is a religion are seriously detrimental to the democratic process. Economic policy and legal interpretation have the ability to examine the effects of their decisions and subsequently modify their beliefs and dogma. I appreciate that you bring up Keynesianism, because I'm an economics major, so I have something to say about the subject.

As a matter of fact, no one believes in Keynesianism in the form presented in Keynes General Theory. That's because the basic ideas presented by Keynes do not hold water empirically and required revision. Digging ditches does not provide a stimulative effect on the economy to offset its costs. This much has been determined by various criticisms of Keynesianism, including DSGE/RBC theories and Monetarism. There's a school of thought called Neo-Keynesianism which, during the 1970's, modified the ideas of Keynesianism and resolved many of the conflicts with the classical school championed by DSGE. This synthesis forms the basis of mainstream economic thought, and was built out of the revised theories of Keynesianism.

The problem with religious thought is that it does not consider modern events for analysis with which to revisit their dogma. No church will examine scripture's with a critical eye. It's not in the nature of the institutions.

QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 11 2012, 12:54 PM) *
The logic there is sound, and you cannot tell me I'm "ignorant" for using real deductive reasoning to draw a conclusion from a set of premises.


No, you're right. But your logic is faulty. It happens to everyone, and I'm not going to look down on you for it.

QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 11 2012, 12:54 PM) *
Let me try adding some more to this. To call somebody ignorant because they have logically deduced a conclusion from a set of premises is no different than calling them ignorant for being Christian. I don't understand, then, how it's acceptable to accuse Christians of being ignorant but NOT acceptable for a Christian to call a Muslim ignorant (and I know you libs hate that Christians hate Muslims)[quick edit: please don't take that last set of parentheses too seriously]. Also, to call somebody a bigot without understanding their views is, well, equally ignorant. It is perfectly reasonable, after all, to love somebody despite seeing them as an imperfect human being. I'm imperfect, and so is my gay cousin, whom i love very much. (yes, I went there. BAM) But I am no bigot for finding fault in his lifestyle, just as I am no bigot for finding fault in the decisions of John Edwards or Newt Gingrich or Tiger Woods. For if I believe sex to be a sacred act, preserved for a man and wife, how is it bigotry to find fault in those who abuse it? I am still fully capable of love and acceptance of an individual without accepting something I find to be wrong. That isn't bigotry at all, so either find a dictionary, or quit throwing that smurfing word around simply because you're afraid of my beliefs.

Since the deduction was valid following the assumed premises, all that is left to argue on the "ignorance" stage is the validity of the premises themselves (specifically, the existence of God and the validity of the Bible) and obviously that debate isn't going to be resolved any time soon. I know I'll get ripped to shreds now, but for smurf's sake, don't call me an ignorant bigot because you despise Christian values and don't understand my beliefs anyway. To me, that sounds more like bigotry based in ignorance anyway.


The argument is not that you're ignorant for following that logic, is that you believe the solitary assumption on which you rest all of your arguments to be unimpeachable. That's what sets it apart from every other proposition, and the believing that this assumption is more than just an assumption is what makes one ignorant.


--------------------
“The attempt to develop a sense of humor and to see things in a humorous light is some kind of a trick learned while mastering the art of living.” --Viktor E. Frankl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VarsityBoy
post May 12 2012, 07:39 AM
Post #223


Captain of DUST
***

Group: Blue Man Group
Posts: 1,340
Joined: 1-May 09
From: Tucson, Arizona and Granville, Ohio
Member No.: 32



I apologize for being unfair to will.

But I think the INCREDIBLY clear legal issues here are being ignored. It's not an epistemological issue to me: it is merely an issue of ensuring due process and the legal, affirmed rights of all citizens of this country.

Do we consider homosexuals to be legal citizens of the united states?

If so, than we must conclude, putatively since reconstruction and de facto since the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s that any sort of legal status that can be afforded to one group of clientele, or citizens, must be afforded to the other.

Pat, am I just smurfed up here? Is my argument faulty? What am I missing?

I see this as one of the last bastions of the Progressive enfranchisement project that started with FDR and labor unions and ended with civil rights for Americans of any race. Sexual preference is now the issue.


--------------------
Sorry for partying
QUOTE (overly_critical_man @ Aug 29 2011, 05:23 PM) *
A great injustice
Rory McIlroy is gone
Cody threads remain

"Assimilationism"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Widget!
post May 12 2012, 09:09 AM
Post #224


Worst Influence
***

Group: Blue Man Group
Posts: 3,267
Joined: 2-May 09
From: Tempe, AZ
Member No.: 105



We are unfair to Will. We should stop being that way.


--------------------
QUOTE (overly_critical_man @ Sep 19 2011, 11:04 AM) *
QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Sep 19 2011, 08:59 AM) *
Also, why are there serious posts in here when we could be talking about ass and bacon?


I often lie awake in bed at night, wondering this to myself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crow
post May 12 2012, 09:45 AM
Post #225


Gadfly
***

Group: Orange Crushers
Posts: 915
Joined: 1-May 09
Member No.: 11



Without sparking a Class 5 brouhaha, would somebody mind explaining to me the legal difference between a civil union and a marriage?

I generally try to stay informed, but I've always been a bit hazy on the precise benefits.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blondie13
post May 12 2012, 03:11 PM
Post #226


Maiden of Marvelous Music
***

Group: Pink Ladies
Posts: 808
Joined: 29-April 11
From: Wisconsin
Member No.: 38,292



QUOTE (VarsityBoy @ May 12 2012, 02:39 AM) *
Sexual preference is now the issue.


*orientation. I prefer Mountain Dew to Mellow Yellow. I do not prefer men to women, rather, I am sexually oriented to be attracted to both on some level. Just thought I'd again clear up some terminology as the whole "preference" thing makes it seem like a choice.

Again, not trying to be a smurf, just trying to get everyone on proper terms here. Haha.

