User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 116

  1. #61
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    What are the consequences of two consenting adults getting married?

    I would imagine that this would carry a number of benefits for the betrothed, depending upon the privileges marriage grants, which vary from culture to culture
    Considering that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman and this is not what you're talking about I wouldnt begin the discussion from here.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont care about your stance on young earth creationists, I dont know why you mention it, although I'm totally fine with dismissing anyone who opens a discussion by describing me as an idiot.
    You're using the same strategy to protect your beliefs. You don't want them questioned.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #63
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Ah yes, the natural, inalienable rights

    Let us examine them

    "Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

    As to liberty, the heroes who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

    The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."
    Yeah. There's no common ground here.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You're using the same strategy to protect your beliefs. You don't want them questioned.
    So you say. Its not the first time you've been wrong. Its not even the first time in this thread.

  5. #65
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Considering that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman and this is not what you're talking about I wouldnt begin the discussion from here.
    Let's not fall into this semantic trap.

    Let's call a union between a man and a woman "marriage" and a union between two people of the same sex a "sfjkaksdjh". Now reread his argument with "sfjkaksdjh" replacing marriage every time he's referring to two people of the same sex.

  6. #66
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I don't get how my foundation isn't firm...

    Let's say rights don't exist (which I'm gonna translate into: rights aren't inherent). Then what are people talking about when they say "rights"? They're talking about being protected by the government in their pursuit of _______. So the question of which rights should or should not exist is the same as "which pursuits should the government protect?" The government, ideally, will want to maximize the happiness of its citizens, so it should protect pursuits accordingly. This gets us to my question for people that are against gay rights -- how does NOT giving gay couples the same protection as straight couples maximize the happiness of citizens?

    You made it clear you disagree with some part of my reasoning in the last paragraph -- I would like to know what it is. If you don't want to have this discussion, I don't get why you've made the posts you have so far.
    You claim that rights can only exist within subjective frameworks. Not only does this goes against every position ever given on rights, it goes against the very concept itself. A right is something that exists irregardless of what the government saids, and this is because this right is in accordance with an ojective moral truth. If it all was subjective, it wouldn't mean anything. You have your concept of justice, I have mine, and basically the government can just in effect do whatever it wants and use whatever argument it wants to justify such.

    Martin Luther King Jr. for one would strongly oppose this notion, as he noted in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":
    "One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

    Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong."
    So once again, if you're trying to argue for civil rights on the grounds that you have presented - you're going to run into some significant problems, and not just in terms of logical coherence. Maybe you need to rethink your basic presumptions or simply ditch the whole civil rights concept altogether and use another one.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Considering that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman and this is not what you're talking about I wouldnt begin the discussion from here.
    Why is marriage only possible between a man and a woman?

    The state of New Hampshire (along with many other states and nations) does not make such a distinction

    Why do you believe that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman?

    What evidence do you cite to support this belief?

  8. #68
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    You claim that rights can only exist within subjective frameworks. Not only does this goes against every position ever given on rights, it goes against the very concept itself. A right is something that exists irregardless of what the government saids, and this is because this right is in accordance with an ojective moral truth. If it all was subjective, it wouldn't mean anything. You have your concept of justice, I have mine, and basically the government can just in effect do whatever it wants and use whatever argument it wants to justify such.

    Martin Luther King Jr. for one would strongly oppose this notion, as he noted in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":


    So once again, if you're trying to argue for civil rights on the grounds that you have presented - you're going to run into some significant problems, and not just in terms of logical coherence. Maybe you need to rethink your basic presumptions or simply ditch the whole civil rights concept altogether and use another one.
    An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
    Gay marriage: just or unjust?

    I have always considered marriage to be uplifting (although I have never been married), so I would determine it to be a just and valid right

  9. #69
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    You claim that rights can only exist within subjective frameworks. Not only does this goes against every position ever given on rights, it goes against the very concept itself. A right is something that exists irregardless of what the government saids, and this is because this right is in accordance with an ojective moral truth. If it all was subjective, it wouldn't mean anything. You have your concept of justice, I have mine, and basically the government can just in effect do whatever it wants and use whatever argument it wants to justify such.

    Martin Luther King Jr. for one would strongly oppose this notion, as he noted in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":


    So once again, if you're trying to argue for civil rights on the grounds that you have presented - you're going to run into some significant problems, and not just in terms of logical coherence. Maybe you need to rethink your basic presumptions or simply ditch the whole civil rights concept altogether and use another one.
    So you believe the Chinese, North Koreans, and Iranians have the same rights as Americans?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #70
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Why is marriage only possible between a man and a woman?
    I'm just going to fucking despair at this point.

    Also fuck New Hampshire. I'm glad you mentioned this. I'm NEVER fucking going there.

Similar Threads

  1. Mitt Romney
    By wistfulwillow in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 01-04-2014, 01:34 AM
  2. Twenty-Two Days and Counting: Mitt Romney's Media Blackout
    By WALMART in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 10:28 AM
  3. Mitt Romney: Warlord
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 07:41 PM
  4. Paul Ryan to be Mitt Romney's Running Mate
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 134
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 02:17 AM
  5. Romney and Obama Agree: Power is Good
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-17-2012, 09:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO