Federal Marriage Amendment

[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 04 2004,5:07)]but society as a whole is allowed to dictate what is best for the continuance of that society.

Marriage as the basic building book of the nuclear family is the ideal, and as such that is why it should be protected.

Gay unions by their very nature, deny the main reasoning for the protections afforded for marriage (i.e. Children).  The fact that gays choose to be in a sexual relationship against nature (since sex is, by design, for reproduction, and homosexual relationships cannot reproduce).

you claim it is not the definition that is important, but rather the thought, but I have to say that it is the definition that is important.  Marriage is, by definition the union of a man and a woman.  It cannot be anything else, without drastically altering what marriage is.


To destroy an institution that has lasted thousands of years, because we don't feel like keeping the traditional and normal definition with have deep, profound and lasting effects, more than likely for the negative.

To top it off, it is the government endorsing a religion.  For since my religion  says that homosexuality is wrong, forcing me to accept it, forcing my children to be taught that it is right in schools, is denying me my right to freedom of religion.
Click to expand...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]but society as a whole is allowed to dictate what is best for the continuance of that society.
Click to expand...

In the same way that society outlawed black/white marriages 200 or so years ago? Historically, what the majority of society often is not the most moral course. Our country is set up so that the minority groups can get a say on things too, hence, the marriage amendment being rejected for the second time in both houses.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Gay unions by their very nature, deny the main reasoning for the protections afforded for marriage (i.e. Children). The fact that gays choose to be in a sexual relationship against nature (since sex is, by design, for reproduction, and homosexual relationships cannot reproduce).
Click to expand...

They cannot reproduce, and yet throughout all of recorded history there have been homosexuals present, regardless of whether their respective society's scorned the act of same sex intercourse or not. Clearly, this is not against nature.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]you claim it is not the definition that is important, but rather the thought, but I have to say that it is the definition that is important. Marriage is, by definition the union of a man and a woman. It cannot be anything else, without drastically altering what marriage is.
Click to expand...

Would you please give me specific reasons why letting homosexuals marry would cause the ruination marriage? Thanks.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]you claim it is not the definition that is important, but rather the thought, but I have to say that it is the definition that is important. Marriage is, by definition the union of a man and a woman. It cannot be anything else, without drastically altering what marriage is.
Click to expand...

The main thing that is negative here is refusing to allow homosexuals to join in something very emotional significant and symbolic for arbitrary reasons. It is not fair.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]To top it off, it is the government endorsing a religion. For since my religion says that homosexuality is wrong, forcing me to accept it, forcing my children to be taught that it is right in schools, is denying me my right to freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

I think there is a much larger infringement of freedom on the part of the homosexuals applying for marriage here, Kidan. Yes, you should accept and tolerate homosexuals, but the government would not be 'forcing' you to do this.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Bowser @ Oct. 04 2004,8:35)]Homo-sexuals just need to get over themselves, completely.

And no, I don't believe everyone should be treated equally.  Everyone should be respectable and accountable, but not treated as equals.
Click to expand...
Could you be a bit more specific on why homosexuals need to 'completely get over themselves'?
 

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]What?
Click to expand...

Bleh.  That should have read:  If you admit that you believe people should be treated unequally, don't complain when you are treated UNequally.  That would make you a hypocrite.

To put it simply, you stated that people should not be treated equally.  So what happens when you find yourself on the short end of the stick?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]We, all of us, set the standard.  If we are responsible then we will take care of matters when they need to be dealt with.  No, it's not a great solution, but I believe that for the state in which we are in it is the best one.
Click to expand...

WHAT?  How are ALL OF US supposed to set the standard if you don't believe we are all equal?
 
I think I may have misinterpreted my beliefs earlier and I'd like to clarify my statement.  A few posts ago I said:

And no, I don't believe everyone should be treated equally.  Everyone should be respectable and accountable, but not treated as equals.

I think in all honesty I do believe that everyone should be judged equally, but I think too many people feel that "treating others equally" means too often over-looking or otherwise condoning bad behaviour.  This is a lazy, selfish, and irresponsible way of going about life, in my humble opinion.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]To put it simply, you stated that people should not be treated equally. So what happens when you find yourself on the short end of the stick?
Click to expand...

I've been on the short end of the stick before
wink.gif
, and I simply continue on with my life and what I'm doing. I might find it upsetting, but I largely ignore it and let it pass.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Bowser @ Oct. 04 2004,9:32)]I think in all honesty I do believe that everyone should be judged equally, but I think too many people feel that "treating others equally" means too often over-looking or otherwise condoning bad behaviour.  This is a lazy, selfish, and irresponsible way of going about life, in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't see how one equates to the other. Treating others equally doesn't have anything to do with condoning bad behavior. If one's behavior goes against the societal norms then there are inevitably repercussions.
 
sorry but i am in a blah mood

most of those posts here are loaded with a bunch of post modern thinking and crap.