QUOTE (Crow @ May 12 2012, 04:45 AM) *
Without sparking a Class 5 brouhaha, would somebody mind explaining to me the legal difference between a civil union and a marriage?

I generally try to stay informed, but I've always been a bit hazy on the precise benefits.


http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

I don't have the time to fully explain it atm, but hopefully this link is helpful.


--------------------
Music Major Extraordinaire :)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK_WDB
post May 12 2012, 03:18 PM
Post #227


Chief of the Polar Bear Army
***

Group: Nazgul
Posts: 4,002
Joined: 1-May 09
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Member No.: 16



Jordan, Pat, and Andrew, Christianity does not say that anyone is a fundamentally bad person. It says we are all good people whom God loves despite our sins, and can all be saved through repentance. I suppose that if we were just bad all around, we'd automatically go to hell - but that is what Widget is saying about people, not me. So while I am not a Christian, I don't see how you can possibly twist my position into one that opposes Christian values.

You are also not justified in saying that "I" am trying to deny rights to anyone. I support gay marriage; is that not enough? I am merely asking you to grant everyone some basic level of dignity, including your political opponents. Hell, to understand why, you only have to look at Congress. Everyone is talking about polarization there: people's refusal to respect each other over differences of opinion means they get nothing done. It's exactly the same thing here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
michelangelo
post May 12 2012, 03:53 PM
Post #228


Advanced Member
***

Group: Soylent Greens
Posts: 148
Joined: 16-November 10
From: Waukesha, WI
Member No.: 727



QUOTE (dizzyizzy @ May 11 2012, 11:33 PM) *
I never said you don't have the right to vote. But your right to vote doesn't supersede the rights of others to live their own goddamned lives. You are welcome to have your own personal views - But it's ridiculous to think we should entertain them in policy. Your right to vote doesn't extend to voting on other people's lifestyles. This is the fundamental point I cannot understand about the gay marriage debate - No matter how you slice it, it doesn't affect you in the slightest. To put it bluntly, your personal viewpoint doesn't matter. If you're not okay with gay marriage, don't marry a gay. There is no conceivable reason for this to even be a debate.

I honestly failed, for a minute, to come up with any response to your attempt at drawing a parallel between Keynes and Hayek and Moses that wasn't just peals of laughter. Firstly, if I was them, I would frankly be insulted. Two men who dedicated their lives to careful study of the economic system and produced real results that can be examined under critical analysis against a man who sat in a tent 4000 years ago and made up arbitrary rules under the guise of divine intervention, at best, and didn't even exist at worst... Why would you consider this a real parallel? Just the very idea at its core - Putting real, working, provable ideas up against something you "just have to believe in" - is ridiculous. I'd like to respond to what you're trying to get at with that, but I can't. I can't figure out what kind of point you're trying to make.

I have looked at the question of whether God exists and found that the more open my mind gets, the more obvious it is that he doesn't. A deity that doesn't exist has no place legislating the lives of others.


In response to this, as well as your rant about the constitution, all I can really see is that you don't understand in the slightest what I am arguing. Whether that be your closed-mind or my poor writing skills I don't know, but it's still the problem I see so I'll try and iron it out here. This isn't about me infringing unconstitutionally on the rights of others. The reason I talked about Keynes and Hayek is not to compare their works as objectively similar in reliability to the bible; obviously that argument would fall apart given a mere dirty look. What I am saying, however, is that each work represents a specific school of thought to which ANY American citizen can legally and constitutionally subscribe in their own personal beliefs. The reason this is significant is simple: You suggested it is against the Constitution to shove a religion down somebody's throat. While unconstitutional to cite the bible in a piece of legislation, it is a separate issue to cite the bible for personal beliefs and vote accordingly. I am perfectly within my constitutional rights to vote according to any school of thought I wish - even if you detest the book from which it is drawn. Furthering this, if the people were to decide - following a democratic process - that they want gay marriage illegal, the constitution has thus been followed even if each individual cites the bible as the foundation of their personal belief.

Again, I'm not asserting that Keynes's and Hayek's and Moses's works are of similar reliability. Obviously there is no comparison; the bible is the word of a perfect God and the others aren't. (Joke.) I'm not drawing parallels for the purpose of telling you the bible is as reliable as other scientific works. I'm drawing parallels to demonstrate the general idea that just as it is well with in your rights to believe and vote for something according to any school of thought, it is well within my rights to do the same. And if it is decided through a democratic process that gay marriage be illegal - as was done in NC - the constitution has in no way been violated. I hope that's a little more clear.

QUOTE (Widget! @ May 12 2012, 12:10 AM) *
It has nothing to do with understanding your beliefs; stop playing the martyr. I was elucidating--mistakenly in response to something not directed at me--that I do indeed understand Christian values. I'll say as much as this: in fourteen years of going to Baptist church, it was exceedingly rare for anyone to pander to Mormon hate. I cannot comment on anyone's personal opinions, but any hate was kept internal, which is more than I can say for gays and Arabs.

God's covenant with the Jews remains, according to some theologians. Per their view, yes, Levitican law matters. To the Jews. Per the New Testament, God's covenant with the Gentiles hinges only upon acceptance of Jesus. Beyond that, the different nature of the covenant made with the Gentiles would suggest that Old-Testament-style vengeance would be unlikely.

Did you read the verses? They explicitly state that the Gentiles would not be held to the Levitican law, and per the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Gentiles would be advised to observe certain forms of purity so as not to offend the Jews. It's even explicitly stated that that's why. If that isn't all clarified in the posted verses, just read the chapter. It's not even forty verses long by my recollection; takes like five minutes to read. Also, the way you phrased that...were you offended that I cited verses? I ask merely for clarification.

You're right, though; you haven't contradicted Paul in the slightest. However, your inductive conclusion that Sodom & Gomorrah could happen again is clearly unsupported by the scripture relating to the basic standards Gentiles are held to. Therefore, your conclusion is paranoia.

