Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 9, 2025, 6:31 am
| Poll: Gay Marriage - are you for or against it and why? This poll is closed. |
|||
| I support it | 77 | 89.53% | |
| I oppose it | 9 | 10.47% | |
| Total | 86 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
Thread Rating:
|
Gay Marriage - are you for or against it and why?
|
 (March 9, 2011 at 6:44 pm)corndog36 Wrote:(March 9, 2011 at 6:27 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: As it happens, morality is subjective, and therefore cannot be flawed by being subjective. That slavery is fine? That is actually funny: i arrive at a different conclusion, and therefore am wrong? 
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
I have to ask:
Why isnt that poll 100% for gay marriage? RE: Gay Marriage - are you for or against it and why?
March 10, 2011 at 12:15 am
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2011 at 12:17 am by Violet.)
(March 9, 2011 at 9:26 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: I have to ask: I voted against it because I am against marriage, whether it be 'gay' or 'straight'. I was also being slightly facetious in doing so  Edit: Adrian probably did it as a joke. I do not know ib.me.ub's position. Rayaan is muslim, and it might have something to do with his religious beliefs (or he could just have been being silly, i don't now him that well). Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
I support it because it's wrong to not allow two happy male/female couples to get married... and it's costy and time consuming for one of them to get a sex change, just for the sake of a "normal marraige."
 (March 9, 2011 at 9:26 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: I have to ask: Is that a trick question? Because some people voted against it.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you 
(March 10, 2011 at 6:59 am)Jax Wrote: I support it because it's wrong to not allow two happy male/female couples to get married... and it's costy and time consuming for one of them to get a sex change, just for the sake of a "normal marraige." I do not believe all states recognize 'sex change'. I'll have to re-learn my data on this again, but I certainly remember there at least being some particularly abrasive states towards 'sex change'. See what happens when nobody is a moron about this? I forget stuff! Shame on you all Leo Wrote:Is that a trick question? Thank you for that burst of literality ^_^ Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
 RE: Gay Marriage - are you for or against it and why?
March 10, 2011 at 5:02 pm
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2011 at 5:05 pm by lilphil1989.)
(March 9, 2011 at 5:54 pm)corndog36 Wrote: I would have to say that a flawless concept of morality would be based on fundamental principles of right and wrong. Does such a thing as a set of internally consistent fundamental principles of morality exist? Morality is a side-effect of the fact that those of our ancestors that were better at working in groups were more likely to survive and reproduce. With that in mind, it seems to me like it would be silly to suggest any such "fundamental" principles. Imagine a species on another planet evolves a morality with different rules. How could you judge which, if either, of the two systems is fundamental? corndog36 Wrote:Your concept of morality is flawed because you applied it to the question of slavery and arrived at the wrong conclusion. I think you're missing the point, which is that you have no objective way of deciding that the conclusion is wrong.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
 (March 10, 2011 at 5:02 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote:(March 9, 2011 at 5:54 pm)corndog36 Wrote: I would have to say that a flawless concept of morality would be based on fundamental principles of right and wrong. I think so. This thread might be a better place to discuss this further; Evolution of morality. Quote:Morality is a side-effect of the fact that those of our ancestors that were better at working in groups were more likely to survive and reproduce.I think it is a side-effect of sentience. We make moral judgments about animals and aliens. (In your hypothetical example.) Quote:I think you're missing the point, which is that you have no objective way of deciding that the conclusion is wrong.This is where we are at in the other thread. I think it is possible to arrive at objective moral conclusions, if your moral model is sound.
You're right, this is quite off-topic! See you in the linked thread.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 15 Guest(s)
