|
Same sex marriage
|
I think Mehmet hit the nail on the head. Let's get marriage away from the church. Much like with medicine, the church is dangerous with its practice. If the wackos want to have their ceremonies in their cathedrals or carpeted cross-boxes, let them, but let's get the institution divested of the sack-cloth which has made a mess of it.
Trying to update my sig ...
Our notions of marriage began in government, and they should mosey on back to their roots (where they actually made sense to begin with).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
 (May 13, 2012 at 4:51 am)StatCrux Wrote: Today the UK government has backed down on the gay marriage agenda, a triumph of reason and understanding of the moral majority! We should not be dictated to by minority groups! The first intelligent thing this government has done! I'm pretty sure that they are still trying to go ahead with same-sex marriage here in Scotland. All the gays could come up here to get married. They might teach us a thing or two about style. 
Cunt
Same here in Australia frankiej
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
 (May 13, 2012 at 7:06 am)StatCrux Wrote: No I don't think that majority opinion should be used to define what is right, but without reference to a transcendent truth what else can you use, that is what I am asking. Reason you say? Two men can apply reason and come to polar opposite views, reason depends upon the basic premises of truth being agreed upon, so where do you find these basic premises? How about finding those premises in objectively observed, natural facts rather than the imaginary "transcendent truth". You base your reason on factual premises and your morals would be objective.  (May 13, 2012 at 11:13 am)genkaus Wrote:(May 13, 2012 at 7:06 am)StatCrux Wrote: No I don't think that majority opinion should be used to define what is right, but without reference to a transcendent truth what else can you use, that is what I am asking. Reason you say? Two men can apply reason and come to polar opposite views, reason depends upon the basic premises of truth being agreed upon, so where do you find these basic premises? you have already made a disagreeable premise by saying you only want to take natural facts into consideration, that's materialism, your dictating your reality as the basis of the premises before we even start, I don't accept your definition, see the problem? (May 13, 2012 at 11:21 am)StatCrux Wrote: you have already made a disagreeable premise by saying you only want to take natural facts into consideration, that's materialism, your dictating your reality as the basis of the premises before we even start, I don't accept your definition, see the problem? Once you can prove your so called "transcendent" facts, they'd be taken into consideration as well and incorporated into the objective morality. Until then, they stay in the garbage where they belong. (May 13, 2012 at 11:24 am)genkaus Wrote:(May 13, 2012 at 11:21 am)StatCrux Wrote: you have already made a disagreeable premise by saying you only want to take natural facts into consideration, that's materialism, your dictating your reality as the basis of the premises before we even start, I don't accept your definition, see the problem? How is your form of morality objective? I don't think you're getting this? Your criteria for "facts" is in itself just a set of beliefs about "facts" how do you know your criteria is correct for determining "facts" without reference to some other accepted truths/beliefs about reality you can't. You can't prove logic with logic, its just accepted, the same is true of God, a self evident first principle. 
Well how do you know anything about your 'non-materialist' things if they can't be established? More importantly, why should anyone else believe they exist?
 RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 11:55 am
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2012 at 12:07 pm by Violet.)
(March 23, 2012 at 11:41 am)Ben Davis Wrote: 2. This person falls in love with someone of the opposite sex, gets married, has children but decides to have a sex change http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSy-ORKjfYg ![[Image: Are-You-Crazy-Enough.jpeg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.buzzlol.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FAre-You-Crazy-Enough.jpeg) And they do so under terrible definitions that they didn't think through or took for granted to be true... TT__TT 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
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