If America burns, it won't be god's judgment for The Gay. It'll probably be social unrest, as that's usually how countries burn. That or it'll be war.


We can argue forever about just what the idea of grace entails in terms of salvation, but for fear of derailment, I'll try and keep my response here somewhat concise. I can point to other verses from the Book of Mormon that quite explicitly state that the people who hold this nation (as in America) must either serve God or be wiped out. Also, I can just as easily tell you that the social unrest or war will be the result of God's wrath, but I'm not sure that'll get us anywhere either.

Regardless, whether S&G could happen again according to the repealing of Levitican law does not matter because the time frame we are looking at is the second coming of Christ. The punishment would ensue at that point, and that will come when the world has become too wicked. So I stand by what I said: although I'll grant you the point that S&G was the result of some justice necessitated by a now outdated Levitican law, the punishment we can expect is the result of the second coming of Christ, which is consistent with NT teachings.

QUOTE (Research Monkey @ May 12 2012, 02:20 AM) *
The logic problem rests entirely with the first premise. IF AND ONLY IF the first premise is true, then this is an entirely reasonable chain of statements. However, it does not make sense to adopt public policy under the assumption that the Bible is the literal word of a living, unitary God, and that all other scripture is false. How can we prove the validity of this premise? Can we prove it true? Can we prove it false? Can we provide evidence at all with respect to that first premise? The answer to that is no. We can't perform experiments, we can't gather data, and we can't assess our findings. Thus, there is no compelling reason to adopt the premise. If the premise cannot be justified, it can't reasonably be assumed.

The theological arguments are as follows:

1. The problem with Soddom and Gomorrah is that Abraham cannot find 10 righteous men in the cities. The lesson is not that the cities were destroyed for sinning, but for being infested with sin and without virtue. If you are a righteous man, I don't see how that's problematic.
2. That story comes from Genesis in the Old Testament, which is largely considered by nearly all Jews and many or most Christians to be metaphorical, rather than literal. The fact that this story is generally not considered to be a literal history makes accepting that first premise even sketchier.


You're right with your first statement. My purpose is not to convince you that the Bible is true, though; my purpose is to show that it is not ignorance to follow a chain of deduction from that premise to a conclusion. We could argue forever about the validity of the bible - and I've never been shown a piece of evidence that would destroy the rational and logical belief in Christ which I hold - but it would be a somewhat redundant argument. So, you're right: assuming the bible to be true is a hefty assumption to make. But once it is made, it's not so hard to see the line of logic that follows.

My problem with your second statement is that you seem to imply that America would never reach that point. From a religious perspective, though, the general trend for seemingly any society is for morality to continually deteriorate until the society is wiped out. Citing the Book of Mormon, I can point to nation after nation which were wiped out because of their iniquities, re-established by a forgiving God, and wiped out again later on. That Abraham could not find 10 righteous men in the cities is demonstration that things in S&G were pretty damned bad. But since the puritanical days, hasn't sexual morality deteriorated pretty far on the whole anyway? Excuse me for beginning a slippery slope to a slippery slope argument, but I hope you see my point. Just because we aren't that bad yet doesn't mean we won't be in the future.

In response to the third, maybe you're right. Maybe the story of S&G was a metaphor - but for what? Does the idea of it being a metaphor really change the lesson we ought to learn? Probably not.

QUOTE (Research Monkey @ May 12 2012, 02:20 AM) *
The problem with religious thought is that it does not consider modern events for analysis with which to revisit their dogma. No church will examine scripture's with a critical eye. It's not in the nature of the institutions.


Here, you are wrong (at least for me). I am always willing to always under every circumstance examine every piece of every evidence that ever proved any piece of scripture to be wrong and it is my sincere (and rational) belief that science and religion can go hand in hand. Whether it be evolution or string theory, I don't see the contradictions between the bible and scientific inquiry and I do look for them.


Also, while it may have been done by accident, Crow just stumbled across the argument that I can't really respond to. That we split hairs so finely here is probably evidence that the subject is dead. Since marriage doesn't actually matter, is it really worth calling gay marriage illegal? Gay marriage is no sin, and the state of being gay is no sin. Sodomy, on the other hand, is the sexual act that defies God - just as adultery is. For all intents and purposes, though, sodomy and adultery are legal. Since we've already legally accepted the acts themselves, is it really worthwhile to try and fight the institution of marriage? There's a part of me that feels like people only fight it so they can go to sleep at night feeling like they stood up for something. The battle is probably already lost, though. I might sound like Ron Paul here, but that's probably evidence that the government should hold no place in any marriage anyway. It really doesn't need to. It kind of seems ridiculous to accept the act of sodomy legally but not to accept the marriage of two loving people, which is why I waffle so badly on the issue.

While I haven't actually come to any conclusions on the issue for the reasons I just stated, it is an internal struggle for me. So clearly I can see sound logic on both ends, and I have a libertarian pull and a Christian conservative pull that seem to butt heads quite frequently - and this issue is sort of the focus of that earthquake. What really kills me is being called a bigot and ignorant because of my beliefs, despite loving everybody and attempting to be as educated and learned on the subject as possible. That isn't ignorance, and it isn't bigotry.

I know I really didn't answer your question, but I thought it was worth taking a minute to throw all that in there.

This post has been edited by michelangelo: May 12 2012, 03:55 PM


--------------------
Jared Christensen
Waukesha West Scholastic

"you can take me out of the varsity, but you'll never take the varsity out of me..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dizzyizzy
post May 12 2012, 04:12 PM
Post #229


Advanced Member
***

Group: Pink Ladies
Posts: 1,849
Joined: 1-May 09
From: Ohio
Member No.: 63



QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 11:53 AM) *
QUOTE (dizzyizzy @ May 11 2012, 11:33 PM) *
I never said you don't have the right to vote. But your right to vote doesn't supersede the rights of others to live their own goddamned lives. You are welcome to have your own personal views - But it's ridiculous to think we should entertain them in policy. Your right to vote doesn't extend to voting on other people's lifestyles. This is the fundamental point I cannot understand about the gay marriage debate - No matter how you slice it, it doesn't affect you in the slightest. To put it bluntly, your personal viewpoint doesn't matter. If you're not okay with gay marriage, don't marry a gay. There is no conceivable reason for this to even be a debate.