Hey lets all be post modern there is no truth, my truth is mine and yours is yours, it doesnt matter so why are we debating, sit down shut up and get overyourselves. dont like my thinking then just imagine i am not here cuz this world is just an illusion
 
This is one of my biggest issues. I like to think that it's more than just 'modern thinking crap,' I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Oct. 04 2004,9:42)]I don't see how one equates to the other.  Treating others equally doesn't have anything to do with condoning bad behavior.  If one's behavior goes against the societal norms then there are inevitably repercussions.
Click to expand...
Well yes, that was my point. I was saying that many people think there shouldn't be any discipline when there needs to be.
 
Dsiciplin.... if you break a law you should get punished.... but in reality you are let off for 90% of everything. man if I was in charge no one would break any laws because the punishment would just be not worth it.
 
Bill why does it matter if this issue is important or not. what is your standard of truth? what is the standard? is there a standard for you? who sets it? you do ? i do? an unknown deity? Post modern thinking is so flawed that it makes no logical sense. nothing is true with them. absolutely nothing it doesnt matter, because it is all about ME. what I WANT, WHAT IS MY TRUTH. so what matters to you doesnt matter at all because we are all just imagined and no matter what in the end it wont matter.

Yeah. GO postmodern.
 
What is with this postmodern crap?

I think you're problem with "postmodern" thinking is that you don't know anything about it.

So why don't you tell us what you think postmodern thinking is? What problems do you have with it?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Post modern thinking is so flawed that it makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...

This is laughable. Most nontheistic philosophy is based on LOGIC. It is theism that makes no logical sense, remember that little thing called Faith?

The only philosophy that asserts it's all about ME is anarchy and I don't remember seeing any anarchists around here.

If you're going to continue this argument, I suggest you step up to the plate and spell out your grievances.
 
First comes God's Wisdom then comes human Logic. OUr logic and reasoning is inferior to God's. So If says yeah the sky is ocncrete we must say OK. He knows all, at all times. What he says doesnt have to be proven...
 
So when is logic going to kick in?

You seem to have thrown logic by the wayside and chosen instead to accept another man's interpretation of God's word. When are you going to start exploring for yourself?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Oct. 05 2004,8:08)]Bill why does it matter if this issue is important or not. what is your standard of truth? what is the standard? is there a standard for you? who sets it? you do ? i do? an unknown deity? Post modern thinking is so flawed that it makes no logical sense. nothing is true with them. absolutely nothing it doesnt matter, because it is all about ME. what I WANT, WHAT IS MY TRUTH. so what matters to you doesnt matter at all because we are all just imagined and no matter what in the end it wont matter.

Yeah. GO postmodern.
Click to expand...
Umm. I am not sure what you mean by 'postmodern thinking,' so before I say anything else how bout you elaborate a tad...
 
I dont go by another mans interpretation.... I go by My Spirit's interpretation.... he just adds his experinces and thoughts into it.

I am still choosing to belive and disbelive whatever.
 
Your criteria for questioning is suspect at best.

When I ask you questions the first thing you do is head to Joe's website to listen to his audio commentary.

How is that thinking for yourself? How are you interpreting for yourself?
 
Having someone elses input means I am not thinking for myself?

He is much olden then I and knows much more. So I see what he thinks. I dont think what He thinks, I hear him and make my conclusion.
 
7 traits of post modern thinking from a state university philosphy course

1: Relativism- everything is ok, what works for me is truth, what works for you is truth, everything is based on context and there is no absolutes.

2: Experientalism- no absolute authority "self" is the common modifer. self image, actualization, concept. self truth.

3: Pluralism- all viewpoints have equal validity and truth to them

4:Deconstructionism- reality is only that which we create in our minds through language.

5: Nihilistic-fatalism- everything is meaning less the future is set and nothing we can do to cahnge it. pessemistic future outlook.

6: Fraternalism- search for a community where the individual can find identity and significance.

maybe the reason why some of you stick around is that this is where you feel that significance, because you are outside the "norm" here.

7: Spirituallity- most spiritual times is now, everyone is spiritual in one way or another, whether its eastern mystisism or a religion.



this came from a liberal teacher at a college philosphy course that i have been taking i wont name the college, but it is in Missouri. that is what the standard defination of a "post-modern" thinking is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top