I honestly failed, for a minute, to come up with any response to your attempt at drawing a parallel between Keynes and Hayek and Moses that wasn't just peals of laughter. Firstly, if I was them, I would frankly be insulted. Two men who dedicated their lives to careful study of the economic system and produced real results that can be examined under critical analysis against a man who sat in a tent 4000 years ago and made up arbitrary rules under the guise of divine intervention, at best, and didn't even exist at worst... Why would you consider this a real parallel? Just the very idea at its core - Putting real, working, provable ideas up against something you "just have to believe in" - is ridiculous. I'd like to respond to what you're trying to get at with that, but I can't. I can't figure out what kind of point you're trying to make.

I have looked at the question of whether God exists and found that the more open my mind gets, the more obvious it is that he doesn't. A deity that doesn't exist has no place legislating the lives of others.


In response to this, as well as your rant about the constitution, all I can really see is that you don't understand in the slightest what I am arguing. Whether that be your closed-mind or my poor writing skills I don't know, but it's still the problem I see so I'll try and iron it out here. This isn't about me infringing unconstitutionally on the rights of others. The reason I talked about Keynes and Hayek is not to compare their works as objectively similar in reliability to the bible; obviously that argument would fall apart given a mere dirty look. What I am saying, however, is that each work represents a specific school of thought to which ANY American citizen can legally and constitutionally subscribe in their own personal beliefs. The reason this is significant is simple: You suggested it is against the Constitution to shove a religion down somebody's throat. While unconstitutional to cite the bible in a piece of legislation, it is a separate issue to cite the bible for personal beliefs and vote accordingly. I am perfectly within my constitutional rights to vote according to any school of thought I wish - even if you detest the book from which it is drawn. Furthering this, if the people were to decide - following a democratic process - that they want gay marriage illegal, the constitution has thus been followed even if each individual cites the bible as the foundation of their personal belief.

Again, I'm not asserting that Keynes's and Hayek's and Moses's works are of similar reliability. Obviously there is no comparison; the bible is the word of a perfect God and the others aren't. (Joke.) I'm not drawing parallels for the purpose of telling you the bible is as reliable as other scientific works. I'm drawing parallels to demonstrate the general idea that just as it is well with in your rights to believe and vote for something according to any school of thought, it is well within my rights to do the same. And if it is decided through a democratic process that gay marriage be illegal - as was done in NC - the constitution has in no way been violated. I hope that's a little more clear.


That argument is weak and pathetic. The same argument - "Well, it's legal!" has been used to justify Jim Crow laws, Apartheid in South Africa, Slavery in the U.S., even the god damned Holocaust (sorry for the Godwin's Law violation). Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. And stripping U.S. citizens of their right to love as they will and treating them like lepers, like second-class citizens, is anything but right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
michelangelo
post May 12 2012, 04:16 PM
Post #230


Advanced Member
***

Group: Soylent Greens
Posts: 148
Joined: 16-November 10
From: Waukesha, WI
Member No.: 727



QUOTE (dizzyizzy @ May 12 2012, 11:12 AM) *
QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 11:53 AM) *
QUOTE (dizzyizzy @ May 11 2012, 11:33 PM) *
I never said you don't have the right to vote. But your right to vote doesn't supersede the rights of others to live their own goddamned lives. You are welcome to have your own personal views - But it's ridiculous to think we should entertain them in policy. Your right to vote doesn't extend to voting on other people's lifestyles. This is the fundamental point I cannot understand about the gay marriage debate - No matter how you slice it, it doesn't affect you in the slightest. To put it bluntly, your personal viewpoint doesn't matter. If you're not okay with gay marriage, don't marry a gay. There is no conceivable reason for this to even be a debate.

I honestly failed, for a minute, to come up with any response to your attempt at drawing a parallel between Keynes and Hayek and Moses that wasn't just peals of laughter. Firstly, if I was them, I would frankly be insulted. Two men who dedicated their lives to careful study of the economic system and produced real results that can be examined under critical analysis against a man who sat in a tent 4000 years ago and made up arbitrary rules under the guise of divine intervention, at best, and didn't even exist at worst... Why would you consider this a real parallel? Just the very idea at its core - Putting real, working, provable ideas up against something you "just have to believe in" - is ridiculous. I'd like to respond to what you're trying to get at with that, but I can't. I can't figure out what kind of point you're trying to make.

I have looked at the question of whether God exists and found that the more open my mind gets, the more obvious it is that he doesn't. A deity that doesn't exist has no place legislating the lives of others.


In response to this, as well as your rant about the constitution, all I can really see is that you don't understand in the slightest what I am arguing. Whether that be your closed-mind or my poor writing skills I don't know, but it's still the problem I see so I'll try and iron it out here. This isn't about me infringing unconstitutionally on the rights of others. The reason I talked about Keynes and Hayek is not to compare their works as objectively similar in reliability to the bible; obviously that argument would fall apart given a mere dirty look. What I am saying, however, is that each work represents a specific school of thought to which ANY American citizen can legally and constitutionally subscribe in their own personal beliefs. The reason this is significant is simple: You suggested it is against the Constitution to shove a religion down somebody's throat. While unconstitutional to cite the bible in a piece of legislation, it is a separate issue to cite the bible for personal beliefs and vote accordingly. I am perfectly within my constitutional rights to vote according to any school of thought I wish - even if you detest the book from which it is drawn. Furthering this, if the people were to decide - following a democratic process - that they want gay marriage illegal, the constitution has thus been followed even if each individual cites the bible as the foundation of their personal belief.

Again, I'm not asserting that Keynes's and Hayek's and Moses's works are of similar reliability. Obviously there is no comparison; the bible is the word of a perfect God and the others aren't. (Joke.) I'm not drawing parallels for the purpose of telling you the bible is as reliable as other scientific works. I'm drawing parallels to demonstrate the general idea that just as it is well with in your rights to believe and vote for something according to any school of thought, it is well within my rights to do the same. And if it is decided through a democratic process that gay marriage be illegal - as was done in NC - the constitution has in no way been violated. I hope that's a little more clear.


That argument is weak and pathetic. The same argument - "Well, it's legal!" has been used to justify Jim Crow laws, Apartheid in South Africa, Slavery in the U.S., even the god damned Holocaust (sorry for the Godwin's Law violation). Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. And stripping U.S. citizens of their right to love as they will and treating them like lepers, like second-class citizens, is anything but right.


All I'm telling you is that your claim that it's "unconstitutional" is has absolutely 0 base in fact. I'm sorry, but it's a shallow and one-sided, close-minded, obscured view of the constitution twisted and morphed to fit what you have to say simply because it's the new and "hip" line for pro-gay marriage movements. "DON'T SHOVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN MY THROAT! IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" is both a foolish and overused argument. If you want to argue the other aspect of it, like whether or not you're treating somebody as a second class citizen, fine. But don't tell me it's unconstitutional if it clearly isn't. That's just bogus.


--------------------
Jared Christensen
Waukesha West Scholastic

"you can take me out of the varsity, but you'll never take the varsity out of me..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VarsityBoy
post May 12 2012, 05:12 PM
Post #231


Captain of DUST
***

Group: Blue Man Group
Posts: 1,340
Joined: 1-May 09
From: Tucson, Arizona and Granville, Ohio
Member No.: 32



QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 05:16 PM) *
QUOTE (dizzyizzy @ May 12 2012, 11:12 AM) *
QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 11:53 AM) *
QUOTE (dizzyizzy @ May 11 2012, 11:33 PM) *
I never said you don't have the right to vote. But your right to vote doesn't supersede the rights of others to live their own goddamned lives. You are welcome to have your own personal views - But it's ridiculous to think we should entertain them in policy. Your right to vote doesn't extend to voting on other people's lifestyles. This is the fundamental point I cannot understand about the gay marriage debate - No matter how you slice it, it doesn't affect you in the slightest. To put it bluntly, your personal viewpoint doesn't matter. If you're not okay with gay marriage, don't marry a gay. There is no conceivable reason for this to even be a debate.

I honestly failed, for a minute, to come up with any response to your attempt at drawing a parallel between Keynes and Hayek and Moses that wasn't just peals of laughter. Firstly, if I was them, I would frankly be insulted. Two men who dedicated their lives to careful study of the economic system and produced real results that can be examined under critical analysis against a man who sat in a tent 4000 years ago and made up arbitrary rules under the guise of divine intervention, at best, and didn't even exist at worst... Why would you consider this a real parallel? Just the very idea at its core - Putting real, working, provable ideas up against something you "just have to believe in" - is ridiculous. I'd like to respond to what you're trying to get at with that, but I can't. I can't figure out what kind of point you're trying to make.

I have looked at the question of whether God exists and found that the more open my mind gets, the more obvious it is that he doesn't. A deity that doesn't exist has no place legislating the lives of others.


In response to this, as well as your rant about the constitution, all I can really see is that you don't understand in the slightest what I am arguing. Whether that be your closed-mind or my poor writing skills I don't know, but it's still the problem I see so I'll try and iron it out here. This isn't about me infringing unconstitutionally on the rights of others. The reason I talked about Keynes and Hayek is not to compare their works as objectively similar in reliability to the bible; obviously that argument would fall apart given a mere dirty look. What I am saying, however, is that each work represents a specific school of thought to which ANY American citizen can legally and constitutionally subscribe in their own personal beliefs. The reason this is significant is simple: You suggested it is against the Constitution to shove a religion down somebody's throat. While unconstitutional to cite the bible in a piece of legislation, it is a separate issue to cite the bible for personal beliefs and vote accordingly. I am perfectly within my constitutional rights to vote according to any school of thought I wish - even if you detest the book from which it is drawn. Furthering this, if the people were to decide - following a democratic process - that they want gay marriage illegal, the constitution has thus been followed even if each individual cites the bible as the foundation of their personal belief.

Again, I'm not asserting that Keynes's and Hayek's and Moses's works are of similar reliability. Obviously there is no comparison; the bible is the word of a perfect God and the others aren't. (Joke.) I'm not drawing parallels for the purpose of telling you the bible is as reliable as other scientific works. I'm drawing parallels to demonstrate the general idea that just as it is well with in your rights to believe and vote for something according to any school of thought, it is well within my rights to do the same. And if it is decided through a democratic process that gay marriage be illegal - as was done in NC - the constitution has in no way been violated. I hope that's a little more clear.


That argument is weak and pathetic. The same argument - "Well, it's legal!" has been used to justify Jim Crow laws, Apartheid in South Africa, Slavery in the U.S., even the god damned Holocaust (sorry for the Godwin's Law violation). Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. And stripping U.S. citizens of their right to love as they will and treating them like lepers, like second-class citizens, is anything but right.


All I'm telling you is that your claim that it's "unconstitutional" is has absolutely 0 base in fact. I'm sorry, but it's a shallow and one-sided, close-minded, obscured view of the constitution twisted and morphed to fit what you have to say simply because it's the new and "hip" line for pro-gay marriage movements. "DON'T SHOVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN MY THROAT! IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" is both a foolish and overused argument. If you want to argue the other aspect of it, like whether or not you're treating somebody as a second class citizen, fine. But don't tell me it's unconstitutional if it clearly isn't. That's just bogus.


I think you're just a slimy, base, simple, under-bridge dwelling troll.


Here's the relevant part of the fourteenth amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Do you consider marriage a privilege? Seeing as you get a different tax status when you're married, different legal rights to your s/o's estate etc etc THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT BEING GIVEN THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.



This post has been edited by VarsityBoy: May 12 2012, 05:18 PM


--------------------
Sorry for partying
QUOTE (overly_critical_man @ Aug 29 2011, 05:23 PM) *
A great injustice
Rory McIlroy is gone
Cody threads remain

"Assimilationism"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dizzyizzy
post May 12 2012, 05:29 PM
Post #232


Advanced Member
***

Group: Pink Ladies
Posts: 1,849
Joined: 1-May 09
From: Ohio
Member No.: 63



QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 12:16 PM) *
QUOTE (dizzyizzy @ May 12 2012, 11:12 AM) *
QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 11:53 AM) *
QUOTE (dizzyizzy @ May 11 2012, 11:33 PM) *
I never said you don't have the right to vote. But your right to vote doesn't supersede the rights of others to live their own goddamned lives. You are welcome to have your own personal views - But it's ridiculous to think we should entertain them in policy. Your right to vote doesn't extend to voting on other people's lifestyles. This is the fundamental point I cannot understand about the gay marriage debate - No matter how you slice it, it doesn't affect you in the slightest. To put it bluntly, your personal viewpoint doesn't matter. If you're not okay with gay marriage, don't marry a gay. There is no conceivable reason for this to even be a debate.

I honestly failed, for a minute, to come up with any response to your attempt at drawing a parallel between Keynes and Hayek and Moses that wasn't just peals of laughter. Firstly, if I was them, I would frankly be insulted. Two men who dedicated their lives to careful study of the economic system and produced real results that can be examined under critical analysis against a man who sat in a tent 4000 years ago and made up arbitrary rules under the guise of divine intervention, at best, and didn't even exist at worst... Why would you consider this a real parallel? Just the very idea at its core - Putting real, working, provable ideas up against something you "just have to believe in" - is ridiculous. I'd like to respond to what you're trying to get at with that, but I can't. I can't figure out what kind of point you're trying to make.

I have looked at the question of whether God exists and found that the more open my mind gets, the more obvious it is that he doesn't. A deity that doesn't exist has no place legislating the lives of others.


In response to this, as well as your rant about the constitution, all I can really see is that you don't understand in the slightest what I am arguing. Whether that be your closed-mind or my poor writing skills I don't know, but it's still the problem I see so I'll try and iron it out here. This isn't about me infringing unconstitutionally on the rights of others. The reason I talked about Keynes and Hayek is not to compare their works as objectively similar in reliability to the bible; obviously that argument would fall apart given a mere dirty look. What I am saying, however, is that each work represents a specific school of thought to which ANY American citizen can legally and constitutionally subscribe in their own personal beliefs. The reason this is significant is simple: You suggested it is against the Constitution to shove a religion down somebody's throat. While unconstitutional to cite the bible in a piece of legislation, it is a separate issue to cite the bible for personal beliefs and vote accordingly. I am perfectly within my constitutional rights to vote according to any school of thought I wish - even if you detest the book from which it is drawn. Furthering this, if the people were to decide - following a democratic process - that they want gay marriage illegal, the constitution has thus been followed even if each individual cites the bible as the foundation of their personal belief.

Again, I'm not asserting that Keynes's and Hayek's and Moses's works are of similar reliability. Obviously there is no comparison; the bible is the word of a perfect God and the others aren't. (Joke.) I'm not drawing parallels for the purpose of telling you the bible is as reliable as other scientific works. I'm drawing parallels to demonstrate the general idea that just as it is well with in your rights to believe and vote for something according to any school of thought, it is well within my rights to do the same. And if it is decided through a democratic process that gay marriage be illegal - as was done in NC - the constitution has in no way been violated. I hope that's a little more clear.


That argument is weak and pathetic. The same argument - "Well, it's legal!" has been used to justify Jim Crow laws, Apartheid in South Africa, Slavery in the U.S., even the god damned Holocaust (sorry for the Godwin's Law violation). Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. And stripping U.S. citizens of their right to love as they will and treating them like lepers, like second-class citizens, is anything but right.


All I'm telling you is that your claim that it's "unconstitutional" is has absolutely 0 base in fact. I'm sorry, but it's a shallow and one-sided, close-minded, obscured view of the constitution twisted and morphed to fit what you have to say simply because it's the new and "hip" line for pro-gay marriage movements. "DON'T SHOVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN MY THROAT! IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" is both a foolish and overused argument. If you want to argue the other aspect of it, like whether or not you're treating somebody as a second class citizen, fine. But don't tell me it's unconstitutional if it clearly isn't. That's just bogus.


I don't think I've said the word "unconstitutional" anywhere in there. I'm talking about rights. If the Constitution can be used to justify your abridging on other's rights, then the Constitution is fundamentally flawed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK_WDB
post May 12 2012, 07:43 PM
Post #233


Chief of the Polar Bear Army
***

Group: Nazgul
Posts: 4,002
Joined: 1-May 09
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (VarsityBoy @ May 12 2012, 09:12 AM) *
Here's the relevant part of the fourteenth amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Do you consider marriage a privilege? Seeing as you get a different tax status when you're married, different legal rights to your s/o's estate etc etc THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT BEING GIVEN THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

Right, but this is why you have to divorce (haha, no pun intended) the gay marriage debate from religion. Saying "the First Amendment says you can't force your religion down my throat; therefore, gay marriage should be legal" is not a legitimate argument, because the legality of gay marriage does not inherently have anything to do with religion, even though many people have religious reasons for supporting or opposing it. The only reason this is a constitutional issue is because marriage confers certain legal benefits.

Michelangelo, maybe I'm missing something you're saying, but it is absolutely false that "if it is decided through a democratic process that gay marriage be illegal - as was done in NC - the constitution has in no way been violated". The Constitution doesn't allow the "democratic process" to create just any law people might want. That's absurd, and would completely destroy the point of having a Constitution (or at least, a Bill of Rights) in the first place.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VarsityBoy
post May 12 2012, 09:13 PM
Post #234


Captain of DUST
***

Group: Blue Man Group
Posts: 1,340
Joined: 1-May 09
From: Tucson, Arizona and Granville, Ohio
Member No.: 32



QUOTE (AK_WDB @ May 12 2012, 08:43 PM) *
QUOTE (VarsityBoy @ May 12 2012, 09:12 AM) *
Here's the relevant part of the fourteenth amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Do you consider marriage a privilege? Seeing as you get a different tax status when you're married, different legal rights to your s/o's estate etc etc THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT BEING GIVEN THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

Right, but this is why you have to divorce (haha, no pun intended) the gay marriage debate from religion. Saying "the First Amendment says you can't force your religion down my throat; therefore, gay marriage should be legal" is not a legitimate argument, because the legality of gay marriage does not inherently have anything to do with religion, even though many people have religious reasons for supporting or opposing it. The only reason this is a constitutional issue is because marriage confers certain legal benefits.

Michelangelo, maybe I'm missing something you're saying, but it is absolutely false that "if it is decided through a democratic process that gay marriage be illegal - as was done in NC - the constitution has in no way been violated". The Constitution doesn't allow the "democratic process" to create just any law people might want. That's absurd, and would completely destroy the point of having a Constitution (or at least, a Bill of Rights) in the first place.

THIS A THOUSAND TIMES THIS


--------------------
Sorry for partying
QUOTE (overly_critical_man @ Aug 29 2011, 05:23 PM) *
A great injustice
Rory McIlroy is gone
Cody threads remain

"Assimilationism"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Widget!
post May 12 2012, 09:51 PM
Post #235


Worst Influence
***

Group: Blue Man Group
Posts: 3,267
Joined: 2-May 09
From: Tempe, AZ
Member No.: 105



Waitwaitwait.

Revelation is what concerns you really? The inevitable (arguing from the bible here) second coming is what worries you now?

So, when I outline to you why S&G couldn't happen again, suddenly now your real concern "given the timeline we're looking at," is the second coming? But you stand by your original point of your concern for yourself as to what may happen during the second coming in which you will presumably be raptured?

No. No, and smurf you, kid. At this point, you're just doing theological acrobatics to drum up some reason why it's okay for you to abbreviate the rights of gay people so that you don't have to face the consequences. Just like any other ethical issue where it would be too hard for you to admit you're wrong, you opt for the easy, "well it's my religion," instead of adjusting to the way the world is.

Also, I don't care what the Book of Mormon says. I really just don't. But perhaps you could take this opportunity to present some reason why I should.

This post has been edited by Widget!: May 12 2012, 11:40 PM


--------------------
QUOTE (overly_critical_man @ Sep 19 2011, 11:04 AM) *
QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Sep 19 2011, 08:59 AM) *
Also, why are there serious posts in here when we could be talking about ass and bacon?


I often lie awake in bed at night, wondering this to myself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VarsityBoy
post May 12 2012, 11:00 PM
Post #236


Captain of DUST
***

Group: Blue Man Group
Posts: 1,340
Joined: 1-May 09
From: Tucson, Arizona and Granville, Ohio
Member No.: 32



QUOTE (Widget! @ May 12 2012, 09:51 PM) *
Also, I don't care what the Book of Mormon says. I really just don't. But perhaps you could take this opportunity to present some reason why I should.

also this


--------------------
Sorry for partying
QUOTE (overly_critical_man @ Aug 29 2011, 05:23 PM) *
A great injustice
Rory McIlroy is gone
Cody threads remain

"Assimilationism"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Research Monkey
post May 13 2012, 12:04 AM
Post #237


touha po ztracené
***

Group: Coach Class
Posts: 6,940
Joined: 2-May 09
From: The Dirty T
Member No.: 94



QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 08:53 AM) *
Again, I'm not asserting that Keynes's and Hayek's and Moses's works are of similar reliability. Obviously there is no comparison; the bible is the word of a perfect God and the others aren't. (Joke.) I'm not drawing parallels for the purpose of telling you the bible is as reliable as other scientific works. I'm drawing parallels to demonstrate the general idea that just as it is well with in your rights to believe and vote for something according to any school of thought, it is well within my rights to do the same. And if it is decided through a democratic process that gay marriage be illegal - as was done in NC - the constitution has in no way been violated. I hope that's a little more clear.


Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, or anything else. No mainstream religion believes that he did.

Keynes and Hayek are not thought of as scripture in the economic community. Any liberal who swears by The General Theory knows nothing of economics, and any conservative who swears by The Road to Serfdom has either never read the book cover to cover or is not a conservative at all. If you swear by one of those, you're an idiot. You are largely Constitutionally protected if you choose to be an idiot. But for the sake of humanity, we're prefer that people not be idiots.

The technical term for what's important here is called falsifiability. Willingness to be wrong for the sake of learning. Economists, physicists, biologists, chemists, psychologists, sociologists all conduct their work under this principle, and prudent legal scholars, activists, and politicians do the same. Clergy do not.

QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 08:53 AM) *
We can argue forever about just what the idea of grace entails in terms of salvation, but for fear of derailment, I'll try and keep my response here somewhat concise. I can point to other verses from the Book of Mormon that quite explicitly state that the people who hold this nation (as in America) must either serve God or be wiped out. Also, I can just as easily tell you that the social unrest or war will be the result of God's wrath, but I'm not sure that'll get us anywhere either.

Regardless, whether S&G could happen again according to the repealing of Levitican law does not matter because the time frame we are looking at is the second coming of Christ. The punishment would ensue at that point, and that will come when the world has become too wicked. So I stand by what I said: although I'll grant you the point that S&G was the result of some justice necessitated by a now outdated Levitican law, the punishment we can expect is the result of the second coming of Christ, which is consistent with NT teachings.


I won't enter a discussion of unfounded speculation under the assumptions of Biblical inerrancy. We agree that within assumptions of the Bible being the factual word of God, your arguments are one possible position.

QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 08:53 AM) *
You're right with your first statement. My purpose is not to convince you that the Bible is true, though; my purpose is to show that it is not ignorance to follow a chain of deduction from that premise to a conclusion.


No, but it's ignorant to blindly and unflinchingly accept the fundamental premise without considering its possibility for error. Why should I assume the Bible instead of the Upanishads? Or the Quran and Hadith? Why do we need to assume ANY fundamental principle that cannot be deduced from empirical observation? What makes you assume the Bible and the Book of Mormon over any other of the thousands of possible creeds? Why do you assume a creed? Because you were born and raised to assume that creed! The need to make fundamental assumptions about the origin of humanity is unnecessary. I can construct a gloriously beautiful proof based on the assumption that a square has five sides...but what does that matter? I'm not so arrogant as to say that the Bible is necessarily false, merely that I have no compelling evidence to adopt the assumption, and the relative probability of its truth given the vast number of alternatives seems minuscule.

QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 08:53 AM) *
We could argue forever about the validity of the bible - and I've never been shown a piece of evidence that would destroy the rational and logical belief in Christ which I hold - but it would be a somewhat redundant argument.


I think you need to read more Christian theology/philosophy. Kierkegaard would be an excellent choice. Philosophical Fragments would be good, but even better would be Fear and Trembling. It's a bit of a slog, but it's not too long. The point of reading this is that faith is not a rational or logical belief, by definition. That's not to disparage it, but if you don't understand the distinction, you don't understand faith, and Kierkegaard would say if you don't understand faith, you don't have faith.


--------------------
“The attempt to develop a sense of humor and to see things in a humorous light is some kind of a trick learned while mastering the art of living.” --Viktor E. Frankl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crow
post May 13 2012, 12:05 AM
Post #238


Gadfly
***

Group: Orange Crushers
Posts: 915
Joined: 1-May 09
Member No.: 11



Pause.

Thanks for the link, blondie.

Continue.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dizzyizzy
post May 13 2012, 12:09 AM
Post #239


Advanced Member
***

Group: Pink Ladies
Posts: 1,849
Joined: 1-May 09
From: Ohio
Member No.: 63



QUOTE (Widget! @ May 12 2012, 05:51 PM) *
Also, I don't care what the Book of Mormon says. I really just don't. But perhaps you could take this opportunity to present some reason why I should.


You're not open-minded enough, I'll bet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Research Monkey
post May 13 2012, 12:20 AM
Post #240


touha po ztracené
***

Group: Coach Class
Posts: 6,940
Joined: 2-May 09
From: The Dirty T
Member No.: 94



QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 08:53 AM) *
My problem with your second statement is that you seem to imply that America would never reach that point. From a religious perspective, though, the general trend for seemingly any society is for morality to continually deteriorate until the society is wiped out. Citing the Book of Mormon, I can point to nation after nation which were wiped out because of their iniquities, re-established by a forgiving God, and wiped out again later on. That Abraham could not find 10 righteous men in the cities is demonstration that things in S&G were pretty damned bad. But since the puritanical days, hasn't sexual morality deteriorated pretty far on the whole anyway? Excuse me for beginning a slippery slope to a slippery slope argument, but I hope you see my point. Just because we aren't that bad yet doesn't mean we won't be in the future.

In response to the third, maybe you're right. Maybe the story of S&G was a metaphor - but for what? Does the idea of it being a metaphor really change the lesson we ought to learn? Probably not.


The point is that if you are pious and righteous, you have nothing to fear. So be pious end righteous. He's not literally going to destroy your nation if a certain magic number righteousness quota isn't met, but he might kill/damn you if you're immoral. I'll take that risk, I guess.

Much more importantly, the founding principles of the United States of America are based in a deep-seeded fear of a tyranny of the majority, and the ability of democracy to deprive certain groups of their rights. Certainly, as a Mormon, you should be familiar with why this is a reasonable suspicion of democracy. If, then, you believe that legislation should be able to enforce morality, then please establish your own nation with your own rules.

QUOTE (michelangelo @ May 12 2012, 09:16 AM) *
All I'm telling you is that your claim that it's "unconstitutional" is has absolutely 0 base in fact. I'm sorry, but it's a shallow and one-sided, close-minded, obscured view of the constitution twisted and morphed to fit what you have to say simply because it's the new and "hip" line for pro-gay marriage movements. "DON'T SHOVE YOUR RELIGION DOWN MY THROAT! IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" is both a foolish and overused argument. If you want to argue the other aspect of it, like whether or not you're treating somebody as a second class citizen, fine. But don't tell me it's unconstitutional if it clearly isn't. That's just bogus.


Are you familiar with the 1996 case Romer v. Evans? In it, it was clearly identified that homosexuals were unfairly targeted by an amendment to the Colorado Constitution, and the amendments were subsequently struck down. While a standard of review was not explicitly stated, the wording of the opinion made it clear that such an amendment would actually not pass the rational basis test (the lowest standard of review with respect to issues like equal protection issues). It's quite likely that a ban on gay marriage could trigger intermediate (as has been found by federal courts recently) or possibly strict scrutiny, reflecting the nature of homosexuals as a suspect class. If those standards of review are utilized, it's highly unlikely that any court would find the exclusion of a group of individuals from consenting to enter a contract would be found to be an important government interest that would justify said exclusion.

It's highly likely that such a ban will be found unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with being hip, though I totally wish society thought I was hip for be interested in Constitutional law.


--------------------
“The attempt to develop a sense of humor and to see things in a humorous light is some kind of a trick learned while mastering the art of living.” --Viktor E. Frankl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  « < 10 11 12 13 14 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th July 2014 - 11:02 PM